Officials: New Taliban chief was once at Gitmo

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: RichardE
Killing a few innocent people would have been worth stopping people like the current Taliban leader from being released. How many innocent people have the Taliban killed since he came to power. Do you think they give a shit that you feel guilty? Probably not, they probably wonder why the weak is such a pussy for letting this guy go to keep killing them. But hey, it is not your woman and children being mutilated, raped and tortured right? No need to care.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Murder and rape and torture are wrong, and illegal. For everyone. Just because one group does it doesn't give us the right to do something equally bad ourselves.

Most normal people in this country are fine with going after terrorists. It's just that you can't break the law while doing it. Can you comprehend that?

Just because we don't subscribe to your "kill them all, let god sort them out" view doesn't mean we like terrorists.

They are not protected under US law.

Sorry I don`t subscribe to your I would rather let one criminal go who will kill innocents than accidentally keep one person who might not commit a crime later. Since these pêople are not innocent, they were sent here because they were caught committing terrorist activities.

Sorry your moralistic justifications for knowinglly allowing innocents to die doesn't wash with me.

Thank god you aren't a policeman. I guess you would be doing vigilante executions of people you "know" are guilty, but aren't getting arrested, right? And I'm sure you would be beating confessions out of everyone as well.

Terrorists don't scare me. The odds of getting injured by a terrorist are at like " win the mega lottery" type numbers. I don't want it to happen, but the odss are really low. I have a lot higher risk to get cancer, get in a car accident, then get killed by a terrorist. On the other hand, people like you scare me. You are the threat to this country, not them.

People like you are willing to ignore the laws of this country, and throw them out the window because you are scared, and would rather kill a bunch of people hoping that some might be guilty. You are afraid, and want to feel better by inflicting suffering on others, to make yourself feel strong.

A bunch of people like you get scared after 9/11, start thinking emotionally, and all of a sudden, torture is a patriotic act, wiretapping is a good thing, and questioning our President is considered treason and un-American. Now there is no such thing as a "alleged terrorist", any allegations are 100% taken as proof, not trial needed. Just line them up and mow them down. Yup, that's why we fought a war for independence many years ago. Sounds a lot lke the USSR, you only needed one anonymous person to make something up, and away you go to the gulag, no proof needed. Sound familiar?

Sorry, but you are a disgusting human being for wanting to just select large numbers of people and kill them on the grounds that some *might* be guilty. Just be glad that we don't practice what you preach, because you would quickly realize the error of your ways.

I'm done with you. There is no point discussing these things when you have such a demented viewpoint that rational, logical discussions are impossible.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

I didn't say I don't have a position, but all you're doing now is conveniently trying to put the onus on me after I called you out for wanting to MURDER imprisoned people who have yet to proven guilty. Sorry, not letting you off the hook

Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

EDIT: cutting down the quote-fest.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Of those 500+, 90% haven't done anything against us since they were released.

Correction: 500+ haven't been caught doing anything since they were released.

Correction: Winnar111 hasn't been caught doing anything against the US.

See what I did? My statement is 100% valid just like yours. And means it absolutely nothing, just like your post.

Get it yet? Does Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

Your statement is valid. If Winnar did anything to arouse suspicion of terrorist activities he would deserve whatever is coming to him, same for me, same for you, same for everyone.

Arose suspicion is all that is required to be locked up for years and tortured? Wow, you really are a worthless human being.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Awww, don't like the reputation you've earned? Sorry, your fault.

Get a life. :laugh:

So you never answered the question: So you support locking up everyone (knowing that 90% of all released prisoners haven't done anything since being released) forever, and thus knowing you are locking up wrongly innocent people?

Please answer the question.

They should be disposed of within the prison. They are in there for a reason.

Wow, you are one sick fuck.

No the sick fucks are these people blowing up children going to school or woman shopping. I am glad to see though that you care more about the prisoners than ensuring the sick fuck activities of killing innocents stops. Good to see where you stand on this issue. Here, you are the sick fuck, the one who would rather get some feel goods from releasing someone from a prison because the issue is close to home, but ignoring what that person will potentially do when he returns. You think the US goes "look, an Arab get him!" and incurs the cost of sending every Arab they find to Gitmo? If you do, you are an idiot, we would have prisonS with populations of millions. They are in there for a reason.

Talk about terrible logic... I never said I care more about the prisoners than innocent lives. Don't dare accuse me of that bullshit you swine.

You don't have to say it, your pathetic "let them go they are innocent wahhh" says enough. You didn't even bother thinking this through, you just want to take a stance for some feel good warm fuzzies. You care more about these fucks than the acts they committed. Do you honestly think they were just picked up randomly out of a coffee shop and shipped over? They were in the process of terrorist activities or actively participating in activities and for reason didn't get a bullet for there troubles. So yeah, I will accuse you of that since that is what you are saying you sick fuck.

Please quote me where I said "let them go they are inncoent wahhh." I'll be waiting... or are you just going to throw up ANOTHER strawman?

Sorry, not going along with your "just kill them" attitude is not equivalent to caring more about them than innocents.

I already states that you didn't say it explicable. Hell you assumed when I said disposed I meant kill, I could just mean locked up indefinably or shipped to an island. Pushing strawmen now? I understand the fact you don't want to face the consequences of your bleeding heart bullshiot feel good ideas but the consequences are real. You let some fucker go because you cry a little inside, will you shed tears when he helps kill innocents?

Hell knowing you fucks, you would probably turn around and blame the Administration for pushing him to do it. Keep trying to deny with your `but I never explicitly said verbatim these words. Pathetic.

So yeah, you are a sick fuck, I mean we can release them all and get more Taliban leaders that kill innocents in Afghanistan. As long as it makes you guys feel warm fuzzies right?

You seem to have some kind of paranoia or "you're with us or against us" type of complex... there's no point in arguing with you. All I did was show disdain towards your idea that we should be murdering people in secret prisions, but somehow you arrive at the conculsion that I side with terrorists over innocents. I'm not sure why you bother engaging in discussions with people when you just decide to read whatever you want to see. At this point, you're nothing more than a troll I'm afraid.

You actively want to release people at Gitmo knowing full well they are there for specific reasons. Your argument itself portrays you as taking the side of these terrorists in some moralistic endeavor to uphold some abstract idea of the basis of US law as more important than the repercussions of releasing these people.

I am not paranoid, you are in denial about the consequences of your argument.

Once again, I never said I actively want to release people at Gitmo... your strawman arguments are growing tiresome. If you can't make a reasonable argument, stop posting.

Oh you don't? Than please tell me what it is you want to do.

All I said was that murdering people who haven't been tried is a sick thing to do. The rest of this rambling above is all you buddy.

So you don't have a position on it at all? You don't want to actively release people, so you must have a position since you know what you do not want to do. So please, share with us, what would you do with these prisoners. Since I can be assured by your stance innocent people would not die, I am intrigued.

I didn't say I don't have a position, but all you're doing now is conveniently trying to put the onus on me after I called you out for wanting to MURDER imprisoned people who have yet to proven guilty. Sorry, not letting you off the hook

Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't accuse someone of saying something they never said, and then say that's what they mean until they say otherwise. You're the king of logical fallacies, aren't you?

EDIT: cutting down the quotes yet again.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: RichardE
Killing a few innocent people would have been worth stopping people like the current Taliban leader from being released. How many innocent people have the Taliban killed since he came to power. Do you think they give a shit that you feel guilty? Probably not, they probably wonder why the weak is such a pussy for letting this guy go to keep killing them. But hey, it is not your woman and children being mutilated, raped and tortured right? No need to care.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Murder and rape and torture are wrong, and illegal. For everyone. Just because one group does it doesn't give us the right to do something equally bad ourselves.

Most normal people in this country are fine with going after terrorists. It's just that you can't break the law while doing it. Can you comprehend that?

Just because we don't subscribe to your "kill them all, let god sort them out" view doesn't mean we like terrorists.

They are not protected under US law.

Sorry I don`t subscribe to your I would rather let one criminal go who will kill innocents than accidentally keep one person who might not commit a crime later. Since these pêople are not innocent, they were sent here because they were caught committing terrorist activities.

Sorry your moralistic justifications for knowinglly allowing innocents to die doesn't wash with me.

Thank god you aren't a policeman. I guess you would be doing vigilante executions of people you "know" are guilty, but aren't getting arrested, right? And I'm sure you would be beating confessions out of everyone as well.

Terrorists don't scare me. The odds of getting injured by a terrorist are at like " win the mega lottery" type numbers. I don't want it to happen, but the odss are really low. I have a lot higher risk to get cancer, get in a car accident, then get killed by a terrorist. On the other hand, people like you scare me. You are the threat to this country, not them.

People like you are willing to ignore the laws of this country, and throw them out the window because you are scared, and would rather kill a bunch of people hoping that some might be guilty. You are afraid, and want to feel better by inflicting suffering on others, to make yourself feel strong.

A bunch of people like you get scared after 9/11, start thinking emotionally, and all of a sudden, torture is a patriotic act, wiretapping is a good thing, and questioning our President is considered treason and un-American. Now there is no such thing as a "alleged terrorist", any allegations are 100% taken as proof, not trial needed. Just line them up and mow them down. Yup, that's why we fought a war for independence many years ago. Sounds a lot lke the USSR, you only needed one anonymous person to make something up, and away you go to the gulag, no proof needed. Sound familiar?

Sorry, but you are a disgusting human being for wanting to just select large numbers of people and kill them on the grounds that some *might* be guilty. Just be glad that we don't practice what you preach, because you would quickly realize the error of your ways.

I'm done with you. There is no point discussing these things when you have such a demented viewpoint that rational, logical discussions are impossible.

You are pathetic.

Of course you wouldn't do that to US citizens. They are protected under US law and would of course get all the benefits of that. Once you engage in terrorist activities though you lose the rights to that protection as you are not engaged in a war.

Nice attempt though at pulling the post from taking people off a battlefield to people off US city streets. Your argument is pathetic.


As well your attempt at a "terrorizing" state is equally pathetic since even today people are accused of terrorist activities and are actively investigated before a decision is made. I am pretty sure if every Arab who was accused of something in the states, Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe went to Gitmo it would be a prison the size of cuba entirely. Again your argument is pathetic because it has no real world application besides a "what if".

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Of those 500+, 90% haven't done anything against us since they were released.

Correction: 500+ haven't been caught doing anything since they were released.

Correction: Winnar111 hasn't been caught doing anything against the US.

See what I did? My statement is 100% valid just like yours. And means it absolutely nothing, just like your post.

Get it yet? Does Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

Your statement is valid. If Winnar did anything to arouse suspicion of terrorist activities he would deserve whatever is coming to him, same for me, same for you, same for everyone.

Arose suspicion is all that is required to be locked up for years and tortured? Wow, you really are a worthless human being.

We would be properly investigated before anything proceeded, if such a investigation turned up valid reason than yes. Chances are it would not though, since if the administration was so intent on this we would have a few million 'suspects" over in Cuba at the moment. Again, more "what if" bullshit.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't accuse someone of saying something they never said, and then say that's what they mean until they say otherwise. You're the king of logical fallacies, aren't you?

EDIT: cutting down the quotes yet again.

It is how it works, especially when you evade actually making a stance. Since you refuse too I will liberally interpret your stance from your arguments. If I am wrong feel free to show me, until than I will accuse you liberally of taking a stance of preferring deaths of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan over some injustice in a prison of scum in Cuba.

Too bad.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Thank god it's NOT up to you, you neanderthal PoS. And don't bother taking solace in what Obama thinks of Gitmo, or did you forget that he's closing it within the year?

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

Dude, the irony level is through the roof with you. You're the one on some homocidal moralistic emotional crusade. Wipe the spittle off your screen and stop posting for fscks sake.

:roll:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't accuse someone of saying something they never said, and then say that's what they mean until they say otherwise. You're the king of logical fallacies, aren't you?

EDIT: cutting down the quotes yet again.

It is how it works, especially when you evade actually making a stance. Since you refuse too I will liberally interpret your stance from your arguments. If I am wrong feel free to show me, until than I will accuse you liberally of taking a stance of preferring deaths of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan over some injustice in a prison of scum in Cuba.

Too bad.

It is pretty sad that you run around making accusations at people just because they don't agree with murdering detainees. It's pretty clear that you think anyone who doesn't agree with that stance is a terrorist lover and hates innocent people, since I never said anything else to make you think otherwise. Since you can't have a civil conversation without distorting other people's words, please stop responding to my posts.

 

[NeoV]

A few thoughts:

Bush was president when this guy was released, not Obama.

Should we really be surprised that people that were locked up in Gitmo for multiple years are pissed off at us upon their release?

It's funny that the Constitution is the end-all argument for pro-gun advocates, but they toss it out the window when it comes to the Gitmo discussion.

I'm not sure what to do with Gitmo and places like it, but you can't just toss people in there, not charge them with anything, and still try to claim the moral high-ground

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: RichardE
Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Thank god it's NOT up to you, you neanderthal PoS. And don't bother taking solace in what Obama thinks of Gitmo, or did you forget that he's closing it within the year?

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

Dude, the irony level is through the roof with you. You're the one on some homocidal moralistic emotional crusade. Wipe the spittle off your screen and stop posting for fscks sake.

:roll:

If Obama closes Gitmo in a year I would be surprised. It is funny all the actions of the Bush admin are still continuing to this day yet you are all pacified with "promises" :laugh:


Homocidal moralistic emotional crusade, that is an interesting term. What made you come up with that one? I am not advocating killing people who don't deserve it yet I am the sick fuck? The guy in jail who raped a child and mother infront of the husband derserves life? What about the guy who conned hundreds of thousands of people out of a lifetime of hard work to make a quick buck? These people add more to society than what society would lose by a well placed bullet? The guy who is in Iraq and Afghanistain working towards killing innocent people and destabilizing even more a country that is attempting to rebuild is contibuting to society in any meaningful way and should be released?

Sorry, your defense of this is what is emotional bullshit. If you can come up with a logical reason on why the death penalty should not be more widely used I would love to hear it. My argument is pure logic.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't accuse someone of saying something they never said, and then say that's what they mean until they say otherwise. You're the king of logical fallacies, aren't you?

EDIT: cutting down the quotes yet again.

It is how it works, especially when you evade actually making a stance. Since you refuse too I will liberally interpret your stance from your arguments. If I am wrong feel free to show me, until than I will accuse you liberally of taking a stance of preferring deaths of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan over some injustice in a prison of scum in Cuba.

Too bad.

It is pretty sad that you run around making accusations at people just because they don't agree with murdering detainees. It's pretty clear that you think anyone who doesn't agree with that stance is a terrorist lover and hates innocent people, since I never said anything else to make you think otherwise. Since you can't have a civil conversation without distorting other people's words, please stop responding to my posts.

Still no clarification on your stance huh? I didn't think so, you came off a a pretty ideologically shallow individual with your first post. It just continues to here. I don't even know if you agree with me or not since you refuse to disclose your stance on the subject of Gitmo, its like some closely held secret with you :laugh: Hell you might have some ingenious idea that would solve both sides of the issue. Or you might have no idea at all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Sorry, your defense of this is what is emotional bullshit. If you can come up with a logical reason on why the death penalty should not be more widely used I would love to hear it. My argument is pure logic.

The moment you accidentally kill an innocent man is the same moment you become a murderous piece of garbage, just like the people you advocate using the death penalty upon. I suppose congratulations are in order. How does it feel stooping to the same level as terrorists and murderers? Pretty good, huh?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: RichardE
Sorry, your defense of this is what is emotional bullshit. If you can come up with a logical reason on why the death penalty should not be more widely used I would love to hear it. My argument is pure logic.

The moment you accidentally kill an innocent man is the same moment you become a murderous piece of garbage, just like the people you advocate using the death penalty upon. I suppose congratulations are in order. How does it feel stooping to the same level as terrorists and murderers? Pretty good, huh?

I would rather have to sacrifice my morals and ethics and take the guilt of a mistake here and there for the overall good, than to let the overall good go to shit. You could ask the same question of a soldier now couldn't you? Perhaps we should do away with the army since killing people in battle is stooping to the "terrorists" level.

Killing an innocent man would be a tragic and emotionally costly mistake and would be nothing but a black mark on society, due to this great care should be taken to ensure only guilty Americans are put to death for a wide range of different crimes.

As for Gitmo, they are enemy combatants who should not be given the liberty of protection under US law.


I will say though, your argument was nothing but emotionally based on what ifs and stooping to there level, I still await a logical argument against the death penalty.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why are we talking about me? I'm a civilian living in new jersey, not a flag burning jihadist named mohammed who hates the United States.

But you could be a sleeper agent. Can you prove you aren't? Otherwise, you *might* be terrorist, just like you think everyone in Gitmo *might* be a terrorist. What's the diff?

It's exactly what you think

Could be according to who? We have elected officials, professionals, a new wiretapping program, and a load of other intelligence gathering capabilities to make that determination.

No we don't. Your buddy Bush decided back in 2003 that he had unilateral power to lock up any US citizen forever with no proof or trial. Remember Jose Padilla? It took 4 years of court challenges to get him a trial. That meant that we could lock you up for no reason at all.

You are ready, without even knowing who is in Gitmo, to lock them up just in case. You know nothing about them, and it isn't stopping you from assuming that they should be locked up.

You don't think the gov could have made mistakes? You've never heard of the stories of innocent men released from our US prisons after being convicted wrongly? But somehow, everyone in Gitmo is magically 100% guilty? You are an idiot.

Jose Padilla was not a mistake. He deserved exactly what he got.

 

[umbrella39]

LOL and you guys wonder why the real republicans want you to leave the party.

 

[Desturel]

Pardon me for being confused, but didn't we already go over this before? Or is this a different guy that was released in 2007?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't accuse someone of saying something they never said, and then say that's what they mean until they say otherwise. You're the king of logical fallacies, aren't you?

EDIT: cutting down the quotes yet again.

It is how it works, especially when you evade actually making a stance. Since you refuse too I will liberally interpret your stance from your arguments. If I am wrong feel free to show me, until than I will accuse you liberally of taking a stance of preferring deaths of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan over some injustice in a prison of scum in Cuba.

Too bad.

It is pretty sad that you run around making accusations at people just because they don't agree with murdering detainees. It's pretty clear that you think anyone who doesn't agree with that stance is a terrorist lover and hates innocent people, since I never said anything else to make you think otherwise. Since you can't have a civil conversation without distorting other people's words, please stop responding to my posts.

Still no clarification on your stance huh? I didn't think so, you came off a a pretty ideologically shallow individual with your first post. It just continues to here. I don't even know if you agree with me or not since you refuse to disclose your stance on the subject of Gitmo, its like some closely held secret with you :laugh: Hell you might have some ingenious idea that would solve both sides of the issue. Or you might have no idea at all.

Why do I have to answer to you? In case you haven't been reading, I actually did make a stance - people locked up in secret prisons who haven't been tried and convicted of anything should not be murdered. Seems pretty clear to me. I can't believe you are advocating murder and then call me ideologically shallow.

The reason I refuse to be clear with you is that you are just diverting conversation with your "you agree with me or your love terrorists" bullshit.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Remember folks, you're either with the Taliban, or you're against it.

It seems many people don't seem to know a whole lot about the so called enemy combatants.

Many of them were captured by the Northern Alliance and turned over to us.

But who cares about details when talking about bogeymen.

S&M

 

[Lemon law]

It seems to me that closing Gitmo is just a side issue.

The real issue is the arbitrary arrest and semi infinite detention of people we have no real evidence against. Which is wrong anywhere in the world.

But correct in the mind of someone like Dick Cheney, who took away from watergate the lesson that one could do the crime and not pay the penalty, if the normal legal processes can be subverted.

And in that sense, Gitmo is the perfect place to hold people in infinite detention without the bother of having an iota of evidence. (1) Castro, be it Fidel, Raul, or whomever rules in future can't say anything because GITMO is, by previous treaty, a US Naval base and hence belongs to the US. (2) At the same time, GWB&co. basically argued its beyond the reach of US law. And for far too long, too many in our court system bought that defective argument. A defective argument that fails to hold now. (3) That GWB&co knew no other government, no matter how morally bankrupt, could long term, resist the international outcries against those type abuses of human rights. (4) That GWB&co have declared a war against terrorism, an idea with a 6000 year history, and something that has not ever gone away in those 6000 years, and never will. So GWB&co. makes it into a war of infinite duration where the prisoner of war argument cannot apply.

But get a clue, the American people, these defective arguments may fool us, but it does not fool anyone else in the world. And when international outrage ends up packing Al-Quida recruiting stations all over the world, that is the real trade off we face. A TRADE OFF WE ARE ALREADY LOSING BADLY AT.

Yup, even by our own NIE assessment, we are creating more terrorists faster than we can kill or JAIL them. And when the majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan want us gone, we can't exactly jail 25 million Iraqis and 31 million Afghans.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jman19

So then why were you pointing fingers at me, accusing me of saying things I wasn't saying after I pointed out that your behavior sickens me? You can't even form a rational argument. Don't accuse others of saying things they've never said, ok?

Because you are currently until you state otherwise taking a position that would result in the deaths of innocents due your perceived notion that we release "innocent" people (who were picked up in the act of terrorist activities).

You miss that the first time I stated it?

So as I asked before, what would you do with them?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't accuse someone of saying something they never said, and then say that's what they mean until they say otherwise. You're the king of logical fallacies, aren't you?

EDIT: cutting down the quotes yet again.

It is how it works, especially when you evade actually making a stance. Since you refuse too I will liberally interpret your stance from your arguments. If I am wrong feel free to show me, until than I will accuse you liberally of taking a stance of preferring deaths of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan over some injustice in a prison of scum in Cuba.

Too bad.

It is pretty sad that you run around making accusations at people just because they don't agree with murdering detainees. It's pretty clear that you think anyone who doesn't agree with that stance is a terrorist lover and hates innocent people, since I never said anything else to make you think otherwise. Since you can't have a civil conversation without distorting other people's words, please stop responding to my posts.

Still no clarification on your stance huh? I didn't think so, you came off a a pretty ideologically shallow individual with your first post. It just continues to here. I don't even know if you agree with me or not since you refuse to disclose your stance on the subject of Gitmo, its like some closely held secret with you :laugh: Hell you might have some ingenious idea that would solve both sides of the issue. Or you might have no idea at all.

Why do I have to answer to you? In case you haven't been reading, I actually did make a stance - people locked up in secret prisons who haven't been tried and convicted of anything should not be murdered. Seems pretty clear to me. I can't believe you are advocating murder and then call me ideologically shallow.

The reason I refuse to be clear with you is that you are just diverting conversation with your "you agree with me or your love terrorists" bullshit.

That is a pretty long response for still trying to "get me" for something I actively admit too :laugh: . Did I take the wind out of your sails when I didn't deny it?

You are about as deep as the residue of water on my windshield in the morning, it feels like I'm arguing with a 15 year old. Wahhh your wrong "well why?" "I don't need to tell you!!!!" I't pathetic, are you 15?

We already discussed my views, it is being actively discussed in the topic still, I will easily discuss my views of pro wide based death penalty if you want without an issue, unlike you I am not ashamed of my views. So with that said and the dismissal of your pathetic attempts to try and paint me as denying my intent, opinions and views, what is your position?

Btw, for someone accusing me of "strawmen" I would love for you to point out where I stated "you agree with me or your love terrorists" especially since you put them in quotations (representing you are quoting me) or are you now doing the same thing you state is wrong? :laugh: You are a riot.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It seems to me that closing Gitmo is just a side issue.

The real issue is the arbitrary arrest and semi infinite detention of people we have no real evidence against. Which is wrong anywhere in the world.

But correct in the mind of someone like Dick Cheney, who took away from watergate the lesson that one could do the crime and not pay the penalty, if the normal legal processes can be subverted.

And in that sense, Gitmo is the perfect place to hold people in infinite detention without the bother of having an iota of evidence. (1) Castro, be it Fidel, Raul, or whomever rules in future can't say anything because GITMO is, by previous treaty, a US Naval base and hence belongs to the US. (2) At the same time, GWB&co. basically argued its beyond the reach of US law. And for far too long, too many in our court system bought that defective argument. A defective argument that fails to hold now. (3) That GWB&co knew no other government, no matter how morally bankrupt, could long term, resist the international outcries against those type abuses of human rights. (4) That GWB&co have declared a war against terrorism, an idea with a 6000 year history, and something that has not ever gone away in those 6000 years, and never will. So GWB&co. makes it into a war of infinite duration where the prisoner of war argument cannot apply.

But get a clue, the American people, these defective arguments may fool us, but it does not fool anyone else in the world. And when international outrage ends up packing Al-Quida recruiting stations all over the world, that is the real trade off we face. A TRADE OFF WE ARE ALREADY LOSING BADLY AT.

Yup, even by our own NIE assessment, we are creating more terrorists faster than we can kill or JAIL them. And when the majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan want us gone, we can't exactly jail 25 million Iraqis and 31 million Afghans.

Do you have that NIE assessment? Never seen it. The rest of your points are ideologically driven and useless to respond too, but the NIE assessment would be interesting.

 

[Lemon law]

RichardE asks do I have that NIE. Which is a fair enough question. And very easily answered by a google search.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

Is just one of many first page google hits. More than a five minute search could dredge up far more.

What rock have you been hiding under RichardE if you are not aware of those NIE assessments? Its been big public news for years now. And because the NIE is compiled by various US intelligence
agencies, it was beyond the capacity of GWB&co to censor.

For reasons of Al-Quida incompetence, Al-Quida has used the wrong tactics in Iraq and the mid-east, but everywhere else, its recruiting has increased its numbers and strength.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
RichardE asks do I have that NIE. Which is a fair enough question. And very easily answered by a google search.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

Is just one of many first page google hits. More than a five minute search could dredge up far more.

What rock have you been hiding under RichardE if you are not aware of those NIE assessments? Its been big public news for years now. And because the NIE is compiled by various US intelligence
agencies, it was beyond the capacity of GWB&co to censor.

For reasons of Al-Quida incompetence, Al-Quida has used the wrong tactics in Iraq and the mid-east, but everywhere else, its recruiting has increased its numbers and strength.

I simply asked for it Lemon, calm down buddy. Thanks for it. I do notice this NIS assessment is almost 2 years old. Anything more up to date than that? During that time we were also seeing extreme s violence in Iraq between different sects which has also subsided with the Iraq people actually attaking AQ. We also see individuals in Pakistain attacking AQ as well, so seems the information in this article is dated.

Anything more up to date?