>>>>SNIP
>>>>>The only crab I have with this is that those 'foreigners' were captured in a country where they are not 'foreigners'. In those cases, it's the U.S. soldiers who are the foreigners.
>>>>
>>>>Not true. The majority all come from other countries. 219 were actually from Afghanistan and only 9 were actually from Iraq. Everyone else was a 'foreigner.'
>>>>You can sort this list by country:
>>>>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/search/?category_val=iraq&category=country
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here is a list of the transfers so far:
>>>>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm
>>>
>>>Maybe, maybe not. Birthplace may not be the ultimate answer to everything. take Omar Khadr for example. He was born in Canada (and the web site shows that), but he was living in Waziristan when the U.S. attacked his home. He may be Canadian born, but to call him a foreigner when he was actually living there is kind of stretching things. It's hard for me to consider a resident of someplace to be a 'foreigner' in that place just because he wasn't born there.
>>>
>>>I also don't know from that web site how many of those detainees were captured in Iraq. To say that only 9 were actually from Iraq assumes that all the detainees were taken in Iraq. Is that really the case? Were none of the Afghanis taken in Afghanistan?
>>
>>No, I was responding to your statement on who were the "foreigners." Some were captured in Afghanistan and some were captured in Iraq. My numbers reflect their home country, not where they were captured. You stated that the Americans were the foreigners, and I'm stating that both the Americans and a majority of the enemy fighters are foreigners.
>
>And I'm pointing out that unless you can show where each person was taken, you can't know whether or not the majority of enemy fighters were 'foreigners'. Just because a lot of the detainees were Afghanis doesn't mean they were taken in Iraq. If they were taken in Afghanistan, then they were not foreigners. And then again, even if they some were taken in Iraq, my contention is that if that's where they lived, then they were not foreigners. Are you contending that everyone living in the U.S. who wasn't born there is a foreigner? To me a foreigner is someone found in a place where they are not living and where they were not born. My next door neighbour was born in China, but because his home is in Canada, I can't see that he could properly be labeled a foreigner.
>
>I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm just saying there is nothing there that I can see to back up the statement that the majority of the detainees were foreigners. I know for a fact that the Americans were.

I agree with your definition of "foreigners." In fact, that was my point. However, the middle eastern states do not have a large number of people born in other countries residing there as the west does. It is well known that religious zealots from other countries went there specifically to fight against the allies and did not reside there previously. Also, the list is the detainees in Cuba. Some were captured in Iraq, some in Afghanistan, some in other countries (although I think that number was small).

I really don't get what your argument is now. If China (and 26 other countries) came to Canada and toppled your government because it was thought to be planning to nuke China (ok maybe not likely) and took over and Mexicans flocked to Canada (or Americans) as civilians (not the military) and started bombing the roads, beheading civilians, shooting at the Chinese, and killing everything and everyone in sight to push the Chinese out of Canada, should the captured Mexicans and Americans be taken back to China for trial in a civilian court? Or should they be held until the end of hostilities?