US may detain terror suspects for years

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: jjones
Fvck em. Let them rot in Gitmo.

Even the ones who might not be guilty?

I'm wondering if because of the fact that jjones popped in here, stated a single expletive and somewhat derogatory remark, and then refused to elaborate, if he fits the definition of a certain kind of internet poster and doesn't deserve to have any attention paid to him.

Everyone gave their opinions; I gave mine. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer to you, or elaborate, or be baited into further "discussion".

In other words, piss off.

Edit: BTW, I would have been perfectly content if you did not pay any attention to me. So, piss off again.

 

[Witling]

Barbarian (that seems a lot nicer than calling you "Gonad." The whole name "Gonad the Barbarian" is clever, but just "Gonad" doesn't seem to cut it.) You said 'This war on terror has fast become less a fight of good vs. evil and more so one of us vs. everyone else." I can support the general thought.

I mean this respectfully and am not looking for you to defend your beliefs. One of the differences between the people who supported the war and the people who didn't was their assessment of the outcome. I talk with deeply conservative friends at work, and their almost uniform response is, "Yeah, but if XXX hadn't happened and YYY hadn't done such, it would have worked." Age has it's limitation and benefits. One of the benefits is that you know that XXX and YYY will always be there. In English, we even have a name for this. Murphy's Law. Also, without thinking about Iraq specifically, here's a thought problem for you. Do national governments operate on the principal of good and evil?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

First off I think I need to clarify that I don't equate Iraq with the war on terror. It was fear-mongering on G.W.'s part to 'liberate' Iraq under that guise and it's one of the reasons I loathe the man. As far as national governments operating on the principal of good and evil, I think they do in a sense if we can agree that preserving the life and liberty of its citizens as 'good' and oppressing and subjugating them as 'evil.' But the war on terror is less about conflicting government ideals as it is conflicting cultural ones. Hence another reason I think marching into Iraq was foolish. We are feeding that culture with the very thing that fuels their hatred, US occupation of Muslim lands and forcing them to live a way that they have not chosen to do so by themselves. You can't force freedom on those who don't want it, it goes against the very definition of being free. Bush had a chance to keep this war on terror parallel with a fight of good vs. evil - the free world vs. those that would seek to kill its citizens. But he has muddied that to the point where the two seem to be perpindicular, and I think the man has done more in his actions to damage the free world than help it. He's done more than the terrorists could have achieved themselves through his own ambition and short-sightedness. Terrorists can only kill people people, Bush has cracked the very foundation of our freedom by making this country less free, hurting relations between nations of the free world, and twisting truth to suit his own personal goals.

Oh, and GTB would fine.

 

[Witling]

GTB, I couldn't have said it better myself. I (and I think most reasonable people) believe that striking civilian populations is almost always wrong. And, among those doing the striking, I include Israelis and Palestinians -- but that's another thread.