Guantanamo camp, and the so-called "secret prisons"

What is "Guantanamo Bay detention camp"?! A place to hold in people suspected to be "terrorists"?! But how is that so, when the definition of "terrorism" is not agreed upon by all the world's countries. Who gets to decide who's a terrorist?! What's the "point" of this camp?! Can it be related in any form to "secret prisons" and all the theories about those? (Btw: Do "secret prisons" exist?! )

I'm not sure if this is an appropiate way to start a thread. I apologize if it isn't, but I hope you get where I'm going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

What is "Guantanamo Bay detention camp"?! A place to hold in people suspected to be "terrorists"?! But how is that so, when the definition of "terrorism" is not agreed upon by all the world's countries. Who gets to decide who's a terrorist?! What's the "point" of this camp?! Can it be related in any form to "secret prisons" and all the theories about those? (Btw: Do "secret prisons" exist?! )

I'm not sure if this is an appropiate way to start a thread. I apologize if it isn't, but I hope you get where I'm going.

---

No, it's not the way to start but I know where you're going. Look at your post with a critical eye instead of an emotional heart. It would also help to do some reading on the subject.

Since when do captive soldiers have to go to trial for the decisions of their leaders? This is a war. They are captives.

Guantanamo is legit. What's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

captive soldiers

---

But they are not considered to be capitve soldiers by their captors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

But they are not considered to be capitve soldiers by their captors.

---

Most are not - they are they are "non-state actor enemy combatants"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Guantanamo is legit. What's the problem?

---

If the situation is as cut-and-dried as you make it sound, why does everyone, including the POTUS, want to close it? Why has it been a non-stop public relations disaster? Why does every tin-pot dictator make reference to it to justify the outrage of the week? If it's just "legit," what's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If the situation is as cut-and-dried as you make it sound, why does everyone, including the POTUS, want to close it?

---

Hello, McFly! :smash:

Quote:

---

Why has it been a non-stop public relations disaster?

---

It's rather easy, the stronger one makes the rules. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

What is "Guantanamo Bay detention camp"?! A place to hold in people suspected to be "terrorists"?! But how is that so, when the definition of "terrorism" is not agreed upon by all the world's countries. Who gets to decide who's a terrorist?! What's the "point" of this camp?! Can it be related in any form to "secret prisons" and all the theories about those? (Btw: Do "secret prisons" exist?! )

I'm not sure if this is an appropiate way to start a thread. I apologize if it isn't, but I hope you get where I'm going.

---

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is the tip of the iceberg of illegal, anti-democratic camps for detaining people without any trial whatsoever with torturing them and keeping them in cells smaller than what you're allowed to have dogs in in most countries.

It holds people who haven't received trial, who don't receive any time limit for their stay there, and don't receive any information for what crime they have been put there.

Secret prisons have been uncovered all over Europe, most of them in East Europe. The Abu ghraib prison in Iraq, previously used by torture by orders from Saddam Hussein, was another secret prison until discovered. In this prison, the American troops tortured many innocent Iraqi civilians without any conclusive proof of guilt of any crime at all. Some of these prisoners died as a result of the torture. The torture, which has also been seen at Guantanamo, included stressing a dog to attack the prisoners while they were naked, and biting them all over the body, with the genitals possibly targeted by the dogs in some cases. It also included fake drowning and other forms of fake execution. Some were also beaten heavily, unclear if with heavy objects involved in the beating.

Some have been released from Guantanmo after around 5 years of detention, after it was found beyond all reasonable doubt that they were innocent. They received no compensation whatsoever for having 5 years of their lives stolen.

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fb...92844_3013.jpg
"Honor bound to defend freedom"... yeah right - and "arbeit macht frei"
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...tmachtfrei.jpg

If you're an American, and have any desire at all to be able to be proud of your nation: go sign a namelist against the Guantanamo camp NOW!

Also, alot of the flack aimed at it is that alot of the prisoners are just kept there because the CIA/US government doesn't want to be embarassed due to their pathetic lack of any evidence.

During trials, the defendents and their lawyers can't look at the evidence, refute any charges, or basically do anything that might actually affect the trial. Alot of the evidence ends up being hearsay, or very vague too.

There was one story I remember of this Geman man being held there. His lawyer managed to appeal to US courts to look at the evidence. He was held apparently because he had a friend in Germany who was a suicide bomber and blew himself up.

Within something like 48 hours, the lawyer had German officials attest that there is no such connection and this supposed "dead" terrorist friend called and made sure everyone knew that he did not kill himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is the tip of the iceberg of illegal, anti-democratic camps for detaining people without any trial whatsoever with torturing them and keeping them in cells smaller than what you're allowed to have dogs in in most countries.

---

detention camps usually aren't democratic... :idea2:

Quote:

---

The Abu ghraib prison in Iraq, previously used by torture by orders from Saddam Hussein, was another secret prison until discovered.

---

Abu Ghraib was a lot of things, but it wasn't a secret prison.

Quote:

---

Some have been released from Guantanmo after around 5 years of detention, after it was found beyond all reasonable doubt that they were innocent. They received no compensation whatsoever for having 5 years of their lives stolen.

---

Some were also released because they were no longer believed to be a threat. Some of those were also later recaptured or killed in combat against coalition forces.

I'm not particularly interested in again wading into the "right" or "wrong" argument, but I wanted to inject some facts into the growing hysteria in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Hello, McFly! :smash:

---

:laugh4:
I was thinking the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If the situation is as cut-and-dried as you make it sound, why does everyone, including the POTUS, want to close it? Why has it been a non-stop public relations disaster? Why does every tin-pot dictator make reference to it to justify the outrage of the week? If it's just "legit," what's the problem?

---

For the same reason a five minute talk with the average voter is the best argument against democracy.

CR

CR, doesn't Winston Churchill deserve credit when quoted?

Winston Churchill was an upper class fascist joke, he deserves no credit.

Secret prisons - of course thye must exist. How do you think we can fight with terrorists when they can do more than we. Imagine that terrorist is being catched and imprisoned into this secret prison. This great warrior of Allah after 2 hours of investigation suddenly realise that he is not so tough anymore. He is telling what he wanted destroy and who is his boss.

For pure practical goals I can see their uses. Shame that it means the US has to give up the moral high ground to have them, a position I think is somewhat more helpful in the long run than any number of illegal prison camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Secret prisons - of course thye must exist. How do you think we can fight with terrorists when they can do more than we. Imagine that terrorist is being catched and imprisoned into this secret prison. This great warrior of Allah after 2 hours of investigation suddenly realise that he is not so tough anymore. He is telling what he wanted destroy and who is his boss.

---

Exactly, he wanted to die for his cause but then he decides after two hours to throw his cause away and become a traitor to his god because mommy doesn't know where he is. :idea2:
That's why they have caught Osama bin Laden already, because all those terrorists they caught were blabbering like little children after two hours of torture, especially those who aren't really terrorists and don't know a thing. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

This great warrior of Allah after 2 hours of investigation suddenly realise that he is not so tough anymore. He is telling what he wanted destroy and who is his boss.

---

Kudos for writing "Islam" all over "terrorism". Though really, why is the camp still operating ? It hasn't achieved anything I know of, except a lot of flak and bad publicity for the US, I guess. And it isn't that good for the families of the detainees, who are also kept there for rather "silly" reasons. It's weird how a camp doing no good to any side is still operating. Or not?

To play Devil's Advocate, do you really think we'd be told if the camps were giving us masses of information? It would make the information redundant very quickly.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

To play Devil's Advocate, do you really think we'd be told if the camps were giving us masses of information? It would make the information redundant very quickly.

~:smoking:

---

That would give the goverment the opportunity to remove the prisoners from their current stasis without to much hassle (aka convict them, release them or whatever). Besides, 5 years old intel is usually quite redundant anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

To play Devil's Advocate, do you really think we'd be told if the camps were giving us masses of information? It would make the information redundant very quickly.

---

If I think Bush and his cronies responsible for the system would show the world that they got valuable information out of it? Yes, I believe they would. Would we get the exact information, no, but we sure would be told things like "we got information from a prisoner which lead to the capture/killing of x number of terrorists".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If I think Bush and his cronies responsible for the system would show the world that they got valuable information out of it? Yes, I believe they would. Would we get the exact information, no, but we sure would be told things like "we got information from a prisoner which lead to the capture/killing of x number of terrorists".

---

You think they haven't said that? ~:confused:

السلام عليكم

يا حبيبي اكس دينجر شو القضية معاك؟
أنا برأيي موضوع غونتانامو معقدة أكثر من السؤال اللي طرحته حتى الولايات ما تعرف توضح الأمر بأكمله ؤ برأيي ما كان المفروض تفتح هذا الثريد أصلا لأنه مغناطيس لردود فعل سلبية

هذا رأيي فقط ولا قصد بلاإهانة

شكرا

والسلام عليكم

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

CR, doesn't Winston Churchill deserve credit when quoted?

---

I just thought everyone knew the quote. It'd be redundant, like noting it was MLK who said "I have a dream".

CR

Dear Mother,

I'm having a lovely time in Cuba.
The food and weather are quite nice however the accommodations are quite small. Despite my love for my brothers in Morocco, I've found that orange just isn't my color.

Best to you and brother Achmed,

Sincerely,

Muhammad Jamal ibin Rasheed

Just honest to god advice to x-danger, no anti-american remarks in there ~;)

It hasn't achieved anything I know of, except a lot of flak and bad publicity for the US,

This is why i just can't understand Gauntanamo at all, is it because it would look like USA losing face (or Bush) that it does'nt close down ?

The place seems like a PR nightmare one of the main moral high grounds democracy has over terrorists and the type of states they reside in is how well we treat our prisnors and the most important part Innocent until proven guilty.

I only think Gauntanamo must have some point even if it is just a face saving point.

I hope all wrongly incarcerated there get thier day in court (either to try and prove thier innocence or to take them for every penny they've got)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

[B]

I hope all wrongly incarcerated there get thier day in court (either to try and prove thier innocence or to take them for every penny they've got)

---

Thats one of the most basic rights of humans.

The whole thing is a sham. Torturing people and holding them indefinetely? How can any goverment who considers itself the epitome of freedom and democracy in the world own such a place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Thats one of the most basic rights of humans.

The whole thing is a sham. Torturing people and holding them indefinetely? How can any goverment who considers itself the epitome of freedom and democracy in the world own such a place?

---

:guitarist: (no violin)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

The whole thing is a sham. Torturing people and holding them indefinetely? How can any goverment who considers itself the epitome of freedom and democracy in the world own such a place?

---

That's because it's not the bastion of freedom and democracy it claims. It's not even in the top fifteen in the Democracy Index.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That's because it's not the bastion of freedom and democracy it claims. It's not even in the top fifteen in the Democracy Index.

---

1. A competitive, multiparty political system. NO (two)
2. Universal adult suffrage. CHECK
3. Regularly contested elections conducted on the basis
of secret ballots, reasonable ballot security and the
absence of massive voter fraud. EVEN BETTER (our dead can vote!)
4. Significant public access of major political parties to
the electorate through the media and through generally
open campaigning. MCCAIN FINEGOLD

Velcome to Amerika. Papers please.

17th :bigcry: For a huge multi-ethnic, cultural, and racial country, we're pretty damn good. We're even better than France! Look at the competition and try again.

My point is that for a country that claims to be the bastion of democracy, and is a world superpower at that, maybe it's a good idea to aim for a little better than 17th out of 28 "functioning democracies".

Oh yes, I noticed that Germany was #13, you're welcome.

Point is that your post had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Look at what is measured. Comparing a small, homogeneous country to a large, diverse one then saying the latter is worse isn't very smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Oh yes, I noticed that Germany was #13, you're welcome.

Point is that your post had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Look at what is measured. Comparing a small, homogeneous country to a large, diverse one then saying the latter is worse isn't very smart.

---

Germany doesn't have international secret prisons, and it also does not claim to be the world defender of democracy. Indeed, Germany is also very diverse and has a wide ethnic makeup - hardly homogeneous. But it is not Germany we're talking about. It's America.

My post was also perfectly in context given the post I was responding to, thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Oh yes, I noticed that Germany was #13, you're welcome.

Point is that your post had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Look at what is measured. Comparing a small, homogeneous country to a large, diverse one then saying the latter is worse isn't very smart.

---

Why?
You gonna offer him an all expenses paid trip to Cuba?

Keep to the point in hand, and don't deviate from the U.S.A's lack of morals when it comes to the treatment of enemy combatant's. Because this is a War on Terror right?
I don't think Terror is very happy about the way that you treat it's soldiers.
Oh wait that's absurd.

I mean, all the U.S has created is an even greater base of complete and utter hatred for it than before.
If a man's house and family is blown up due to the complete lack of intelligence in this war it don't matter to him or indeed to me that you did not mean to, you bloody did it anyway. You have at a stroke and with little thought turned his life into a living hell. Maybe his baby is splattered all over the room, but hey dude, we don't target civilians.

You know that anger that some of you American's felt after 9/11, the kind of anger that makes you kill murderers? Well it's the same thing you're enemies feel.

Rant over.

Quote:

---

Germany doesn't have international secret prisons, and it also does not claim to be the world defender of democracy. Indeed, Germany is also very diverse and has a wide ethnic makeup - hardly homogeneous. But it is not Germany we're talking about. It's America.

---

But for over 70 years of its history Germans were most racist and agressive nation around (1870 - 1945). Their democracy was build BY AMERICANS and BRITS. Without them democractic Germans would be happy killing everyone around talking about their nation and its rights and two thunders on flag would be most democratic symbol ever.

BTW where is list of these "working democracies"

KrooK, also try to remember Germany was surrounded by Communist-imperialistic USSR to the east (with their Gulag camps) and Imperialistic Britain (who invented the concentration camps at this time) and revenge-seeking nationalistic declining post-Napoleonic France (who were bitter because their last attempts at conquering part of Germany had failed) at the time - all of which had ambitions for conquest for conquest's sake, as was common during this horrible time of history, which is often known as the "era of imperialism". Germany certainly committed far more damaging things during the period than they had justification for, like most countries that go through a conquest period, but it's also incorrect to completely ignore the difficult situation which had a major part in creating this.

What is so amazing about the American Guatanamo camps is that America doesn't really have anything to fear on the outside, and so it just seems like brutality for brutality's sake, or some way of satisfying sadism among some branches of the army, branches which apparently haven't been checked properly for mental disease before they were hired. America's greatest problems lie on the inside with the racial segregation and the racistic treatment of some minorities such as Indians and also some of the Blacks and Hispanics, but that has nothing to do with the foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

America's greatest problems lie on the inside with the racial segregation and the racistic treatment of some minorities such as Indians and also some of the Blacks and Hispanics, but that has nothing to do with the foreign policy.

---

European myth, no more, probably less. One of the main reasons I want Obama to win, a black guy doing it all by himselve, going to be entertaining to see the socialists squirming when a black guy who doesn't need the support of the european elite to win take it all on his merits alone. Now if only he would be suitable for the position it would be great.

I will be attending a talk by an ex Guantanamo prisoner in the comming weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg

After his talk there should be opportunity for questions, anybody got any questions they'd like me to ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

European myth, no more, probably less. One of the main reasons I want Obama to win, a black guy doing it all by himselve, going to be entertaining to see the socialists squirming when a black guy who doesn't need the support of the european elite to win take it all on his merits alone. Now if only he would be suitable for the position it would be great.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. I've met plenty of Americans of different race and origin and they would say you're talking bollocks. Things have improved since the 60ies but there's still plenty of racism, and many have a really hard time getting by, often being given inferior jobs despite having comparable skills. Obama is not black only, but a large portion white too, as well as involved in the church, and has better policies than his competitors, and that's the only reason he's standing a chance. If he had been from an all black origin and not religious, nobody would listen to him even if he would say the same things as he's doing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

But for over 70 years of its history Germans were most racist and agressive nation around (1870 - 1945). Their democracy was build BY AMERICANS and BRITS. Without them democractic Germans would be happy killing everyone around talking about their nation and its rights and two thunders on flag would be most democratic symbol ever.

BTW where is list of these "working democracies"

---

See the post below. Germany was no more "racist" or "aggressive" than any other nation of it's time. WWI was not caused by Germany any more than any other nation, the Franco-Prussian War had a legitimate casus belli (indeed, was necessary to build a German nation), and WWII can be attributed as a direct result of WWII. Your claims of racism are also interesting - what about the millions of Germans expelled from lands that had been German (or at least Teutonic, if I may use the word) for over five hundred years (namely Prussia)? May I ask which country expelled them?

Just because we happened to beat Poland twice doesn't mean we were any worse than anyone else in the world. Get over yourself. And read the post below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

KrooK, also try to remember Germany was surrounded by Communist-imperialistic USSR to the east (with their Gulag camps) and Imperialistic Britain (who invented the concentration camps at this time) and revenge-seeking nationalistic declining post-Napoleonic France (who were bitter because their last attempts at conquering part of Germany had failed) at the time - all of which had ambitions for conquest for conquest's sake, as was common during this horrible time of history, which is often known as the "era of imperialism". Germany certainly committed far more damaging things during the period than they had justification for, like most countries that go through a conquest period, but it's also incorrect to completely ignore the difficult situation which had a major part in creating this.

---

OK time to clear some myths

Lets start from Rodion - here I think he simply made small mistake - but rather due to lack of information than due to bad will.

Quote:

---

KrooK, also try to remember Germany was surrounded by Communist-imperialistic USSR to the east (with their Gulag camps) and Imperialistic Britain (who invented the concentration camps at this time) and revenge-seeking nationalistic declining post-Napoleonic France (who were bitter because their last attempts at conquering part of Germany had failed) at the time - all of which had ambitions for conquest for conquest's sake, as was common during this horrible time of history, which is often known as the "era of imperialism". Germany certainly committed far more damaging things during the period than they had justification for, like most countries that go through a conquest period, but it's also incorrect to completely ignore the difficult situation which had a major part in creating this.

What is so amazing about the American Guatanamo camps is that America doesn't really have anything to fear on the outside, and so it just seems like brutality for brutality's sake, or some way of satisfying sadism among some branches of the army, branches which apparently haven't been checked properly for mental disease before they were hired. America's greatest problems lie on the inside with the racial segregation and the racistic treatment of some minorities such as Indians and also some of the Blacks and Hispanics, but that has nothing to do with the foreign policy.

---

1) Before 1939 there we no Soviet - German border. Germans had Poles and Lithuanians as eastern neighbours.
2) Beetwen France-Prussia war and WW1 Germans did everything to destroy Poles as a nation (group of people with other culture). It was called germanisation and was official policy of II Reich. As example of german friendly policy I can quote law who do not allowed Poles on building any houses on their soil.

Nationalism into Germany rose much earlier than Wersal 1919.

And now some lies from german revisionist

Quote:

---

WWI was not caused by Germany any more than any other nation, the Franco-Prussian War had a legitimate casus belli (indeed, was necessary to build a German nation), and WWII can be attributed as a direct result of WWII.

---

1) French-Prussia war and similar - that part I mentioned explaining situation to Rodion

Quote:

---

Your claims of racism are also interesting - what about the millions of Germans expelled from lands that had been German (or at least Teutonic, if I may use the word) for over five hundred years (namely Prussia)? May I ask which country expelled them?[/

---

Total falsehood and buch of lies.

2) I think you are talking about displacing Germans from Poland after ww2. Of course you are doing it into style used by todays German revisionist.
If we are starting talking about "expelling" anyone - we can't start from 1946.

Lets start from 1939/1940 - straight after war Germans started expulsion of Poles who were living into western Poland (not todays western Poland but western Poland into 1939). Before 1942 they expelled from 1,65 to 2 millions of Poles. These people could not take anything with them - no food, no suits, nothing. Of course no one even think about giving them any human rights. They were being send to temporary camps (similar conditions to death camps) and then they have to work as a slaves into Germany. On place of Poles arrived German settlers - land in Poland was reward for most active nazists.

Into 1944/45 Red Army was very close to western Poland. Germans knew what they have done into Russia and that Russian revenge will be similar. So most of them ran to west germany. That was something you call "expulsion".
Poles had nothing in common with that.

Displation of Germans after ww2 was part of Potsdam conferency. America, Russia and UK decided about that. Poles had to protect its western border (because before war German minority was full of spies) and get rid of nazist afterwar resistance (we didn't want to do it using nazi method - killing all Germans there). Into situation when Germans prefered elimation of all population, Poland decided to displate that population to their own country. These Germans could take food and some luggage, they were being send to Germany with organised groups (and with trains not on their foot!!!) in the summer, and without bigger violations of human rights.

These 2 processing cannot be even compared. Poles were expelled from their homes in the middle of winter while germans were only send to their own country.
Now Germans blame Poles for all Germans running from Poland. Blame Red Army - or maybe you ran because your "cameraden" had some fun into Russia and Russians want have some fun too.
Why German revisionists blame Poland - maybe because Russia is their closest friend now. I don't care. Angry is only that these nazist who took houses of expelled Poles, call themselves "expelled".


Ahh one more for our historical master. These territories became Prussian later than 500 years before 1945.
1) Silesia - after Silesian Wars about 1750
2) Pomorze Gdanskie (Danzig) 1772
3) Pomorze Zachodnie (Stetting) - if I remember it well after Great Northern War.
4) Greater Poland - 1793

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Obama is not black only, but a large portion white too, as well as involved in the church, and has better policies than his competitors, and that's the only reason he's standing a chance. If he had been from an all black origin and not religious, nobody would listen to him even if he would say the same things as he's doing now.

---

Can you name one single person born in America in the last 150 years who had an 'all black origin'? You really think it's crossing Obama supporter's minds, 'well, at least this guy's not 100% negroid'?

To some it seems America will have to elect the chief of an actual African tribe for president to atone, unless it so happens 'he's involved in the church', because that would still be slightly racist.

Quote:

---

1) Before 1939 there we no Soviet - German border. Germans had Poles and Lithuanians as eastern neighbours.

---

Yes, true, but as the Soviets showed, they could assert control over Lithuania easily.

Quote:

---

2) Beetwen France-Prussia war and WW1 Germans did everything to destroy Poles as a nation (group of people with other culture). It was called germanisation and was official policy of II Reich. As example of german friendly policy I can quote law who do not allowed Poles on building any houses on their soil.

---

The first part, fine, it's true to a certain extent. However, I would like to see a link (not just a quote) to the law in question. Reading Erich Eyck's book on Otto von Bismarck, which has some interesting background for that region, I have yet to come across anything of this nature, though there is indeed evidence of crackdown. That being said, the Polish population in certain areas had revolted multiple times, which could have led to the issues in question.

Quote:

---

Nationalism into Germany rose much earlier than Wersal 1919.

---

Is there a problem with nationalism here? If there is, who's the hypocrite?

Quote:

---

And now some lies from german revisionist

---

You really are racist, aren't you?

Quote:

---

1) French-Prussia war and similar - that part I mentioned explaining situation to Rodion

---

Sorry, but the Franco-Prussian War in itself did not relate to the Polish people.

Quote:

---

Total falsehood and buch of lies.

2) I think you are talking about displacing Germans from Poland after ww2. Of course you are doing it into style used by todays German revisionist.
If we are starting talking about "expelling" anyone - we can't start from 1946.

---

Excuse me? That's been verified by historians the world over. Denying it is like saying the Gulag system never existed.

Quote:

---

Lets start from 1939/1940 - straight after war Germans started expulsion of Poles who were living into western Poland (not todays western Poland but western Poland into 1939). Before 1942 they expelled from 1,65 to 2 millions of Poles. These people could not take anything with them - no food, no suits, nothing. Of course no one even think about giving them any human rights. They were being send to temporary camps (similar conditions to death camps) and then they have to work as a slaves into Germany. On place of Poles arrived German settlers - land in Poland was reward for most active nazists.

---

I'm not denying any of the horrors of the Nazi regime, but I don't see how you can relate this to modern German (or European) policy.

Quote:

---

Into 1944/45 Red Army was very close to western Poland. Germans knew what they have done into Russia and that Russian revenge will be similar. So most of them ran to west germany. That was something you call "expulsion".
Poles had nothing in common with that.

---

Germans were expelled after the Second World War from places they had lived for hundreds of years, forcibly in many cases, and many were actually taken back to the Soviet Union. My own grandmother was tortured in Lubyanka for a week!

Quote:

---

Displation of Germans after ww2 was part of Potsdam conferency. America, Russia and UK decided about that. Poles had to protect its western border (because before war German minority was full of spies) and get rid of nazist afterwar resistance (we didn't want to do it using nazi method - killing all Germans there). Into situation when Germans prefered elimation of all population, Poland decided to displate that population to their own country. These Germans could take food and some luggage, they were being send to Germany with organised groups (and with trains not on their foot!!!) in the summer, and without bigger violations of human rights.

---

After the Second World War Poland did not need to worry about the Germans living in it's lands. Indeed, Poland took German lands - Prussia, where the native German populace had been for hundreds of years. It was these lands that Germans were forcibly deported from en masse.

Quote:

---

These 2 processing cannot be even compared. Poles were expelled from their homes in the middle of winter while germans were only send to their own country.

---

"Only" sent to their own country in forced treks where many died. You look up the numbers.

Quote:

---

Now Germans blame Poles for all Germans running from Poland. Blame Red Army - or maybe you ran because your "cameraden" had some fun into Russia and Russians want have some fun too.
Why German revisionists blame Poland - maybe because Russia is their closest friend now. I don't care. Angry is only that these nazist who took houses of expelled Poles, call themselves "expelled".

---

I'd say the Russians had plenty of "fun" with German soldiers in Russia. Russia was a war criminal during the Second World War, I freely admit it. Indeed, Soviet Russia was the largest criminal regime of all time. However, Germans had lived in these "homes the Nazis stole" for hundreds of years (Prussia).

Quote:

---

Ahh one more for our historical master. These territories became Prussian later than 500 years before 1945.
1) Silesia - after Silesian Wars about 1750
2) Pomorze Gdanskie (Danzig) 1772
3) Pomorze Zachodnie (Stetting) - if I remember it well after Great Northern War.
4) Greater Poland - 1793

---

Silesia - Seized from Austria. No dice there, my friend.

Danzig - First taken in 1308 by the Teutonic Knights.

Stettin - The city had been "German" since the 1300s, and was granted to Sweden, not Poland.

Prussia - Controlled by the Teutonic Knights from 1224, well over five hundred years.

The Partition of Poland was a result of three nations, and the Russians did significantly more to subjugate the Polish population than the Prussians did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Can you name one single person born in America in the last 150 years who had an 'all black origin'? You really think it's crossing Obama supporter's minds, 'well, at least this guy's not 100% negroid'?

To some it seems America will have to elect the chief of an actual African tribe for president to atone, unless it so happens 'he's involved in the church', because that would still be slightly racist.

---

You can't really deny the fact that most blacks have inferior average salaries, and the schools in the blocks they grow up are of lower quality. And the fact that white Christians have the greatest influence in politics and economy in the USA. If you have more than two of the traits non-Christian, non-white, non-rich and non-conservative, life isn't nearly as easy as if you don't.

Europe has it's fair share of the same (but replace non-Christian with non-atheist), especially since they try to take in more immigrants per year than what can be integrated into society properly, since there aren't enough jobs and housing. But in America these people have been around for over 100 years so it's a bit interesting they're still not given better conditions. Europe is equally stupid of course, but in a different way, in that they could avoid the problem altogether but are obsessed with the strange idea that they are mass-murderers unless they keep increasing the problem and cause racial segregation and violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

You have no idea what you're talking about.

---

And you do? Ever been there? It's how you want it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And you do? Ever been there? It's how you want it to be.

---

Funnily enough, it's usually the case that upper class people with overprotected childhood know less of ghettos in their home town than lower class and middle class people from other countries.

And I can most certainly say I don't want it to be the way it is. Perhaps you do?

https://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7707/ostrichjr6.jpg

Mymy, do I find myselve at the receiving end of cosmopolitan dedain :laugh4: :laugh4:

Let's look at a case study. Somewhere in Africa, generally doesn't matter that much.

Any success stories there? All the Nasty Whites have been taken out of the equation, so obviously there is going to be examples of Utopias where people can forge ahead free of the yoke of stereotypical oppression.

So, more problems that merely the White folks then...

There are estates in the UK where there are people of all nationalities live in poverty, squalor and crime. And no I'm don't view the answer as throwing money at them until they appear to do better - as it will mean more people want to get the subsidies.

Self determination requires the persons affected to make effort. And considering that schools are free, handouts to those off work, handouts if pregnant, free meds whilst pregnant things have rarely been easier.

Blaming people with jobs is easy. Why do long term not want to do the jobs they could get? Possibly loosing all the free time and the odd off the radar work might have something to do with it.

In the old class system it was unwise to try to rise more than one class per generation. And whatever else you say about it it made sense! With a slow shift there was no massive jolt and no clash of backgrounds.

~:smoking:

Blaming the repressed for being lazy is always easy. Maybe you should blame the Jews in Auschwitz for not making good enough career plans, or the Anti-communists in Gulag for not fighting hard enough to get a paid work, or the people at Guantanamo for being lazy drug addict hippies... It shows a lack of contact with reality to just ignore the fact that not everything can be blamed on the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

Massive racial differentials in account of wealth remain in the United States: betweens whites and African Americans, the gap is a factor of ten.[138] An analyst of the phenomenon, Thomas Shapiro, professor of law and social policy at Brandeis University argues, “The wealth gap is not just a story of merit and achievement, it’s also a story of the historical legacy of race in the United Sates.”[139] Some of the institutions of wealth creation amongst American citizens were open exclusively to whites, notably land distributed under the Homestead Act and other settlement efforts in the West. Similar differentials applied to the Social Security Act (which excluded agricultural workers, a sector that then included most black workers), rewards to military officers, and the educational benefits offered returning soldiers after World War II. Pre-existing disparities in wealth are exacerbated by tax policies that reward investment over waged income, subsidize mortgages, and subsidize private sector developers

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_..._United_States

Might not always be repression with racism as the cause today, but fact is that people often get worse chances in life if they happen to be of the wrong race, for historical reasons which still have a huge impact. And this leads to exactly what is present in your post, rory_20_uk: racist-bigot prejudice that certain races would be "lazier than" or "inferior to" others.

The homestead act you got to be kidding me that's from 1780 :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

In the old class system it was unwise to try to rise more than one class per generation. And whatever else you say about it it made sense! With a slow shift there was no massive jolt and no clash of backgrounds.

---

Yeah that's nice, so we can have rulers who say "let them have cookies" when there's no bread :dizzy2: which is how good reality-ignoring upper class ***** are at ruling countries. The most peaceful, stable and democratic societies we've had was when most of the population was middle class and almost all had equal chances in life, from 1945 to 1985, when almost all people built up Europe after ww2. Then, around 1985, egoistic, power-hungry maniacs who can't differ political correctness from common sense and think ruling is about having the people as servants rather than being a servant to the people, begun taking more and more of legislative power again and now we're gradually going back to the crap we had before ww1 and ww2.

I reply again

Expulsion started into 1939/1940 and Germans started. Deportations of Germans from western part of Poland (I mean borders from 1939) were only deportations of nazists who came to Poland after expulsion of Poles.

Now deportations from war and first years after war.
From 8 millions of germans who lived on east of Germany (and nazist who settled on occupied part of Poland) 90% ran because of Red Army into 1944/1945. Germans alone called it "Great Evacuation". They ran NOT BECAUSE OF POLES. They knew that Red Army would revenge dozens of millions of Russians murdered by Germans.

Rest of Germans were deported by Poles to Germany instead of sending them to death camps. Definitely some died (most of death were into camps controlled by NKWD or communist Jews - Poles could do nothing to stop that)but no one forced them to work as a slaves when they reached Germany.

Talking about Prussia is very bad example because Prussia was divided on polish and russian part. Germans from polish part of Prussia were send to Germany (some were allowed to stay), I don't know what happened to Germans from Russian part - I don't care.

Historicals all over the world simply do not understand difference beetwen Great Evacuation and deportations.

And now a bit stupid statement.

Quote:

---

Silesia - Seized from Austria. No dice there, my friend.

Danzig - First taken in 1308 by the Teutonic Knights.

Stettin - The city had been "German" since the 1300s, and was granted to Sweden, not Poland.

Prussia - Controlled by the Teutonic Knights from 1224, well over five hundred years.

The Partition of Poland was a result of three nations, and the Russians did significantly more to subjugate the Polish population than the Prussians did.

---

Silesia was under Austrian control, but it wasn't German province.
Owners of Silesia
1)Poles
2)Czechs
3)Austria (multinational Austria!!!)
4)Germany

Danzig - here you show your ignorance. It was taken by Teutonic knights into 1308. Teutonic knight betrayed Poles (they were into Alliance with Poland and had broken that alliance attacking Poland) and took the city. Into 1466 Poles recaptured Danzig and controlled to 1793.

Stettin - it wasn't German city. City belonged to one of Pommern Princedooms. People who lived there were Slavs and ruling dynasty was Piast dynasty - polish dynasty.

Prussia - not 1224. Teutonic order was given small land (Chelminska) into 1226. Prussia was finally conquered into 1283. From 1525 to 1657 it was polish protectorate.

Do not blame Russia for everything. Germany - not Russia - started war.
Both regimes were extremely cruel so blaming other is simply illogical.

Quote:

---

Excuse me? That's been verified by historians the world over. Denying it is like saying the Gulag system never existed

---

Please give me names, surnames and book titles. To make you live easier I can tell that denying holocaust and human killing is crime into Poland. You can send my posts to polish prosecutors. But remember that slander of polish nation is crime too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The homestead act you got to be kidding me that's from 1780 :laugh4:

---

So you're essentially saying that land ownage things settled earlier than 1780 is ridiculous and invalid to bring up now, around 330 years later? Does that mean you want Israel "wiped off the map" as well? Because you're starting to sound like Imadinnerjacket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

So you're essentially saying that land ownage things settled earlier than 1780 is ridiculous and invalid to bring up now, around 330 years later? Does that mean you want Israel "wiped off the map" as well? Because you're starting to sound like Imadinnerjacket.

---

What I am essentially saying is that bringing up the friggin homestead act to prove that america is a racist country wasn't a very smart thing to do.

I would like to remind everybody that the topic of this thread are Guantanamo and "secret prisons".

I fail to see how a discussion about (forced) relocation after WW2, the historical development of territorial claims or the situation of black people in the US contribute to this topic.

Feels free to start a new thread about any of these topics in the Backroom. As the discussion of the original topic seems to have ended this thread is closed now - should anybody feel that (s)he would like to continue with the original topic, please PM me and I will consider to re-open the thread.

Thanks for all contributions

:bow: