Talk:Casio F91W

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Casio F91W article.
Article policies

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of watches. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Outrageous Irrelevance of Terrorist Involvement

Who on earth decided to include so much material regarding the watches link to terrorism? It encompasses the majority of the article. At most there should be a few lines on the subject. This is one of the most popular wrist watches in the world so I'm not surprised a few terrorist ware it. And all digital watches are "accurate" so it makes no sense what so ever to assume that’s why the watch was selected. There are some really odd people in the world - I just can't understand why all this would be included! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.172.146 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment 1

I remember I had a Casio F91W way before 1997, so the date of introduction referenced in the article is no correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirilobeto (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2006 July 2

[edit] I had one, too.

I had one since about 1992. Though now the area where the strap pins go through has broken off on one side, I still keep it running since I think it keeps particularly good time. Not to mention this watch gets rather astounding battery life. It's only on it's second battery since I got it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.93.6 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2006 July 20

I will remove the date of introduction in the article while it is stablished in which date it was actually introduced. I'm positively sure that this watch was from the late 80's / early 90's. --Cirilobeto 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am on my fourth of these. They last about 4-5 years (the last two I bought at Fry's in San Jose or Palo Alto, the most recent less than a year ago). They are remarkably reliable and accurate (all four gained time slightly, but no more than a second a week) 65.91.54.2 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

I don't see how the stuff about terrorists it relevant, especially in so much detail. Maybe some background, and cult following information would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.13.168 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2006 October 20

You are joking right? The alleged association with terrorism is the most interesting thing about this watch. -- Geo Swan 07:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly relevant, but yes the detail is unnecessary in this article. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you explaining yourself more fully. The details are (1) verifiable; (2) Not original research; (3) and, IMO, does not represent a biased point of view.
IMO many of those who challenge whether potentially embarrassing instances of gaffes and failures on the part of the Bush administration merit coverage on the wikipedia are unconscious victims of the wikipedia's demographic-based systematic bias.
All reasonable people recognize that even the most competently run organizations will have the occasional thing go wrong. It seems to me that many of those who want to suppress aspects of the Bush administration's policy of holding suspects, for years on end, without charge, and without providing them with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against them unconsciously assume that the errors that occur that flow from that policy are the very limited kind one can expect even in well-run organizations.
Advocating the removal of these well-documented details is, IMO, a POV. Removing well-documented details of failures of this program, on the assumption that they are of a very limited nature, is, IMO, a failure to conform to the policy of writing from a neutral point of view.
I strongly encourage you to read a random selection of the transcripts of the Guantanamo detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings for yourself. Is justifying the continued detention of a Guantanamo detainee because they were wearing a casio digital watch reasonable? Is justifying the continued detention of fifteen or more men because they were captured wearing a casio digital watch reasonable? You or I or other wikipedia contributors can't offer our opinions on the reasonableness of this policy, in the article without violating NPOV, just as censoring the embarrassing details violates NPOV.
I believe it is important to provide the detail necessary to allow responsible, open-minded readers to form their own opinions as to this aspect of the policy's reasonableness.
If you read a random selection of detainee transcripts you will find other aspects of where the Bush administration's description of this policy is wildly at variance with its actual implementation:
  • The Guantanamo intelligence analysts, even after four years, have not been able to figure out a consistent system for transliterating the detainees names.
    • The Department of Defense has released two official lists of detainee names, nationalities, and internal ID numbers. Although the two lists were only released 25 days apart, on April 20, 2006 and May 15, 2006, the two list differ significantly on how detainees names were transliterated.
    • The Department of Defense routinely thwarted the attempts of Mani Al Utaybi's lawyers to contact him. They told them that they must be spelling his name wrong. Mani Al Utaybi was one of the three captives alleged to have committed suicide on June 10, 2006. His lawyers never had a chance to tell him that he wasn't facing a lifetime in Guantanamo, but had been cleared for transfer home to Saudi Arabia. This is the kicker. Although the deaths were reported just 26 days following the release of the full official list of all the names of all the Guantanamo detainees, the DoD spelled his name wildly, unrecognizably different on June 10th than they did on May 25th and April 20th.
    • You are probably familiar with the case of Khalid el-Masri, the innocent German citizen who spent five months being tortured by the CIA in the salt pit because his name matched that of an al Qaida suspect. Well, if you read the detainee's transcripts you will come across dozens of detainees who seem to have been detained as a result of mistaken identity. The kicker here is that, even after el-Masri's story has made the front page of newspapers around the world, even after Dr Rice and the German Chancellor personally discussed his case, el-Masri, whose innocence has been established, without question, was refused a visa when he wanted to enter the USA to file suit for his kidnapping. Was he still on the list of suspects after all this attention?
    • One of the more extreme cases of mistaken identity concerns Abdullah Khan, who was captured when he was denounced as really being Khirullah Khairkhwa, the Taliban regime's chief reader of press releases, and, in 2000 and 2001, the Governor of Herat Province. All of Khan's interrogations consisted of his interrogators insisting he was really Khairkhwa, Khan denying that he was Khairkhwa, and his interrogators insisting he was lying. This pattern continued for the first year and a half he was held in Guantanamo, in spite of his repeated pleas for them to check the prison roster, so they could see that they already held the real Khairkhwa, had held him for over a year, in another section of the camp.
  • The most recent Denbeaux study documents that, contrary to the repeated insistence of the Bush administration spokesmen, the detainees were not, in practice, allowed to call witnesses in their defense. Some detainees were allowed to call other detainees as witnesses. Others were told that their Tribunal's President had ruled that the testimony they requested was "not relevant". Other detainees were told that the witnesses they requested couldn't be found, even though they were fellow Guantanamo detainees -- possibly due to the failure of the camp authorities to figure out how to maintain a reliable prisoner roster.
    • Tribunal Presidents didn't rule out all "off-island" witnesses. They frequently ruled that they were "relevant", then set in motion a diplomatic process to contact those witnesses, that failed in each and every case. (Not 98 or 99% of the time, but fully 100% of the time.)
      • The Tribunal President would authorize sending a request to the State department...
      • The State Department was then supposed to pass on the request to the Washington embassy of the country the witness was supposed to be residing in.
      • The Tribunal President was then counting on the Washington embassy to pass the request on to the civil service back home, and was then counting on the foreign government's civil service to find and contact the witness, to see if they would give their testimony on the detainee's behalf.
      • The Tribunals usually allowed only three weeks for all the steps in this process to take place.
It is, in my opinion, extremely important for the coverage of Guantanamo, and the Guantanamo detainees, to be full and complete, because I believe our safety hinges on it. It is, in my opinion, important that those who make decisions on how to spend our counter-terrorism resources do so in a professional, clear-headed, well-informed, unemotional manner. And, if those making those decisions are going to do so in a well-informed manner, they need to be able to rely on trustworthy intelligence, gathered, collated, compiled by professional, clear-headed, well-informed, unemotional intelligence analysts.
Have the senior officials responsible for the intelligence gathering at Guantanamo taken the necessary steps to ensure that the intelligence effort was run in a professional, clear-headed, well-informed, unemotional manner? That is not for you or I or other wikipedia contributors to state, in article space. But I am certainly going to argue here for the importance of fully documenting, in detail, every well-documented instances that suggests the intelligence effort there has been unprofessional, ill-informed, incompetently performed, tinged, at times soaked, in malice, and a blind, and entirely inappropriate thirst for vengeance and retribution.
Remember, those arguing that Guantanamo is well-run, and producing worthwhile intelligence, are the same people who assured the World that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed a vast arsenal of WMD that represented an imminent threat.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 12:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a wristwatch. This is not so much about the policies you quoted, but about whether this level of detail belongs in this article. It appears that you have quite a bit to say about this and I have no reason to believe any of it is out of line. I would probably create a separate article for this subject, however, and link it from here. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the comments that the level of detail is irrelevant to this article. Especially since the same details are included in the biographical articles for the detainees. This article should mention the subject but the detail should be elsewhere. 169.3.168.209 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to offer the reasoning behind your agreement?
Take a look at the other watches in Category:watches. They are mainly mere stubs. If the connection to terrorism was taken out, the Casio F91W article would be little more than a stub. Let's be frank, by far the most likely reason anyone would look up this watch is due to the alleged link to terrorism. So how does removing that material, or putting it in a subsidiary article enhance the utility of the wikipedia?
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indirect Source

Source #3 does not have the original document as the link, It should be this instead: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm

Other links may also be references to original articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.206.19 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2006 October 20

In last time terrorists used the Casio DB-36 model. :) http://www.watch.watchzone.ru/casio/Casio_DB-36-9.phtml--Sergei Frolov 17:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] that watch is the most cheap watch and the the most reliable

That is why bombers use that. You can not find that accuracy for this price. And a qualified basic electronic circuit, strong building.That was my first watch, i am keeping that since 1993...And it still works correctly. -- canerinmersin 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting unexplained tag

I deleted the unexplained {dispute} tag.

Like many other tags, the {dispute} tag tells interested readers to look to the talk page for a discussion of the tag. So far as I am concerned, this places a burden on the person who placed the tag to explain themselves. -- Geo Swan 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this paragraph should go...

The following paragraph was recently added:

"In the Combatant Status Review Tribunal summaries of evidence and hearing transcripts that the United States Department of Defence has disclosed as furnishing its reasons for illegally holding "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it is apparent that numerous persons have been imprisoned for years, largely because they possessed a Casio F91W watch. (See for example the person at page 16 of this DOD summary of evidenceand also the person at page 16 of this hearing transcript)."

I think it should be removed, because it stretches how far we can go inserting our own conclusions. Personally, I too suspect that the current detainee policy will eventually be acknowledged to have been illegal. But it is premature to state, as a fact, that it is "illegal". Citing, or quoting, an authoritative commentator, who states it is illegal is OK. But the unattributed assertion that the policy is illegal is not okay.

Similarly, what is apparent is subjective. Citing, or quoting, an authoritative commentator who states something is apparent is OK. Without a reference it is not NPOV.

The summary of evidence and transcript they cite, are those of Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari and Mazin Salih Musaid... already cited in the table.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Most of this stuff should go in a generic Guantanamo article. But this bit "When the Department of Defense was forced to comply with US District Court justice Jed Rakoff's court order to release the documents from Guantanamo detainees' Combatant Status Review Tribunals it became known that the allegations against at least 17 of the Guantanamo detainees justified their continued detention because they had been wearing this model of watch, when captured." needs to be considered carefully, the source given is a blog. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43 8 February 2007 (GMT).

Could you explain the reasoning behind your suggestion more fully?
In my opinion the wikipedia will work best if it allows readers the greatest range of choices to follow through the multidimensional universe of human knowledge. Those wikipedians -- I don't know if you are one -- who feel an omnipresent "urge to merge" articles do us all a disservice, by artificially chaining us to the inherent restrictions of paper documents. Paper documents are inherently one dimensional. The natural way to read a paper document is to start reading at the beginning, and read through to the end. And mergists want to artificially bind us into those bounds on the wikipedia.
We have an article about the Casio F91W, and we don't have articles about the hundreds of other models of digital watch, because the Casio F91W is the terrorist watch. People who come to this article are almost certainly going to be coming here because they read about the connection between this watch and terrorism.
You suggest putting the material about the terrorism connection in a generic Guantanamo article? You realize that if we followed this suggestion with every thing that touches on Guantanamo that generic Guantanamo article would be far too long to be useful. It would be too large to be rendered.
The alleged connection between the watch and terrorism is not confined to the captives held at Guantanamo. Ahmed Ressam reportedly bought two Casio F91W while on his way to bomb LAX. One of the Afghan training camps reportedly gave every alumnus a Casio F91W as a graduation gift. Would it make as much sense, if we were going to merge the terrorism related material into the article on that training camp as it would to merge it with a "generic Guantanamo article". Face it. Merging the material is going to short-change one reader or another. Far better to leave it were it is.
Can't we do the merge, and have a robot go and amend the several dozen articles that link to this article, so they point to something like [[Generic Guantanamo article#The allegation Guantanamo captives wore a Casio F91W]]? No. This is a broken idea. When an article links to another article, wikipedia editors can check the "what links here" button. But, if we have a big huge article, as you suggest, that covers multiple related topics, an editor has no way of knowing that if they change a sub-heading, it will break dozens of links. Or, an editor could decide that the material about the watch didn't belong in the Guantanamo article, and erase it, or go and try to create a new article, like [[improvised timers for improvised explosive devices]].
But, maybe I should have waited for your explanation before I marshalled counter-arguments?
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting how many captives faced the allegation they wore a Casio?

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite the DoD document. According to the article and blog post cited, there are ten. The man who is the subject of the article, and nine others. Simoncion (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] simply --> solely see talk

I made a couple of small changes.

IMO, whether the watch was given as a graduation present to every alumnus of Al Farouq is merely an allegation. I question whether it should be stated as a fact.

Four of the watch owners are also alleged to have attended al Farouq. Is this statistically significant? Something like 100 captives are alleged to have attended al Farouq. 558 captives had their status reconsidered by a CSRT. Let's see, my math is rusty.

558....x
---.=.---
18.....4

where x represents the number of al Farouq grads we would expect if the distribution of watch owners was unrelated to whether they attended al Farouq. The al Farouq article currently lists something like 100 alleged grads. If the distribution of watch owner was purly by change we would list 124 al Farouq grads.

We currently list something like 100. But half a dozen grads were 911 hijackers, and another half dozen are the lackawanna six. But the list isn't fully populated. The "what links here" shows 147 articles that link to al Farouq training camp. A bunch of them are redirections, or links from talk pages, or other articles that aren't bios of Guantanamo captives. But I don't think the list is fully populated.

So, how many known al Farouq grads would we need to substantiate the claim ownership of the watch indicated attendance at al Farouq?

Regarding whether the watch owners all faced more serious allegations... No offense Randy, but this is an interpretation. Please feel free to call me if you think I have lapsed from keeping my interpretations out of article space. My own interpretation is that Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari faced just three allegations:

  1. That he took money to Afghanistan following 911. I found his explanation credible.
  2. That his name was found on a suspicious list. This too, IMO was a BS allegation.
  3. That he was the owner of a Casio F91W. He clearly owned the completely different Casio Prayer Watch.

So, what makes those other two BS allegations more serious than the BS allegation that he owned a Casio F91W?

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not necessarily statistically significant that four watch owners went to that camp. But there several reasons why the ratio wouldn't matter.
I hadn't checked the dates. Some could have graduated and received their watch years earlier. In this way, the number of detainees may be meaningless. Some who got the watch may have lost or sold them or contributed them to their bomb fund. Others may have had better watches already. There may be some who had their watches stolen by the police who arrested them in Pakistan.
That CSRT did not attempt to claim ownership of the watch indicated attendance at al Farouq. It was only an indication of what may have led them to attend.
From the wording, it appears that not every al Farouq graduate received one. The reference says the watch "indicates that the detainee most likely went through the course voluntarily." This implies that the watch was conditional. Perhaps they'd get one after springing the tuition for Advanced Jihad 4201, while the weekend course on Elementary Wifebeating would only get them a certificate of achievement on recycled paper.
There's also the possibility that other training camps gave away watches too, but it wasn't cited in the CSRT unclassified sections. If so, it would skew the statistics from the other side.
I'm not convinced on Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari. His story does sound credible, but that doesn't mean anything by itself. Anyone could invent that story. He had plenty of time to think one up.
It's okay for you to doubt the importance of his name being on a hard drive but you're going one step further by saying that, because you discount that evidence, it must mean the only thing holding in GTMO is his Casio watch. That's clearly a leap in logic.
We don't know in what way his name was on that hard drive. If it was just his name among a bunch of generic Arabic names, then that's one thing. If it identified him with his profession and/or city of residence then that's something else entirely.
Or, even if it was just his name, it's still relevant if the name of one of his known friends was on the list as well. Note that the article says, "12 biographical questions security authorities asked of his family." The answers could have strengthened the connections to his name.
That's not all they have on him. The ARB also says, "The detainee's name and photograph is found on a foreign state service product that depicts the relationship between al Qaida elements and Kuwaiti extremists." There seem to be a lot of connections there. You may not think it's enough, but they make the watch pretty much irrelevant.
-- Randy2063 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We can never be completely safe from threats of terrorism

Our counter-terrorism analysts can never fully protect us from the threats of terrorism. To do so would ruin, totally ruin, our economies. We'd have shutdown our ports. Every container ship would have to be boarded, every container opened, every package in the containeer, opened, visually inspected, and sniffed by bomb-sniffing dogs. This would be just one of the steps we would have to take if we were going to try to totally protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism. This would be tantamount to shutting down our ports... Who would do these inspections? I doubt there would be enough manpower to search every container to this level of detail, if every American GI, and every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, was pulled off whatever they were doing now, and assigned, permanently, to inspecting container ship cargo.

Would this make us more safe? Nope. Shifting GIs from NATO, and NORAD, to container inspection would leave us less safe. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you here, but I think you know I'm of the opinion that we need other countries to rein in their terrorists, by force if necessary.
The call for increased container searches is generally fed by unions and politicians.
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If NATO will leave Turkey in the end, you can assign as many as you can to inspect your cargos. At least, NATO personnel won't be able to do fancy things like this again. Deliogul 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need counter-intelligence analysts who are sober and professional

We need counter-intelligence analysts who are sober, unemotional, and professional, who are willing to take the calculated risks. What the transcripts show is that we have a bunch of high-strung, poorly-lead, unworldly, kids doing the bulk of the work. They are doing an absolutely terrible job, that leaves us all at much greater risk than if they had simply done nothing. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because the detainees' so-called "human rights lawyers" say they're doing a terrible job doesn't mean that they are.
There may be some occasional snafus but I don't see any evidence that that's any worse than in civilian law, or than how the military did in previous wars. Military intelligence today is under greater pressure than they were in WWII. It's a good thing Hitler invaded the Soviet Union before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor or the U.S. war effort could then have faced some similar opposition at home.
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The risk of analysis that triggers false positives

Sober, professional Epidemiologists understand the danger of analysis that triggers too many false positives.

Shortly before I turned 40 I started paying for blood tests that showed the level of "prostate specific antigen" in my blood. Guys with sky-high levels of PSA all have prostate cancer. Guys whose level of PSA undergoes a rapid change, just got cancer. But mine was only mildly elevated. The normal range for guys over forty tops out at 4.0 ppm. The normal range for guys under forther was 2.0. When I was 39 my score was 2.1. But, if I had the test six months later I would have been considered normal.

I read all these anecdotal reports of the value of the tests. Guys kept saying, "my PSA was somewhat elevated. So I had annual needle biopsies, to see if there was any hint of cancerous cells. Sure enough, after ten years of needle biopsies, I got a hit, so I had by prostate removed.

But then I read something that totally changed my mind. It seems that when you have the cadavers of otherwise healthy men, and biopsy their entire prostates. epidemiologists found that an amazingly large number of these prostates had microscopic cancer tumors in them. Cancers that don't send out a hormone that directs the local blood vessels to grow branches to start servicing the tumor never grow beyond the microscopic phase. As I recall the stat was that one third of these cadavers had microcancers.

So the needle biopsies were crap shoots. My government health insurance was totally correct not to pay for the tests. I am sorry I paid for them.

Just as there is no way counter-terrorism analysts could increase their paranoia, thus keeping us totally safe, epidemiologists couldn't keep me totally safe from prostate cancer. And, accepting the result that one third of healthy men have these micro-tumors, I realized the PSA test's value in detecting cancer did not offset the danger of a false positive. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But to apply this to the war is wrong if you're only going to count GTMO. There's no question that there is a group of people genuinely at war against us.
IIRC, the U.S. captured between 7,000 and 10,000 prisoners in Afghanistan. Most of them were released there. Only about one tenth of them were taken to GTMO. That's not a sign of excessive paranoia.
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would a guy trained to build bombs carry?

Best to buy things that could be bought in any American strip mall, or Middle Eastern bazaar, one he arrived. Why risk triggering the suspicions of border guards, for something that can be bought once you arrive?

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to take a pretty good guess as to what a bomb-maker making time bombs would require. Sure, a watch might be handy. But press reports say GIs consider mechanical times, like you might find in a washer or dryer

Given the terrible bad judgement of Guantanamo analysts maybe I shouldn't say this, but guy who builds his bomb from local materials would want to have a soldering iron and voltmeter. Yet, even searching for guys carrying soldering irons and voltmeters is going to trigger way more false positives that useful leads. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why it's important to be able to question prisoners. They need to learn more about them.
I can only assume you're reacting to my comment about the watches that they might have "contributed them to their bomb fund." That was meant to be flippant.
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disproving hypotheses is just as important as proving them

Scientist know this. Why don't Guantanamo analysts? Why weren't gumshoes on the ground, checking the captive's alibis? Don't say the USA couldn't afford it, because Guantanamo has bene a terrible expense. The billion dollars it cost is just a fraction of its true cost. The lack of any sanity checks at Guantanamo totally polluted the pool of intelligence. No one should have any confidence whatsoever in intelligence flowing from Guantanamo. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I think they did ask the detainees' countries for information on these guys, and they did receive some assistance. Sending in detectives is difficult in Arab countries. They've received very little cooperation in the Khobar Towers investigation.
Considering that many of these countries claim to want their people back, it should be them sending in the gumshoes anyway.
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You called them graduates

You called them graduates of al Farouq, not alleged graduates of al Farouq. Guantanamo intelligence analysts made all the same mistkes as the analysts who helped legitimize the bogus claim that Saddam had WMD.

They changed every question mark into an exclamation point.

Every household mirror became a signalling mirror. Several of the captives faced the allegation that a search of their home found a "signalling mirror". These captives generally pointed out that the "signalling mirrors were simply ordinary mirrors used for personal grooming Every North American home has at least one mirror.

Since we know the quality of the American intelligence efforts, let's not compound their errors by repreating them. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. My comment didn't imply that any detainees had gone there who claimed not to have done so. Even if someone wishes to believe they're all innocent, it's a known fact that some of these did go to al Farouq. A few admit to it in the CSRTs, and it's a practical certainty some 9/11 hijackers went there.
Signal mirrors generally have a clear spot in the center that you can look through. It's possible that they used them only for grooming but that doesn't make them into ordinary mirrors.
Besides, there's little evidence that any of these guys ever did any grooming. :)
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari

So, why weren't the factors favoring his continued detention presented to him at his Combatant Status Review Tribunals?

Why? No reason offered. Since they weren't he couldn't try to refute them. This was typical. Most captives ARB factors were longer, and more detailed, than their CSRT allegations. I could believe a handful of captives might have had new "evidence" compiled between their CSRT and their ARB. But, I can't believe they found new evidence against ALL the men. How could captives refute allegations that they were never presented with? He can't. ARB hearings were not authorized to re-open whether the captives were enemy combatants. Geo Swan 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why they sometimes leave out the factors in the documents, but in his case you can see him responding to those allegations (page 31) so he must have seen them.
-- Randy2063 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'am a terrorist!

I'am a terrorist!, i have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.85.21 (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you switch to 24 hour mode?

That was what I came to this webpage for. The manufacturers website dosnt tell you either - there is no manual or faq for this model. Could anyone tell me and add it to the article please? Edit - I've just found that you press the right-hand button once. So simple.

In fact it would be nice to have a walk-through of everything you can do with this watch via its three buttons.

I bought this watch because it was the cheapest readily available watch I could find here in the UK (in other words, it was the cheapest watch in the Argos (retailer) catalogue). Perhaps this explains why so many middle-eastern people have it - they are poor by western standards, so they all buy the cheapest watch.

And, while I'm here, my watch has "DH" stamped on the back - I wonder what that stands for? 80.0.107.49 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More tech info

Further information from http://www.shockwatches.co.uk/showdetails.asp?id=635 quote: "LED: A light-emitting diode (LED) is used to illuminate the watch face. Stopwatch function (1/100 - 1HR): Elapsed time, split time and final time are measured with 1/100-sec accuracy. The watch can measure times of up to 1 hour. Daily Alarm, Hourly Time Signal: The daily alarm sounds each day at the time you set. The value indicates how many daily alarms are available. The hourly time signal causes the watch to beep every hour on the hour. Battery Indicator Display: An icon appears when it is time to change the battery. 7 Years - 1 Battery: One battery will supply your watch with the power it needs for about 7 years. Full Auto Calendar: Allowances are made automatically for months of different lengths, in case date corrections for leap years are required. 12/24-hour Timekeeping: Times can be displayed in either a 12-hour or 24-hour format. Water resistance classification (WR) to DIN 8310 i.e. ISO 2281: This model is water resistant to DIN 8310 / ISO 2281, and thus is resistant to minor splashing. Any greater water contact should be avoided. Strap Style: Band Case Material: Resin Strap Material: Resin Manufacturers Part No: F-91W-1XY"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.107.49 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)