Ex-Gitmo detainee killed in Syria

[Drummond]

Any Leftie convinced (.. or wanting to convince others) that the incarceration of the 'detainees' at Gitmo is unwarranted, that they're 'innocents' who 'get a raw deal' should look to this story and THINK AGAIN ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428119/Terrorist-freed-Guantanamo-Bay-killed-fighting-Al-Qaeda-Syria.html


A former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who fought against British and US forces in Afghanistan has been killed while fighting for Al Qaeda in Syria.

Mohammed Al Alami was released from the top-security detention centre in 2006 after convincing officials that he was no longer a threat to the West.

The 37-year-old, who spent four years in custody, claimed he confessed to being a terrorist only after being beaten and threatened with death.

But it has now been revealed that he was killed last month while fighting for Al Nusra Front, one of the most violent and ruthless Islamic groups in Syria.

A video posted on YouTube last week showed a funeral in which Alami is praised by a rebel leader for enduring ‘the prison of the Americans in Guantanamo... where he did not reform or change’.

The disclosure will further fuel concerns that Britain and the United States should not become embroiled in Syria’s civil war, in which Al Qaeda-affiliated groups are playing an increasingly prominent role, with hundreds of rebel fighters reportedly defecting to them.

Western intelligence agencies including MI6 and the CIA fear that any weapons sent to bring down the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad could used to attack the West in the future.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Any Leftie convinced (.. or wanting to convince others) that the incarceration of the 'detainees' at Gitmo is unwarranted, that they're 'innocents' who 'get a raw deal' should look to this story and THINK AGAIN ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428119/Terrorist-freed-Guantanamo-Bay-killed-fighting-Al-Qaeda-Syria.html




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_t o_have_returned_to_terrorism On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12] All those people killed by these returned fighters are the victims of those that pressured U.S. authorities to release the ffing animals. I hope that all such people have a pox placed upon their miserable deluded heads .Tyr

[aboutime]

All those people killed by these returned fighters are the victims of those that pressured U.S. authorities to release the ffing animals. I hope that all such people have a pox placed upon their miserable deluded heads .Tyr

I am heartbroken to hear this news. Considering all the TAX PAYER DOLLARS wasted on keeping the scumbag at Gitmo for so long, and our return on his freedom is now. SPREAD ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Otherwise. Good. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[fj1200]

Any Leftie convinced (.. or wanting to convince others) that the incarceration of the 'detainees' at Gitmo is unwarranted, that they're 'innocents' who 'get a raw deal' should look to this story and THINK AGAIN ....

For what crime should he have been indefinitely detained?

[aboutime]

For what crime should he have been indefinitely detained?


Thinking like Obama, trying to destroy America, and killing Americans. But then. You don't want to hear such things. Do ya?

[Drummond]

For what crime should he have been indefinitely detained?

... er'm ... TERRORISM ? Does that make ANY sense to you, Fj ???

Or - do you think that captured terrorists are safe to have walking the streets ? Perhaps, if Gitmo was located just a mile down the road from you, and your authorities let all the detainees loose, you'd want to hold a party for them, and welcome them into your neighbourhood ??

Besides, you can't argue this one out and hope to win such a debate, so I wonder why you even bothered with your post ? WE KNOW WHAT RELEASING HIM RESULTED IN !!

When in Gitmo, he apparently was highly resistant to admitting he was a terrorist. As I understand it, he ultimately DID, but subsequently recanted, claiming coercion. And .. as we know, some bright spark (probably a bleeding heart Liberal type ?) saw to it that he was viewed as 'safe to release'.

Which, as is now proved, HE WAS NOT. IT WAS A VERY BAD DECISION.

So, Fj, apart from just wanting to argue for the sake of it, what's your point ? That the authority which took the decision to release this terrorist WAS RIGHT TO ?? Because we know what releasing him has led to !!

[Larrymc]

I am heartbroken to hear this news. Considering all the TAX PAYER DOLLARS wasted on keeping the scumbag at Gitmo for so long, and our return on his freedom is now. SPREAD ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Otherwise. Good. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.Wasted Tax Payer Dollars concerns me, I think if they do not warrant the death penalty, we should collect all the data we can on them, and send them back where they came from, unless they or a terrorist specialist of some sort. with a new policy that calls for instant Death Penalty for second offense. It might sound crazy because they are sure to do it again, but holding them will not save lives, just like this guy was part of a group, that would have attacked anyway.

[fj1200]

... er'm ... TERRORISM ? Does that make ANY sense to you, Fj ???

Or - do you think that captured terrorists are safe to have walking the streets ? Perhaps, if Gitmo was located just a mile down the road from you, and your authorities let all the detainees loose, you'd want to hold a party for them, and welcome them into your neighbourhood ??

Besides, you can't argue this one out and hope to win such a debate, so I wonder why you even bothered with your post ? WE KNOW WHAT RELEASING HIM RESULTED IN !!

When in Gitmo, he apparently was highly resistant to admitting he was a terrorist. As I understand it, he ultimately DID, but subsequently recanted, claiming coercion. And .. as we know, some bright spark (probably a bleeding heart Liberal type ?) saw to it that he was viewed as 'safe to release'.

Which, as is now proved, HE WAS NOT. IT WAS A VERY BAD DECISION.

So, Fj, apart from just wanting to argue for the sake of it, what's your point ? That the authority which took the decision to release this terrorist WAS RIGHT TO ?? Because we know what releasing him has led to !!

So you have the benefit of knowing all future "crime" that is going to occur? That would seem to be the only way that you're able to "win" any sort of debate. Nevertheless, congratulations on hitting all the Aack! Terrorists! :headasplode: talking points.

So back to the original question; can we get a listing of his crimes that justifies indefinite detainment?

[fj1200]

Wasted Tax Payer Dollars concerns me, I think if they do not warrant the death penalty, we should collect all the data we can on them, and send them back where they came from, unless they or a terrorist specialist of some sort. with a new policy that calls for instant Death Penalty for second offense. It might sound crazy because they are sure to do it again, but holding them will not save lives, just like this guy was part of a group, that would have attacked anyway.

Clearly we need some sort of standard by which to detain especially indefinitely. Maybe the CIA has some sort of tag-and-release program. ;)

[aboutime]

Wasted Tax Payer Dollars concerns me, I think if they do not warrant the death penalty, we should collect all the data we can on them, and send them back where they came from, unless they or a terrorist specialist of some sort. with a new policy that calls for instant Death Penalty for second offense. It might sound crazy because they are sure to do it again, but holding them will not save lives, just like this guy was part of a group, that would have attacked anyway.


Larrymc. That's what they hope will be done. And, when it is (sending them back where they came from), they become terrorists again.

I think an investment in bullets is much cheaper than keeping them happy in Gitmo with a New Soccer field, Cable TV, and Gourmet meals.

[Drummond]

So you have the benefit of knowing all future "crime" that is going to occur? That would seem to be the only way that you're able to "win" any sort of debate. Nevertheless, congratulations on hitting all the Aack! Terrorists! :headasplode: talking points.

So back to the original question; can we get a listing of his crimes that justifies indefinite detainment?

Ah, so your favoured approach is to give them as much benefit of the doubt as you can muster ?

That you're even debating this is ridiculous. You KNOW that releasing them automatically risks the future deaths of innocents. WHY would you create that scenario, when it's easily averted ??

Tell me, are you someone who'd release all incarcerated murderers, because you 'can't know what future crime they might commit' ? Why ever NOT do JUST THAT .. since that's your case for releasing Gitmo terrorists !!!! Why not extend that to questioning why you lock them up in the first place !!! Why not just have a system where a murderer says 'sorry' for his crime, then just gets released afterwards ??????

CAN YOU REALLY NOT SEE THE EXTREME INSANITY OF YOUR APPROACH ???

No, Fj. I think the truth here is that you're purposefully taking a pro-terrorist line - I can make no better sense of your argument than that. Typical - AND IT IS - Leftie thinking.

[aboutime]

Ah, so your favoured approach is to give them as much benefit of the doubt as you can muster ?

That you're even debating this is ridiculous. You KNOW that releasing them automatically risks the future deaths of innocents. WHY would you create that scenario, when it's easily averted ??

Tell me, are you someone who'd release all incarcerated murderers, because you 'can't know what future crime they might commit' ? Why ever NOT do JUST THAT .. since that's your case for releasing Gitmo terrorists !!!! Why not extend that to questioning why you lock them up in the first place !!! Why not just have a system where a murderer says 'sorry' for his crime, then just gets released afterwards ??????

CAN YOU REALLY NOT SEE THE EXTREME INSANITY OF YOUR APPROACH ???

No, Fj. I think the truth here is that you're purposefully taking a pro-terrorist line - I can make no better sense of your argument than that. Typical - AND IT IS - Leftie thinking.



Sir Drummond. As you can see by the response of fj. There is never any need to respond, or answer any such questions posed by the defenders of those who wish to provide Full Constitutional protections to those who are NOT citizens, and are destined by their religious beliefs to KILL Westerners, or Americans.
In fact. fj actually sounds like a spokesperson for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid faction of the Muslim Brotherhood here in America.
Just listen to them, and pay attention to their deep seated hatred...even for members of their own nation.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. As you can see by the response of fj. There is never any need to respond, or answer any such questions posed by the defenders of those who wish to provide Full Constitutional protections to those who are NOT citizens, and are destined by their religious beliefs to KILL Westerners, or Americans.
In fact. fj actually sounds like a spokesperson for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid faction of the Muslim Brotherhood here in America.
Just listen to them, and pay attention to their deep seated hatred...even for members of their own nation.

Well said.

Fj, as I've said before, argues like a Leftie. He resists that label, though still works hard to earn it, nonetheless.

There's no greater an appeaser, or apologist, or defender, of Muslims outside the Muslim world than a Leftie. Far better THAT course, to them, than exercising patriotic loyalty.

[aboutime]

Well said.

Fj, as I've said before, argues like a Leftie. He resists that label, though still works hard to earn it, nonetheless.

There's no greater an appeaser, or apologist, or defender, of Muslims outside the Muslim world than a Leftie. Far better THAT course, to them, than exercising patriotic loyalty.


Thank you. And, we can take that a step further. At least, in my opinion, based on personal experience. Take note how those who pretend to be the Defenders of their limited interpretation of our Constitution...nearly always seem to use the word PATRIOT, or PATRIOTIC...almost like a swear word, or even as much as the Dastardly 'N' word when they disagree with people like me. If I exercise my patriotism, or loyalty...while at the same time being obviously against Obama for his politics. They will always insist I am less than Patriotic, and they will even say I am not qualified to call myself, or anyone else they disagree with...as Patriots.
It's a Liberal kind of sickness, or mental disability they must always DENY to protect their own versions of what they consider Patriotism....Liberal Patriotism...which is Patriotic Socialism.
And we can all see how easy it is to identify here.

[fj1200]

Ah, so your favoured approach is to give them as much benefit of the doubt as you can muster ?

That you're even debating this is ridiculous. You KNOW that releasing them automatically risks the future deaths of innocents. WHY would you create that scenario, when it's easily averted ??

Tell me, are you someone who'd release all incarcerated murderers, because you 'can't know what future crime they might commit' ? Why ever NOT do JUST THAT .. since that's your case for releasing Gitmo terrorists !!!! Why not extend that to questioning why you lock them up in the first place !!! Why not just have a system where a murderer says 'sorry' for his crime, then just gets released afterwards ??????

CAN YOU REALLY NOT SEE THE EXTREME INSANITY OF YOUR APPROACH ???

No, Fj. I think the truth here is that you're purposefully taking a pro-terrorist line - I can make no better sense of your argument than that. Typical - AND IT IS - Leftie thinking.

You're so easy it's just sad. Please explain how you can divine my "favoured approach" and my "argument" by me asking a question?


For what crime should he have been indefinitely detained?


So back to the original question; can we get a listing of his crimes that justifies indefinite detainment?


Well said.

Fj, as I've said before, argues like a Leftie. He resists that label, though still works hard to earn it, nonetheless.

There's no greater an appeaser, or apologist, or defender, of Muslims outside the Muslim world than a Leftie. Far better THAT course, to them, than exercising patriotic loyalty.

Again, you clearly have no idea how a leftie argues because all you see, or even perceive to see, is someone who doesn't toe exactly the line you blather out. BTW, are you also claiming that larry is a "leftie"?


I think if they do not warrant the death penalty, we should collect all the data we can on them, and send them back where they came from, unless they or a terrorist specialist of some sort.

[revelarts]

Any Leftie convinced (.. or wanting to convince others) that the incarceration of the 'detainees' at Gitmo is unwarranted, that they're 'innocents' who 'get a raw deal' should look to this story and THINK AGAIN ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428119/Terrorist-freed-Guantanamo-Bay-killed-fighting-Al-Qaeda-Syria.html




Sooo
BUSH Released AlQeada guy back to the wild to fight with AlQaeda!? :poke:

Or did the Gitmo Judges NOT have any evidence that the guy was a terrorist? or Committed a crime. They must not have.

Drummond you and some cops have Clairvoyance and superwers to KNOW the future and tell if someone is a "real" terrorist. and what they will do IN THE FUTURE.

The poor of U.S. justice system only puts people in Jail for what they've done IN THE PAST.

Your PRE-CRIME methods are to sophisticated for the rest of US Drummond. we are mere human being .dealing with
Constitutional, George Washington, Jefferson, Madison style JUSTICE not your MAGIC PRE TERROR justice.
sorry.

Funny that BOTH Dems and Conservatives are OK with jion Alqaeda in Syria though. Should McCain And Larry Graham also be put in Gitmo. John Kerry, Obama?

Many in British leadership want to support the Syrian rebels as well. ARE THEY TERRORIST? do they need to go to Gitmo.

the war on terror is put on By people in the western gov't, and Saudi Arabia.
Are you going to call for drone strikes on terrorist Saudis?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/us-syria-crisis-arms-idUSBRE97E0QH20130815
New Saudi-supplied missiles boost rebels in south Syria


Qatar 'playing with fire' as it funds Syrian Islamists in quest for global influence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/10022759/Qatar-playing-with-fire-as-it-funds-Syrian-Islamists-in-quest-for-global-influence.html
"Qatar and Saudi Arabia are among a handful of countries whose support for the uprising against Bashar al-Assad's regime has won plaudits from many in the region"

With Official Wink And Nod, Young Saudis Join Syria's Rebels
"Following a circuitous route from Saudi Arabia up through Turkey or Jordan and then crossing a lawless border, hundreds of young Saudis are secretly making their way into Syria to join groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, GlobalPost has learned.

With the tacit approval from the House of Saud and financial support from wealthy Saudi elites, the young men take up arms in what Saudi clerics have called a "jihad," or "holy war," against the Assad regime.
Based on a month of reporting in the region and in Washington, more than a dozen sources have confirmed that wealthy Saudis, as well as the government, are arming some Syrian rebel groups. Saudi and Syrian sources confirm that hundreds of Saudis are joining the rebels, but the government denies any sponsoring role."



There were ONLY a few hundred EVER in Gitmo. THEY are not the prolem with Alqaeda in Syria or elsewhere.
OUR FRIENDS the Saudi's are POURING dollars and Men into the alqaeda group Drummond. So WHO"S the most deadly enemy.
"the liberals" for releasing one guy, or the Saudis

so what's the plan? deal with ONE former gitmo prisoneer?
or deal with the lying corruption of the WHOLE "war on terror" sir?

[Drummond]

You're so easy it's just sad. Please explain how you can divine my "favoured approach" and my "argument" by me asking a question?

As you've illustrated, you started this exchange by asking:


For what crime should he have been indefinitely detained?
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will discern from your question that it was supposed to 'bring me up short'. I was meant to ponder, was I not, that terrorist scum held in Gitmo haven't undergone trials, therefore, are 'guilty of nothing' .. therefore, that there was grounds for releasing them.

Well .. you ducked my questioning about how you'd react if terrorist detainees were released from detention a mile or so from where you live !! And .. WHY is that, if you consider them (as Lefties like to think of them) as 'put-upon innocents' ??

Fact is, Fj, that you and I both know that these are highly dangerous savages. The ex-Gitmo detainee killed in Syria (the title of this thread, don't forget) was, PROVABLY, ONE SUCH SAVAGE.

So, why are you arguing with me, unless you're trying to follow a Leftie agenda in doing so ? My point comes pre-proved, for everyone to see !!


Again, you clearly have no idea how a leftie argues because all you see, or even perceive to see, is someone who doesn't toe exactly the line you blather out.

Conservatives are grounded in realism, and decency. Lefties have a propgandist agenda, which they'll follow REGARDLESS of whether any of it reflects the real world. Everyone with commonsense knows that releasing Gitmo detainees involves a great deal of risk (at absolute minimum) ... yet, the Left still manages to concoct a form of 'moral outrage' if any of them aren't spoonfed the most charitable 'human rights' standards imaginable.


BTW, are you also claiming that larry is a "leftie"?

How come you've decided to use Larry as leverage for your argumentation ? Is this intended as a form of 'divide and conquer' strategy ?

How very Left wing of you.

For your information, I think that Larry's comment has some validity behind it .. and I can cite a fairly recent case involving a return of a terrorist to its home country after release from the UK to show you that it does. Observe ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10163112/Final-preparations-underway-for-long-awaited-Abu-Qatada-deportation-to-Jordan.html


Final preparations for the flight were underway after an eight year saga to remove the man once described by a judge as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”.

It is understood Qatada will be driven directly from Belmarsh high security prison, in south-east London, to RAF Northolt, about 24 miles away in north-west London, some time tonight (SAT).

His wife and five children are thought to be remaining in Britain.

Qatada, 53, is due to be flown to Jordan aboard a private aircraft specially chartered by the Home Office, following the finalisation of a treaty between the two countries.

British security officials are expected to accompany him on the journey along with four observers from a Jordanian human rights organisation.

The fanatic’s removal from Britain will be a huge triumph for Theresa May, the Home Secretary, after previous attempts to have Qatada deported were frustrated by human rights laws.

Officials face a tense final few hours before the aircraft takes off, because Qatada’s legal team could theoretically lodge an appeal at any point while he remains on British soil.

A Jordanian prison official close to the case, who asked not to be named, said: “There will be a prison vehicle waiting for him on the tarmac of the runway at the airport.”

Jordanian civil servants and human rights lawyers told The Daily Telegraph that Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, will be driven directly to Muwaqqer, Jordan’s state-of-the-art penitentiary 40 miles from Amman.

The country’s general prosecutor’s office will question him ahead of a new trial for conspiracy to carry out terror attacks.

In 1999 Jordanian courts convicted the cleric in his absence, initially condemning him to death, but then immediately reducing the sentence to life imprisonment with hard labour.

Last week Britain and Jordan signed an extradition treaty that paved the way for the cleric’s deportation by guaranteeing that evidence obtained by torture will not be used against him in a re-trial.

The treaty’s publication in Jordan’s Official Gazette earlier this week was the final hurdle in implementing the treaty. Qatada’s treatment in Jordan will be monitored by the Amman-based Adaleh Centre for Human Rights.

“There is a team who will escort Abu Qatada and their role will be to attend his interrogation,” said a source close to the centre.

“He will have a with him team from the moment he leaves Britain to the end of his last court session.”

Lawyers in Adalah centre and British embassy officials in Jordan both refused to comment on the Qatada case. One source explained that they were “scared of saying or doing anything that will upset the process”.

Fj, here we have an example of a terrorist that the UK Government had wanted, for years, to be rid of. However, thanks to pro-Leftie Human Rights laws dreamed up by the European Union, not to mention the UK's own ban on deporting anyone who might face a death penalty, we were stuck with this character for YEARS, while wrangling went on between us, the EU, and the authorities in the terrorist's home country of Jordan.

Initially, assurances were needed that no prospect of a death penalty applied to Qatada (!!).

Then, and for most of the remaining time, there was concern expressed that evidence collected in Jordan against Qatada had been extracted via torture.

There was also, as you'll see from the article, concern that Qatada's 'human rights' could be breached, this stymying the process of extradition.

OR, to put it ANOTHER way, extradition to Jordan so that Qatada could face charges there, was massively delayed because of an overriding concern for 'human rights', the likes of which Qatada had a contempt for in being Osama bin Laden's 'right hand man in Europe' !!

The whole thing was reduced to farce, courtesy of Leftie meddling. Justice in Jordan was denied for YEARS whilst this wrangling went on.

So you see, Fj, I've no quarrel with Larry's stated position, since - had it been enacted WITHOUT Leftie interference in this case - justice would've been served far swifter than it really was.

[aboutime]

As you've illustrated, you started this exchange by asking:


Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will discern from your question that it was supposed to 'bring me up short'. I was meant to ponder, was I not, that terrorist scum held in Gitmo haven't undergone trials, therefore, are 'guilty of nothing' .. therefore, that there was grounds for releasing them.

Well .. you ducked my questioning about how you'd react if terrorist detainees were released from detention a mile or so from where you live !! And .. WHY is that, if you consider them (as Lefties like to think of them) as 'put-upon innocents' ??

Fact is, Fj, that you and I both know that these are highly dangerous savages. The ex-Gitmo detainee killed in Syria (the title of this thread, don't forget) was, PROVABLY, ONE SUCH SAVAGE.

So, why are you arguing with me, unless you're trying to follow a Leftie agenda in doing so ? My point comes pre-proved, for everyone to see !!



Conservatives are grounded in realism, and decency. Lefties have a propgandist agenda, which they'll follow REGARDLESS of whether any of it reflects the real world. Everyone with commonsense knows that releasing Gitmo detainees involves a great deal of risk (at absolute minimum) ... yet, the Left still manages to concoct a form of 'moral outrage' if any of them aren't spoonfed the most charitable 'human rights' standards imaginable.



How come you've decided to use Larry as leverage for your argumentation ? Is this intended as a form of 'divide and conquer' strategy ?

How very Left wing of you.

For your information, I think that Larry's comment has some validity behind it .. and I can cite a fairly recent case involving a return of a terrorist to its home country after release from the UK to show you that it does. Observe ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10163112/Final-preparations-underway-for-long-awaited-Abu-Qatada-deportation-to-Jordan.html



Fj, here we have an example of a terrorist that the UK Government had wanted, for years, to be rid of. However, thanks to pro-Leftie Human Rights laws dreamed up by the European Union, not to mention the UK's own ban on deporting anyone who might face a death penalty, we were stuck with this character for YEARS, while wrangling went on between us, the EU, and the authorities in the terrorist's home country of Jordan.

Initially, assurances were needed that no prospect of a death penalty applied to Qatada (!!).

Then, and for most of the remaining time, there was concern expressed that evidence collected in Jordan against Qatada had been extracted via torture.

There was also, as you'll see from the article, concern that Qatada's 'human rights' could be breached, this stymying the process of extradition.

OR, to put it ANOTHER way, extradition to Jordan so that Qatada could face charges there, was massively delayed because of an overriding concern for 'human rights', the likes of which Qatada had a contempt for in being Osama bin Laden's 'right hand man in Europe' !!

The whole thing was reduced to farce, courtesy of Leftie meddling. Justice in Jordan was denied for YEARS whilst this wrangling went on.

So you see, Fj, I've no quarrel with Larry's stated position, since - had it been enacted WITHOUT Leftie interference in this case - justice would've been served far swifter than it really was.



Sir Drummond. Despite the many pages of words by many. Not one of them has managed to actually defend...the Undefendable in any way. Much like none of them can dispute the truth, they frantically, and intentionally...always avoid. At all costs.

Take note how one member has intentionally attempted to DRIVE AN OBAMA-LIKE wedge between us, and Larrymc.
It's an old trick used to distract, and change the subject by liberals who must always find someone to BLAME.

[Drummond]

Sooo
BUSH Released AlQeada guy back to the wild to fight with AlQaeda!? :poke:

Or did the Gitmo Judges NOT have any evidence that the guy was a terrorist? or Committed a crime. They must not have.

Drummond you and some cops have Clairvoyance and superwers to KNOW the future and tell if someone is a "real" terrorist. and what they will do IN THE FUTURE.

The poor of U.S. justice system only puts people in Jail for what they've done IN THE PAST.

Your PRE-CRIME methods are to sophisticated for the rest of US Drummond. we are mere human being .dealing with
Constitutional, George Washington, Jefferson, Madison style JUSTICE not your MAGIC PRE TERROR justice.
sorry.

Funny that BOTH Dems and Conservatives are OK with jion Alqaeda in Syria though. Should McCain And Larry Graham also be put in Gitmo. John Kerry, Obama?

Many in British leadership want to support the Syrian rebels as well. ARE THEY TERRORIST? do they need to go to Gitmo.

the war on terror is put on By people in the western gov't, and Saudi Arabia.
Are you going to call for drone strikes on terrorist Saudis?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/us-syria-crisis-arms-idUSBRE97E0QH20130815
New Saudi-supplied missiles boost rebels in south Syria


Qatar 'playing with fire' as it funds Syrian Islamists in quest for global influence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/10022759/Qatar-playing-with-fire-as-it-funds-Syrian-Islamists-in-quest-for-global-influence.html
"Qatar and Saudi Arabia are among a handful of countries whose support for the uprising against Bashar al-Assad's regime has won plaudits from many in the region"

With Official Wink And Nod, Young Saudis Join Syria's Rebels
"Following a circuitous route from Saudi Arabia up through Turkey or Jordan and then crossing a lawless border, hundreds of young Saudis are secretly making their way into Syria to join groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, GlobalPost has learned.

With the tacit approval from the House of Saud and financial support from wealthy Saudi elites, the young men take up arms in what Saudi clerics have called a "jihad," or "holy war," against the Assad regime.
Based on a month of reporting in the region and in Washington, more than a dozen sources have confirmed that wealthy Saudis, as well as the government, are arming some Syrian rebel groups. Saudi and Syrian sources confirm that hundreds of Saudis are joining the rebels, but the government denies any sponsoring role."



There were ONLY a few hundred EVER in Gitmo. THEY are not the prolem with Alqaeda in Syria or elsewhere.
OUR FRIENDS the Saudi's are POURING dollars and Men into the alqaeda group Drummond. So WHO"S the most deadly enemy.
"the liberals" for releasing one guy, or the Saudis

so what's the plan? deal with ONE former gitmo prisoneer?
or deal with the lying corruption of the WHOLE "war on terror" sir?

Tiresome Leftie stuff, this.

The counter-argument on Gitmo is, presumably, to say 'Let's just release the lot of them'. Yet, YOU WELL KNOW THAT TO DO SO WOULD CREATE OUTRAGE, FOLLOWED BY A CLAIM OF VICTORY FROM THE LIKES OF AL QAEDA .. AND THAT'S BEFORE THE INEVITABLE UPSURGE IN TERRORISM, PARTLY COURTESY OF THE EX-GITMO DETAINEES THEMSELVES, PARTLY BECAUSE OF A RECRUITMENT BOOST THAT TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS WOULD ENJOY FOLLOWING A DISPLAY OF THE US's PERCEIVED WEAKNESS.

As I've tried to point out to FJ (.. only, he ducked it ..) .. nobody in his or her right mind would be content to live in the vicinity of a 'Gitmo'-style establishment, then to see its inmates released into the general population !!!

Whether or not you admit it, YOU, Revelarts, would balk at such a prospect. We all know it.

Now, WHY is that ? Because .. the War on Terror should never have been fought ? Because .. these savages aren't savages at all, they're just nice, inoffensive people who wouldn't hurt a fly ??

No. They're hardbitten terrorists. They are incarcerated because that incarceration IS NECESSARY, not least to protect people from what they'd do if freed.

You talk about Syria ... and all those others going to fight on the rebel side. And about who backs them. Well ... if released Gitmo detainees made NO difference to any of that, how come any of them ever consider turning up in Syria to fight ?

Doesn't it occur to you that an experienced terrorist can train others, be their guide, help turn them into more efficient and savage killers ? And .. I've already mentioned the propaganda advantage of seeing them released.

Your point about support from Saudi Arabia mucks about with the context applicable. The Saudi GOVERNMENT gives no aid, as such, to terrorists. However, wealthy INDIVIDUALS do from that country. But ... do the Leftie thing, and fail to consider that detail. Why not ?

You've pointed out that 'many in (the) British leadership want to support the Syrian rebels as well'. There is also detail to consider in this. Such as, for how long those same people wanted to give aid of a NON-armament nature. Such as, their willingness to buy into the Leftie BBC's simplistic view of Syria, namely, that it's primarily about rebels fighting a brutal regime - with Assad's people firmly 'the aggressors' and 'the bad guys' in all of this. Revelarts - you should applaud the BBC's success in churning out its propagandist line. YES, these days, they admit to an Al Qaeda involvement .. but, they only did that once it became obvious to the world.

You should be delighted that our leaders take so much notice of BBC propaganda, Revelarts.

Syria's a mess. As I pointed out to Dilloduck a long time ago, you have the worry that WMD's will be captured by terrorists, to be one day used against Western nations, including, of course, the US.

But never mind. Maybe you're a subscriber to BBC America ? I suggest you sit back and 'watch their show', Revelarts. And hope that all WMD's in Syria can be ultimately accounted for .. as was NOT the case with Saddam, for example !

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Despite the many pages of words by many. Not one of them has managed to actually defend...the Undefendable in any way. Much like none of them can dispute the truth, they frantically, and intentionally...always avoid. At all costs.

Take note how one member has intentionally attempted to DRIVE AN OBAMA-LIKE wedge between us, and Larrymc.
It's an old trick used to distract, and change the subject by liberals who must always find someone to BLAME.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[revelarts]

...

But never mind. Maybe you're a subscriber to BBC America ? I suggest you sit back and 'watch their show', Revelarts. And hope that all WMD's in Syria can be ultimately accounted for .. as was NOT the case with Saddam, for example !

BBC Americas got some decent shows, star trek reruns and Sherlock was on at one point i think.
good stuff.

[Drummond]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Gary-Coleman-wtf.gif


BBC Americas got some decent shows, star trek reruns and Sherlock was on at one point i think.
good stuff.

Oh, they do screen some good stuff, no doubt about it - in between the propaganda.

Tell me, did BBC America ever re-screen a domestic BBC broadcast, shown at least twice over in the UK, called 'The Power of Nightmares' ?

It was a mini-series. Put perhaps over-simply, each of the three hour-long programmes attempted to find ways of making its audience doubt what we all know is true of Al Qaeda. According to THAT disgusting rot, Al Qaeda itself was a hyped-up semi-fiction which supposed 'neocons' had invented for their own nefarious purposes.

I'd defy anyone believing that utter rubbish to reconcile it with anything we know of their very REAL terrorist activities.

[fj1200]

As you've illustrated, you started this exchange by asking:

Yes, a simple question which threw you into a hypocritical kerfuffle. A shame you're unable to have a reasonable conversation.


Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will discern from your question that it was supposed to 'bring me up short'. I was meant to ponder, was I not, that terrorist scum held in Gitmo haven't undergone trials, therefore, are 'guilty of nothing' .. therefore, that there was grounds for releasing them.

Well .. you ducked my questioning about how you'd react if terrorist detainees were released from detention a mile or so from where you live !! And .. WHY is that, if you consider them (as Lefties like to think of them) as 'put-upon innocents' ??

Fact is, Fj, that you and I both know that these are highly dangerous savages. The ex-Gitmo detainee killed in Syria (the title of this thread, don't forget) was, PROVABLY, ONE SUCH SAVAGE.

So, why are you arguing with me, unless you're trying to follow a Leftie agenda in doing so ? My point comes pre-proved, for everyone to see !!
Of course the question was meant for you to ponder, coming up short would be the result in being "short" on logic. The question was to discuss the larger question of what to do with Gitmo detainees; That you weren't able to come up with anything more than, "Aack! Terrorists!" is not my fault.

BTW, you're question was stupid as well as your assumptions; Gitmo terrorists are not US citizens and I don't live overseas.


Conservatives are grounded in realism, and decency. Lefties have a propgandist agenda, which they'll follow REGARDLESS of whether any of it reflects the real world. Everyone with commonsense knows that releasing Gitmo detainees involves a great deal of risk (at absolute minimum) ... yet, the Left still manages to concoct a form of 'moral outrage' if any of them aren't spoonfed the most charitable 'human rights' standards imaginable.

Which doesn't explain you, the only thing that dribbles out of you is propaganda.


How come you've decided to use Larry as leverage for your argumentation ? Is this intended as a form of 'divide and conquer' strategy ?

How very Left wing of you.

The only "leverage" that I get out of larry is further example of you being two-faced in your arguments. He actually said what you inferred from my post but you grant him some sort of pass. Besides, I don't need to divide and conquer between you and your pals, I can divide and conquer your own big government "conservatism." But excellent backpedaling though.


For your information, I think that Larry's comment has some validity behind it .. and I can cite a fairly recent case involving a return of a terrorist to its home country after release from the UK to show you that it does. Observe ...
Fj, here we have an example of a terrorist that the UK Government had wanted, for years, to be rid of. However, thanks to pro-Leftie Human Rights laws dreamed up by the European Union, not to mention the UK's own ban on deporting anyone who might face a death penalty, we were stuck with this character for YEARS, while wrangling went on between us, the EU, and the authorities in the terrorist's home country of Jordan.

Initially, assurances were needed that no prospect of a death penalty applied to Qatada (!!).

Then, and for most of the remaining time, there was concern expressed that evidence collected in Jordan against Qatada had been extracted via torture.

There was also, as you'll see from the article, concern that Qatada's 'human rights' could be breached, this stymying the process of extradition.

OR, to put it ANOTHER way, extradition to Jordan so that Qatada could face charges there, was massively delayed because of an overriding concern for 'human rights', the likes of which Qatada had a contempt for in being Osama bin Laden's 'right hand man in Europe' !!

The whole thing was reduced to farce, courtesy of Leftie meddling. Justice in Jordan was denied for YEARS whilst this wrangling went on.

So you see, Fj, I've no quarrel with Larry's stated position, since - had it been enacted WITHOUT Leftie interference in this case - justice would've been served far swifter than it really was.

That's a great little story that you've got there... not that I care much about it.

So... should we actually discuss what in your view requires indefinite detainment? Do you have any more insight into the process that the US had undergone in making their determination? You get extra points if it doesn't boil down to, "Aack! Terrorists!"

[fj1200]

As I've tried to point out to FJ (.. only, he ducked it ..) .. nobody in his or her right mind would be content to live in the vicinity of a 'Gitmo'-style establishment, then to see its inmates released into the general population !!!

Wow, I've never before seen so many strawmen and so much fearmongering... oh yes I have, I've read your posts before. How about you avoid ducking some questions and then follow up with something relevant; it'll be fun.

[aboutime]

Wow, I've never before seen so many strawmen and so much fearmongering... oh yes I have, I've read your posts before. How about you avoid ducking some questions and then follow up with something relevant; it'll be fun.


fj. How bout we just band together, and all of us agree to simply call you a Hypocrite, and Fear Mongering Terrorist Lover too?

Would that make you feel more powerful here?

[DragonStryk72]

Thinking like Obama, trying to destroy America, and killing Americans. But then. You don't want to hear such things. Do ya?

Hold on, there. Now we could have tried the guy in a military court, and had him shot in the head, but no. That wouldn't have allowed us to torture them, so we labeled them "enemy combatants" (which is a synonym of soldier), and weaseled out of doing it the right way. So you know what? That guy getting another go at killing people is on us.

I want to be clear, I'm fine with putting them all to firing squad if that's what the military court finds, and likely would have, but we didn't go there, now did we? So since we corrupted the evidence with our tactics, yeah, the guy got another go at this, and that's our fault. There's a reason we're trained to be disciplined in the military, so that we do not let sentiment create a problem down the line because we acted in a rash manner outside of military conduct. You know, all that Honor, Courage, and Commitment stuff they yammered on about in boot. It's not just reserved for us.

Hell, my objection to killing Osama was that it wouldn't be enough, really. Better to have quietly put him off in a prison somewhere in Nebraska that held just him, no cameras, no writing home, nothing. He doesn't get news in, and he doesn't get word out. He doesn't get to be a martyr for the cause, he gets to grow old and die in the middle of nowhere, with no one, and we just quietly bury the damn body without alerting the news. That's right, no one ever gets to hear about his death, he doesn't get that final cap on his infamy. Fuck him.

The other problem is one of there being no oversight. This means that, statistically, we HAD to have pulled in people who were innocents at the time, and denied them the right to even say "I didn't do it." ALL men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Going around due process to deprive people is an insult to what we stand for. Guess what? Some of those innocents we detained and tortured? They now believe the horrible things AQ said about us, because we decided to go ahead and prove them right. It was precisely what Bin Laden wanted from us, for us to get so bent out of shape that we made ourselves the monsters that brought more to him. But gee, I supposed every single person here would be totally okay with it if a foreign power picked up your friends, your families, detained them without arrest, shipped to a "black site" that wasn't on the books, and then worked them over for information, with no intention of releasing them.

We've had wars before, folks, and guess what? They had far bigger nuts than AQ ever had, so why did we lose ours? We were fighting a vastly smaller, poorly equipped and starving opponent. Did we really need to go this far?

[Drummond]

fj. How bout we just band together, and all of us agree to simply call you a Hypocrite, and Fear Mongering Terrorist Lover too?

Would that make you feel more powerful here?:clap::clap::clap:

Good one ! Yes, that may be the way forward, Aboutime !

[Drummond]

Yes, a simple question which threw you into a hypocritical kerfuffle. A shame you're unable to have a reasonable conversation.

The only 'reasonable conversation' you want with me (- so-called -) is one which 'reasonably' somehow manages to give you a victory in debate. All discussions failing to lead to such a victory would fail to be 'reasonable' in your eyes, now, wouldn't they ?

Well, 'sorry' ... I can't oblige you.


Of course the question was meant for you to ponder, coming up short would be the result in being "short" on logic. The question was to discuss the larger question of what to do with Gitmo detainees; That you weren't able to come up with anything more than, "Aack! Terrorists!" is not my fault.

All this stuff from you ignores a basic truth - namely, that if terrorists are to remain alive and be kept alive for intelligence-gathering purposes, for example, Gitmo is in fact a good solution.

YOU are the one trying to look towards what you would see as a 'better' alternative than this for them. Not me. For my part, I say that IF there's reason to keep terrorists in existence, Gitmo is itself the solution. I look towards no other fate for them than this .. other than their destruction, of course.


BTW, you're question was stupid as well as your assumptions; Gitmo terrorists are not US citizens and I don't live overseas.

You were invited to imagine an alternative scenario, which you refused to do ... and repeatedly, now. The scenario invited you to see for yourself how unpalatable an option releasing Gitmo-type detainees was. YOU would not be happy to be anywhere near the location of such a release of them, and well you know it .. which is why you ducked the scenario I offered you as a point of consideration.

That's the thing about Lefties, isn't it. They get all 'high minded' about their so-called 'noble' ideals, don't they ? But, when it comes down to facing the consequences of their enactment, suddenly, we get a different tune from them.

So it was, EVEN with Obama. One of his pledges was to close Gitmo down. BUT, once in power and faced with the reality of that decision, HE DUCKED IT, AND HAS BEEN DUCKING IT EVER SINCE.

AND, WHY ? BECAUSE EVEN HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW FROM A BLANKET RELEASE OF THESE SO-CALLED 'INNOCENTS' ....


Which doesn't explain you, the only thing that dribbles out of you is propaganda.

Oh dear. Do my truths disturb you ?


The only "leverage" that I get out of larry is further example of you being two-faced in your arguments. He actually said what you inferred from my post but you grant him some sort of pass.

What you dislike is that there was contextual relevance to his idea, one which could be defended. You'd hoped to make this simpler and do your 'driving a wedge' tactic at me, in typical Leftie fashion. What do you want from me, an apology because it didn't work ???


Besides, I don't need to divide and conquer between you and your pals, I can divide and conquer your own big government "conservatism." But excellent backpedaling though.

This 'big Government' drivel you keep trying to tag me with is exactly that .. 'drivel'. It's your own invention, another Leftie-style ploy to try and demonise.


That's a great little story that you've got there... not that I care much about it.

Indeed, you'd much rather I'd have not posted it at all, eh ? Because it shows a basis for acceptance of an idea you'd have rather I rejected out of hand .. and its originator right along with it. But, things haven't worked out as you'd hoped ...


So... should we actually discuss what in your view requires indefinite detainment? Do you have any more insight into the process that the US had undergone in making their determination? You get extra points if it doesn't boil down to, "Aack! Terrorists!"

The insight I have tells me that Gitmo is a good institution to have. Way better to have Gitmo, than instead have its detainees roaming the streets, looking for future victims to slaughter .. eh ?

I for one would be perfectly content to see more Gitmo-style institutions spring up. Why not, IF there's any need to keep this vermin alive ? Although it has to be said that I'm not really arguing for their survival, either.

To answer your question completely directly, though .. what in my view requires indefinite detainment is KEEPING INDIVIDUAL, INNOCENT CITIZENS SAFE FROM THEIR TERRORISM. Or ... would you require their terrorism to be given a future release ? H'mmm ?

Fj, I invite you to - at long last !! - look beyond the welfare of terrorist scum, and instead care about their would-be victims. Do you think you can do that ?

Try it out, Fj. Of course, it might require you to stop thinking and arguing like a Leftie. But .. try it, all the same. I challenge you.

[fj1200]

Oh brother. :rolleyes:


The only 'reasonable conversation' you want with me (- so-called -) is one which 'reasonably' somehow manages to give you a victory in debate. All discussions failing to lead to such a victory would fail to be 'reasonable' in your eyes, now, wouldn't they ?

Well, 'sorry' ... I can't oblige you.

I know you can't. Why? Because I've already won as you have just basically admitted that any conversation that gets down to truth, truth that will expose you that is, will lead to you losing. It's an untenable position for you isn't it?


All this stuff from you ignores a basic truth - namely, that if terrorists are to remain alive and be kept alive for intelligence-gathering purposes, for example, Gitmo is in fact a good solution.

YOU are the one trying to look towards what you would see as a 'better' alternative than this for them. Not me. For my part, I say that IF there's reason to keep terrorists in existence, Gitmo is itself the solution. I look towards no other fate for them than this .. other than their destruction, of course.

I do have a newsflash for you, I'm not too concerned that Gitmo exists; it has a function and it should be used for it's proper function. So let's see, now that I have removed another of your ignorant assumptions where will you go now? I suspect that you'll ignore it or you'll create another ignorant assumption so you can along with your drivel.

Having said that though there does need to be an endgame solution for those that do find themselves in Gitmo. If I'm not mistaken the detainees are subject to the Geneva Convention, have been since the Hamdi decision and I recall Bush eventually made the same declaration, and we need to adhere to it in regards to them. We should be setting up military tribunals per the GC and dealing with them and ultimately sending them back to their home countries or where we captured them.

As far as a "better alternative," there is no better alternative. All alternatives suck and it probably would have been best if any detainees specifically related to Afghanistan, for example, would have been left there and any global suspects, such as KSM, could have been brought to Gitmo. Nevertheless, the US has particular values that, apparently Brits or you at least, don't particularly agree with. Indefinite detainment is not legal and is not moral without some sort of due process.


You were invited to imagine an alternative scenario, which you refused to do ... and repeatedly, now. The scenario invited you to see for yourself how unpalatable an option releasing Gitmo-type detainees was. YOU would not be happy to be anywhere near the location of such a release of them, and well you know it .. which is why you ducked the scenario I offered you as a point of consideration.

That's the thing about Lefties, isn't it. They get all 'high minded' about their so-called 'noble' ideals, don't they ? But, when it comes down to facing the consequences of their enactment, suddenly, we get a different tune from them.

So it was, EVEN with Obama. One of his pledges was to close Gitmo down. BUT, once in power and faced with the reality of that decision, HE DUCKED IT, AND HAS BEEN DUCKING IT EVER SINCE.

AND, WHY ? BECAUSE EVEN HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW FROM A BLANKET RELEASE OF THESE SO-CALLED 'INNOCENTS' ....

Were my words unclear when I stated your "question" was stupid? It's a red herring that doesn't deserve a response. BO was stupid when he made his statement but that pretty well describes most of what he says. However, can you point to where he has called for a "BLANKET RELEASE" of "INNOCENTS"?


Oh dear. Do my truths disturb you ?

You and your positions disturb me and what you consider a "truth" disturbs me.


What you dislike is that there was contextual relevance to his idea, one which could be defended. You'd hoped to make this simpler and do your 'driving a wedge' tactic at me, in typical Leftie fashion. What do you want from me, an apology because it didn't work ???

Where did I say I disliked Larry's idea? I thanked it and quoted it whereas you did neither and are now attempting to claim some sort of ownership of the idea. Your actions are all just mere theater in you trying to NOT disagree with one of your e-pals.


This 'big Government' drivel you keep trying to tag me with is exactly that .. 'drivel'. It's your own invention, another Leftie-style ploy to try and demonise.

Ah yes, more denial that you love big government. Anything that exposes you for what you are shall be forever called "leftie." :laugh:


Indeed, you'd much rather I'd have not posted it at all, eh ? Because it shows a basis for acceptance of an idea you'd have rather I rejected out of hand .. and its originator right along with it. But, things haven't worked out as you'd hoped ...

As I said I care nothing about your story, it is indicative of nothing except the stupidity of signing away your sovereignty.


The insight I have tells me that Gitmo is a good institution to have. Way better to have Gitmo, than instead have its detainees roaming the streets, looking for future victims to slaughter .. eh ?

I for one would be perfectly content to see more Gitmo-style institutions spring up. Why not, IF there's any need to keep this vermin alive ? Although it has to be said that I'm not really arguing for their survival, either.

To answer your question completely directly, though .. what in my view requires indefinite detainment is KEEPING INDIVIDUAL, INNOCENT CITIZENS SAFE FROM THEIR TERRORISM. Or ... would you require their terrorism to be given a future release ? H'mmm ?

Fj, I invite you to - at long last !! - look beyond the welfare of terrorist scum, and instead care about their would-be victims. Do you think you can do that ?

Try it out, Fj. Of course, it might require you to stop thinking and arguing like a Leftie. But .. try it, all the same. I challenge you.

You have no insights, you have flawed reasoning and apparently no understanding of American values. And you get no extra points because you used in part, "Aack! Terrorists!" Interesting though that you believe that the Assad regime is innocent and your pat fallback that relies on your Future Crime Scope.

[fj1200]

:clap::clap::clap:

Good one ! Yes, that may be the way forward, Aboutime !

:laugh:


... another Leftie-style ploy to try and demonise.

Do you even realize what kind of a hack you keep exposing yourself as? Double standards much? :laugh:

Oh, and thank you for occasionally quoting 'at's posts. It reinforces my decision to ignore his inane rantings and shows he has absolutely nothing to add... apart from someone having to act as your fluffer that is.

[Drummond]

Ah, you're back to the crossings-out. How sad that you cannot debate more reasonably than that, Fj.


I know you can't. Why? Because I've already won as you have just basically admitted that any conversation that gets down to truth, truth that will expose you that is, will lead to you losing. It's an untenable position for you isn't it?

Rot, from start to finish. Which of us feels the 'need' to cross out text he doesn't like ? Me, now .. I can take on your postings without such disrespectful gimmickry.

As for truth .. read on ...


I do have a newsflash for you, I'm not too concerned that Gitmo exists; it has a function and it should be used for it's proper function. So let's see, now that I have removed another of your ignorant assumptions where will you go now? I suspect that you'll ignore it or you'll create another ignorant assumption so you can along with your drivel.

Having said that though there does need to be an endgame solution for those that do find themselves in Gitmo. If I'm not mistaken the detainees are subject to the Geneva Convention, have been since the Hamdi decision and I recall Bush eventually made the same declaration, and we need to adhere to it in regards to them. We should be setting up military tribunals per the GC and dealing with them and ultimately sending them back to their home countries or where we captured them.

So let's see. On the one hand, you're 'not too concerned that Gitmo exists'. But on the other, you want it to treat the inmates differently, this going some way towards redefining its purpose.

How about keeping them incarcerated, effectively in limbo, for intelligence gathering ?

And what about the prospect of the release, or dissemination, of security-sensitive information, if trials are entered into ?

What about the danger of releasing them back into sufficient freedom to re-establish themselves as terrorists, if released, which must surely be true for SOME countries ? DO TERRORISTS' SO-CALLED 'HUMAN RIGHTS' MEAN SO MUCH TO YOU THAT YOU WANT TO RISK FUTURE VICTIMS BECOMING PREY TO THEIR SAVAGERY ?


As far as a "better alternative," there is no better alternative. All alternatives suck and it probably would have been best if any detainees specifically related to Afghanistan, for example, would have been left there and any global suspects, such as KSM, could have been brought to Gitmo. Nevertheless, the US has particular values that, apparently Brits or you at least, don't particularly agree with. Indefinite detainment is not legal and is not moral without some sort of due process.

Running through all of this is the belief that terrorists are 'human beings', consequently deserving of 'rights'. This is, of course, a bog standard Leftie argument. It is not one I share.

I see no reason to regard those terrorists as human. I see no reason whatever to give them 'rights' which they cannot have earned, and even the notion is insulting. So, I see neither need nor reason to release them as some sort of blanket expectation of due process.


Were my words unclear when I stated your "question" was stupid? It's a red herring that doesn't deserve a response. BO was stupid when he made his statement but that pretty well describes most of what he says. However, can you point to where he has called for a "BLANKET RELEASE" of "INNOCENTS"?

So, because YOU choose to call a question 'stupid', it MUST be ? How very arrogant.

Fact is that you're STILL ducking any consideration of the scenario I offered you. Yes .. of course you are.

Obama - in wanting, and saying he would arrange - the closing down of Gitmo, must of necessity mean that THE DETAINEES WOULD BE RELEASED FROM IT !!

Or would they still live there, AFTER it was closed ??

Another fact, inarguable, is that Obama found he COULD NOT close it. Not without creating massive controversy, not without creating an unacceptable security issue from it. So, reality kicked in, and EVEN Obama was forced to maintain the status quo.

Why ? Because nothing else was reasonable !


You and your positions disturb me and what you consider a "truth" disturbs me.

GOOD. Because, if I were wrong in what I said and believed, you could easily dismiss it all. But .. the truth hurts, doesn't it ? You clearly can't just ignore it.

That, Fj, is the power of truth.


Where did I say I disliked Larry's idea? I thanked it and quoted it whereas you did neither and are now attempting to claim some sort of ownership of the idea. Your actions are all just mere theater in you trying to NOT disagree with one of your e-pals.

Peeved, because your tactic didn't work ? How sad for you.


Ah yes, more denial that you love big government. Anything that exposes you for what you are shall be forever called "leftie." :laugh:

Oh, really.

OK, then. EXPOSE ME AS A BELIEVER IN BIG GOVERNMENT. Give it your all. Come on, DO IT.

Or ... CAN'T YOU ?

You keep advancing this fiction of yours. So, BACK IT UP. I challenge you to.


You have no insights, you have flawed reasoning and apparently no understanding of American values. And you get no extra points because you used in part, "Aack! Terrorists!" Interesting though that you believe that the Assad regime is innocent and your pat fallback that relies on your Future Crime Scope.

Was I looking for 'points', much less EXTRA points ? What on earth are you going on about ??

The 'American values' you speak of would surely apply to human beings. Terrorist inmates at Gitmo DO NOT QUALIFY !!

So, end of discussion on that point.

As for Assad's regime being 'innocent', care to show us where I declare any such thing ?

If you're going to make these claims, be prepared to back them up.

[logroller]

As you've illustrated, you started this exchange by asking:




Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will discern from your question that it was supposed to 'bring me up short'. I was meant to ponder, was I not, that terrorist scum held in Gitmo haven't undergone trials, therefore, are 'guilty of nothing' .. therefore, that there was grounds for releasing them.


Well .. you ducked my questioning about how you'd react if terrorist detainees were released from detention a mile or so from where you live !! And .. WHY is that, if you consider them (as Lefties like to think of them) as 'put-upon innocents' ??


Fact is, Fj, that you and I both know that these are highly dangerous savages. The ex-Gitmo detainee killed in Syria (the title of this thread, don't forget) was, PROVABLY, ONE SUCH SAVAGE.


So, why are you arguing with me, unless you're trying to follow a Leftie agenda in doing so ? My point comes pre-proved, for everyone to see !!






Conservatives are grounded in realism, and decency. Lefties have a propgandist agenda, which they'll follow REGARDLESS of whether any of it reflects the real world. Everyone with commonsense knows that releasing Gitmo detainees involves a great deal of risk (at absolute minimum) ... yet, the Left still manages to concoct a form of 'moral outrage' if any of them aren't spoonfed the most charitable 'human rights' standards imaginable.






How come you've decided to use Larry as leverage for your argumentation ? Is this intended as a form of 'divide and conquer' strategy ?


How very Left wing of you.


For your information, I think that Larry's comment has some validity behind it .. and I can cite a fairly recent case involving a return of a terrorist to its home country after release from the UK to show you that it does. Observe ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10163112/Final-preparations-underway-for-long-awaited-Abu-Qatada-deportation-to-Jordan.html






Fj, here we have an example of a terrorist that the UK Government had wanted, for years, to be rid of. However, thanks to pro-Leftie Human Rights laws dreamed up by the European Union, not to mention the UK's own ban on deporting anyone who might face a death penalty, we were stuck with this character for YEARS, while wrangling went on between us, the EU, and the authorities in the terrorist's home country of Jordan.


Initially, assurances were needed that no prospect of a death penalty applied to Qatada (!!).


Then, and for most of the remaining time, there was concern expressed that evidence collected in Jordan against Qatada had been extracted via torture.


There was also, as you'll see from the article, concern that Qatada's 'human rights' could be breached, this stymying the process of extradition.


OR, to put it ANOTHER way, extradition to Jordan so that Qatada could face charges there, was massively delayed because of an overriding concern for 'human rights', the likes of which Qatada had a contempt for in being Osama bin Laden's 'right hand man in Europe' !!


The whole thing was reduced to farce, courtesy of Leftie meddling. Justice in Jordan was denied for YEARS whilst this wrangling went on.


So you see, Fj, I've no quarrel with Larry's stated position, since - had it been enacted WITHOUT Leftie interference in this case - justice would've been served far swifter than it really was.
"My point comes pre-proved" Lol. so you openly admit to circular reasoning. And of course Anyone who disagrees with this is a lefty... to those here who are keeping track, Drummond's use of false dilemma and strawman arguments is sort of his schtick, typically parlayed into an ad hominem attack. For what you may ask, oh yeah-- asking a question. The audacity of these lefties...asking questions. Wait, didnt Drummond ask a question? :poke:

similar overtures have been made in regards to the mujahadeen and al Qaida. Many of those aligned with 'freedom fighters' formed al qaida-- a terrorist org. but a guy released from gitmo dying in syria is proof he was terrorist all along. Seems inconsistent to me and I have two brain cells to rub together. But I guess having an opinion that conflicts with others is a bog lefty standard. I suppose thats better than the antithesis, unwavering commitment to an ideology regardless of pragmatic inconsistencies-- I consider that ignorance.

[fj1200]

Ah, you're back to the crossings-out. How sad that you cannot debate more reasonably than that, Fj.

Seeing as you're back to the ridiculous assertions well one good turn... Besides, I just assume cross them out than have to repeatedly tell you how dense you are that you're unable to have a conversation and must resort to falling back on your crutch.


Rot, from start to finish. Which of us feels the 'need' to cross out text he doesn't like ? Me, now .. I can take on your postings without such disrespectful gimmickry.

As for truth .. read on ...

By rot I'll assume you mean dead truth and just don't want to see the reality of it. And I'm pretty sure a listing of your "disrespectful gimmickry" will fall on deaf ears.


So let's see. On the one hand, you're 'not too concerned that Gitmo exists'. But on the other, you want it to treat the inmates differently, this going some way towards redefining its purpose.

How about keeping them incarcerated, effectively in limbo, for intelligence gathering ?

And what about the prospect of the release, or dissemination, of security-sensitive information, if trials are entered into ?

What about the danger of releasing them back into sufficient freedom to re-establish themselves as terrorists, if released, which must surely be true for SOME countries ? DO TERRORISTS' SO-CALLED 'HUMAN RIGHTS' MEAN SO MUCH TO YOU THAT YOU WANT TO RISK FUTURE VICTIMS BECOMING PREY TO THEIR SAVAGERY ?

Please point out where I suggest that detainees should be treated differently. I also never suggested that they be given trials in the US where such things are likely. But thanks for going off on the tangent of other things that I haven't stated. How much longer do I need to argue against what you imagine to be true?


Running through all of this is the belief that terrorists are 'human beings', consequently deserving of 'rights'. This is, of course, a bog standard Leftie argument. It is not one I share.

I see no reason to regard those terrorists as human. I see no reason whatever to give them 'rights' which they cannot have earned, and even the notion is insulting. So, I see neither need nor reason to release them as some sort of blanket expectation of due process.

Oh geez! Lose this debate so you go back to another losing debate. :rolleyes: Next we'll see you arguing for them being released from detention with a bullet. And yes, I do see the wheels turning in your head into how you can make some sort of logical argument about that.


So, because YOU choose to call a question 'stupid', it MUST be ? How very arrogant.

No, not just because I call it stupid is it stupid. It is stupid because it is stupid. And why you feel you need to argue about what BO says I don't know; another one of your tangents that you have to go down I suppose.


Fact is that you're STILL ducking any consideration of the scenario I offered you. Yes .. of course you are.

Obama - in wanting, and saying he would arrange - the closing down of Gitmo, must of necessity mean that THE DETAINEES WOULD BE RELEASED FROM IT !!

Or would they still live there, AFTER it was closed ??

Another fact, inarguable, is that Obama found he COULD NOT close it. Not without creating massive controversy, not without creating an unacceptable security issue from it. So, reality kicked in, and EVEN Obama was forced to maintain the status quo.

Why ? Because nothing else was reasonable !

You do understand that there is a difference between Gitmo being closed and a blanket release of all detainees don't you? Meh, probably not.


GOOD. Because, if I were wrong in what I said and believed, you could easily dismiss it all. But .. the truth hurts, doesn't it ? You clearly can't just ignore it.

That, Fj, is the power of truth.

I do dismiss you and your arguments. You're a caricature of a thinking individual.


Peeved, because your tactic didn't work ? How sad for you.

Peeved? No. It wasn't a tactic it was truth in how you operate.


Oh, really.

OK, then. EXPOSE ME AS A BELIEVER IN BIG GOVERNMENT. Give it your all. Come on, DO IT.

Or ... CAN'T YOU ?

You keep advancing this fiction of yours. So, BACK IT UP. I challenge you to.

This again? Been there, proved that. There is no worse argument than granting the power of the State over the individual.


Was I looking for 'points', much less EXTRA points ? What on earth are you going on about ??

The 'American values' you speak of would surely apply to human beings. Terrorist inmates at Gitmo DO NOT QUALIFY !!

So, end of discussion on that point.

As for Assad's regime being 'innocent', care to show us where I declare any such thing ?

If you're going to make these claims, be prepared to back them up.

You have a real tough time with following your own logic and postings don't you? You're concerned for the "innocents" and the "terrorist" in question decided that his next target of "innocents" was the Assad regime. Do I need to quote your actual posts?

Besides I told you to "be prepared to back them up" every time you went off on a tangent about things I never brought up we'd have to read even more pages of your ignorant blather.

"End of discussion on that point." :laugh: That's one way to no longer lose the debate. ;)

[Drummond]

"My point comes pre-proved" Lol. so you openly admit to circular reasoning. And of course Anyone who disagrees with this is a lefty... to those here who are keeping track, Drummond's use of false dilemma and strawman arguments is sort of his schtick, typically parlayed into an ad hominem attack. For what you may ask, oh yeah-- asking a question. The audacity of these lefties...asking questions. Wait, didnt Drummond ask a question? :poke:

I can see you're less than pleased with my arguments. Oh dear ....:laugh:

Simple answer .. my point DOES come pre-proved !! WHAT STARTED OFF THIS THREAD ??

We have here proof that the release of a Gitmo detainee led to a terrorist being able to operate as one once more. This is simple, I'd have thought undeniable, fact. Therefore ... the need to NOT release any Gitmo detainees is evident, the danger of doing so proven.

This doesn't stop Lefties from coming along and challenging the CURRENT restrictiveness of Gitmo detention, however !!

Logroller, I don't know what more I can say to you. I am right, I am provably right, so there it is.


... similar overtures have been made in regards to the mujahadeen and al Qaida. Many of those aligned with 'freedom fighters' formed al qaida-- a terrorist org. but a guy released from gitmo dying in syria is proof he was terrorist all along. Seems inconsistent to me and I have two brain cells to rub together.

?????

So, it was mere COINCIDENCE that he was a terrorist at the end ?? How did he become one ? Did Gitmo turn him into one ?

And did the US military capture him because he was a 'freedom fighter', or because he was a TERRORIST ?


But I guess having an opinion that conflicts with others is a bog lefty standard. I suppose thats better than the antithesis, unwavering commitment to an ideology regardless of pragmatic inconsistencies-- I consider that ignorance.

I'd say REALISM is what's at issue here.

Your military don't capture 'people' on a berserker whim. They capture them because they set out to capture TERRORISTS. This is what they did in this case. This is why he was in Gitmo. And ... what ? This, coincidentally, is what 'he became', but only AFTERWARDS ??

Pull the other one !!!

What IS a bog standard Leftie stance is to rail against Gitmo .. what happens there, its very existence, and how 'important' it is to 'consider terrorist human rights'. Well, to what extent does Fj's argumentation fit ALL OF THIS ?

It isn't 'ignorant' to want the fate for terrorist scum that they deserve to have. And it isn't ignorant to argue against someone finding excuse after excuse to try and come up with arguments which are designed to put a spanner in the works of a system which, if properly applied, WORKS as a means of protecting decent, innocent human beings from terrorist savagery !

[Drummond]

Seeing as you're back to the ridiculous assertions well one good turn... Besides, I just assume cross them out than have to repeatedly tell you how dense you are that you're unable to have a conversation and must resort to falling back on your crutch.

Hah ! Whereas, you resort to out-and-out insulting when you're being bested !

You get truth from me, and well you know it.


By rot I'll assume you mean dead truth and just don't want to see the reality of it. And I'm pretty sure a listing of your "disrespectful gimmickry" will fall on deaf ears.

No, I mean what I say, not what you would like to claim. ROT is what I said. ROT is what I meant.

And what I am sure of, Fj, is that you have NO 'list' of 'disrespectful gimmickry' to offer. Unless you call TRUTH gimmickry !


Please point out where I suggest that detainees should be treated differently. I also never suggested that they be given trials in the US where such things are likely. But thanks for going off on the tangent of other things that I haven't stated. How much longer do I need to argue against what you imagine to be true?

You want an end to indefinite detention without trial. That, right there, is in itself a major change in their treatment. You press for releases of detainees .. which, though they've happened in the past, have not been arranged en masse. Granted, you haven't gone so far as to say to give them trials in the US, but you HAVE pressed for trials, and without consideration for security aspects which should be a concern (.. which plays into the hands of terrorists in itself, I'd have thought ?).


Oh geez! Lose this debate so you go back to another losing debate. :rolleyes:

.. sez you. But I have yet to 'lose' any debate with you .. here, or elsewhere.


Next we'll see you arguing for them being released from detention with a bullet. And yes, I do see the wheels turning in your head into how you can make some sort of logical argument about that.

Congratulations. There is at minimum a grain of truth in that.

And I see the wheels turning in your own head. Or rather, is it the trundling along of a conveyor belt, one 'conveying' Leftie argument after Leftie argument ?

This current one you're hinting at is that there's somehow something wrong with the execution of a terrorist enemy of your country. Two points ... one, since when did America's enemies have an inviolable right to remain alive ? And two, why do you insist on conferring ANY sort of human right on those who are clearly NOT human ??


No, not just because I call it stupid is it stupid. It is stupid because it is stupid. And why you feel you need to argue about what BO says I don't know; another one of your tangents that you have to go down I suppose.

This is so circular an expression of an argument that a hamster doing cartwheels within a wheel he was playing with couldn't manage anything MORE circular than this !!


You do understand that there is a difference between Gitmo being closed and a blanket release of all detainees don't you? Meh, probably not.

What's the point of Gitmo remaining open, if a policy is in place to release all of its inmates ??!?


I do dismiss you and your arguments. You're a caricature of a thinking individual.

Back to the insults, I see, and in this case, nothing else. Dear me !!


This again? Been there, proved that. There is no worse argument than granting the power of the State over the individual.

I thought Lefties believed in all that ? So, why do YOU mind ?

But I asked you to show us that I was a believer in big Government. THIS is all you can offer by way of a response ??

SO, YOU CANNOT BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATION AGAINST ME ... EXACTLY !


You have a real tough time with following your own logic and postings don't you? You're concerned for the "innocents" and the "terrorist" in question decided that his next target of "innocents" was the Assad regime. Do I need to quote your actual posts?

Terrorists are allying themselves with other rebels. Why do you suppose this is .. are they doing it 'out of good motives', because they're 'feeling generous', OR, do they expect to wield power in what they'd hope would become a Failed State ?

Terrorists get involved to WIELD POWER.


"End of discussion on that point." :laugh: That's one way to no longer lose the debate. ;)

When something is proved, or obviously settled, then it is. Simple fact.

With the issue addressed by my remark, terrorists are NOT human, demonstrably so, and you cannot show me otherwise. Since this is so, any discussion about the 'applicability' of human rights to any of them is a nonsense. What could possibly be the point of a 'nonsense' argument ?

[... actually, you must be the ideal person to ask that question of (!!!!) .... and why DO you persist with your arguments, anyway, especially anything hinting at any 'need' to confer human rights to terrorists ?]

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Take note about the expected NAY-SAYERS who responded to this thread. They seem to be so angered, frustrated, and miserable about having some kind of Definite response in Defending Gitmo Club Members...present, and past. They fail to realize how foolish they sound. Trying so hard...for reasons only they know. As to why they demand Prisoners/Terrorists should be granted the very same rights....THEY FOOLISHLY denounce, and enjoy.
Kind of ironic in many ways. When they pretend to be the self-appointed Keepers of the Flame of Freedom...if it applies to them, or those they support. While, at the same time. Those NAY sayers would demand that people like You, and I should be punished for our feelings, thoughts, and disagreement with their SELFISHNESS.

All of which is why I still enjoy coming here to witness STUPIDITY from those who hate, despise, and disagree with me. It makes me feel more confident, knowing Stupidity has never won anything but more..stupidity. No matter how hard they try to hide it.

And that applies Liberally, and Equally to both Logroller, and FJ. Special orders don't upset me.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Take note about the expected NAY-SAYERS who responded to this thread. They seem to be so angered, frustrated, and miserable about having some kind of Definite response in Defending Gitmo Club Members...present, and past. They fail to realize how foolish they sound. Trying so hard...for reasons only they know. As to why they demand Prisoners/Terrorists should be granted the very same rights....THEY FOOLISHLY denounce, and enjoy.
Kind of ironic in many ways. When they pretend to be the self-appointed Keepers of the Flame of Freedom...if it applies to them, or those they support. While, at the same time. Those NAY sayers would demand that people like You, and I should be punished for our feelings, thoughts, and disagreement with their SELFISHNESS.

All of which is why I still enjoy coming here to witness STUPIDITY from those who hate, despise, and disagree with me. It makes me feel more confident, knowing Stupidity has never won anything but more..stupidity. No matter how hard they try to hide it.

And that applies Liberally, and Equally to both Logroller, and FJ. Special orders don't upset me.:clap::clap::clap:

Many thanks for your comments, as ever. And perfectly put.

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap:

Many thanks for your comments, as ever. And perfectly put.



Thank you. But...as we know. The expected responses to what I said below....really are going to be much more interesting, and prove my last sentence to be factual as well.

I do not fear, or regret ever stating the TRUTH. Something none of them can change, even as they endlessly attempt to dispute it. The Truth always remains...the truth. And that just PISSES them off to no ends.

[Drummond]

Thank you. But...as we know. The expected responses to what I said below....really are going to be much more interesting, and prove my last sentence to be factual as well.

I do not fear, or regret ever stating the TRUTH. Something none of them can change, even as they endlessly attempt to dispute it. The Truth always remains...the truth. And that just PISSES them off to no ends.

Precisely so.

Lefties rely on their propagandising. They so often cannot, DARE NOT, use truth for their purposes. So, but of course, when it's ranged against them, one can at minimum expect a Leftie to be thoroughly pissed off !

Cue some gratuitous insults from a Leftie or 2 ? Or some put-downs ? Or some showy, derisory, crossings-out of unwanted and unwelcome text from them ? After all, if they can't use a straight reliance on truth, what else is available ?

[... awww ... diddums .......]

[aboutime]

Precisely so.

Lefties rely on their propagandising. They so often cannot, DARE NOT, use truth for their purposes. So, but of course, when it's ranged against them, one can at minimum expect a Leftie to be thoroughly pissed off !

Cue some gratuitous insults from a Leftie or 2 ? Or some put-downs ? Or some showy, derisory, crossings-out of unwanted and unwelcome text from them ? After all, if they can't use a straight reliance on truth, what else is available ?

[... awww ... diddums .......]



OR....there's a real possibility. They haven't got the courage to respond at all.

I would see that as a Definite WIN-WIN.

[fj1200]

Simple answer .. my point DOES come pre-proved !! WHAT STARTED OFF THIS THREAD ??

Unfortunately for you the proof that you are unable to "win" this debate is because you have turned a simple question:


For what crime should he have been indefinitely detained?

into blathering ramblings where you are unable to discuss the issue intelligently all while debating against your imagination. Case in point:


Hah ! Whereas, you resort to out-and-out insulting when you're being bested !

You get truth from me, and well you know it.



No, I mean what I say, not what you would like to claim. ROT is what I said. ROT is what I meant.

And what I am sure of, Fj, is that you have NO 'list' of 'disrespectful gimmickry' to offer. Unless you call TRUTH gimmickry !



You want an end to indefinite detention without trial. That, right there, is in itself a major change in their treatment. You press for releases of detainees .. which, though they've happened in the past, have not been arranged en masse. Granted, you haven't gone so far as to say to give them trials in the US, but you HAVE pressed for trials, and without consideration for security aspects which should be a concern (.. which plays into the hands of terrorists in itself, I'd have thought ?).



.. sez you. But I have yet to 'lose' any debate with you .. here, or elsewhere.



Congratulations. There is at minimum a grain of truth in that.

And I see the wheels turning in your own head. Or rather, is it the trundling along of a conveyor belt, one 'conveying' Leftie argument after Leftie argument ?

This current one you're hinting at is that there's somehow something wrong with the execution of a terrorist enemy of your country. Two points ... one, since when did America's enemies have an inviolable right to remain alive ? And two, why do you insist on conferring ANY sort of human right on those who are clearly NOT human ??



This is so circular an expression of an argument that a hamster doing cartwheels within a wheel he was playing with couldn't manage anything MORE circular than this !!



What's the point of Gitmo remaining open, if a policy is in place to release all of its inmates ??!?



Back to the insults, I see, and in this case, nothing else. Dear me !!



I thought Lefties believed in all that ? So, why do YOU mind ?

But I asked you to show us that I was a believer in big Government. THIS is all you can offer by way of a response ??

SO, YOU CANNOT BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATION AGAINST ME ... EXACTLY !



Terrorists are allying themselves with other rebels. Why do you suppose this is .. are they doing it 'out of good motives', because they're 'feeling generous', OR, do they expect to wield power in what they'd hope would become a Failed State ?

Terrorists get involved to WIELD POWER.



When something is proved, or obviously settled, then it is. Simple fact.

With the issue addressed by my remark, terrorists are NOT human, demonstrably so, and you cannot show me otherwise. Since this is so, any discussion about the 'applicability' of human rights to any of them is a nonsense. What could possibly be the point of a 'nonsense' argument ?

[... actually, you must be the ideal person to ask that question of (!!!!) .... and why DO you persist with your arguments, anyway, especially anything hinting at any 'need' to confer human rights to terrorists ?]

The whole post of yours was ignorant blather. The only thing worth responding to was also wrong. I never said that there should be no trial, I didn't press for release of detainees, I specifically said that they shouldn't be given a trial in the US, and I said nothing about security considerations. These are all things that you create in your own mind.

Here is an actual article on the subject. It is from Fox so I know that a big government hack such as yourself is automatically untrustworthy of it but to conservatives like myself we generally appreciate their news.

Obama pledge to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees sparks diplomatic maneuvering for detainees (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/obama-pledge-to-transfer-guantanamo-bay-detainees-sparks-diplomatic-maneuvering/)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's renewed push to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorism suspects has given a glimmer of hope to foreign governments that he will fulfill that promise and triggered diplomatic maneuvering from U.S. allies eager to bring home long-held detainees.Kuwait has hired lobbyists to help bring its two remaining prisoners home. British Prime Minister David Cameron personally pressed Obama at the Group of 8 summit last month to release the United Kingdom's final detainee. And the fate of Afghans being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba has been at the forefront of peace talks between the U.S., Taliban and Afghanistan.
The indefinite captivity has created tension with some important U.S. allies, particularly in the Arab world, the native home of many of the 166 remaining detainees. Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen are among those countries that have pressed the U.S. to turn over their nationals.

Now if you want me to point out your ignornace again line by line I can certainly do that but it will only prove that you will completely ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

[aboutime]

Unfortunately for you the proof that you are unable to "win" this debate is because you have turned a simple question:



into blathering ramblings where you are unable to discuss the issue intelligently all while debating against your imagination. Case in point:



The whole post of yours was ignorant blather. The only thing worth responding to was also wrong. I never said that there should be no trial, I didn't press for release of detainees, I specifically said that they shouldn't be given a trial in the US, and I said nothing about security considerations. These are all things that you create in your own mind.

Here is an actual article on the subject. It is from Fox so I know that a big government hack such as yourself is automatically untrustworthy of it but to conservatives like myself we generally appreciate their news.

Obama pledge to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees sparks diplomatic maneuvering for detainees (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/obama-pledge-to-transfer-guantanamo-bay-detainees-sparks-diplomatic-maneuvering/)




Now if you want me to point out your ignornace again line by line I can certainly do that but it will only prove that you will completely ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.



That's okay fj. We just know. You can't help it. Line by line. A spell checker for your 'ignornace' would be useful too!

[Drummond]

That's okay fj. We just know. You can't help it. Line by line. A spell checker for your 'ignornace' would be useful too!

What Fj's last post proved is that we're both right. Check out his 'reply' to my post, and, this time, how much of it was crossed out, branded not worth replying to ...

... which is a joke !

Case in point .. I challenged Fj to show that I was a so-called 'fan' of big Government. I wanted him to prove that I'd shown this to be true. First, he ducked the challenge (because he couldn't answer it). When this was pointed out, the text where I'd done so was crossed out, as part of what he calls 'blather'.

This, Aboutime, is a Leftie wedded to propagandising, for whom the truth only has meaning during those rare moments when it serves him to use or acknowledge it. When it doesn't, which is most of the time, it's summarily dismissed.

Fj ... for propaganda to work, it has to at least seem to be credible. But, any halfway detailed examination of your tactics shows you to be transparent in what you do. The case I've highlighted .. an uncomfortable truth, my challenging you to prove that I'm 'a fan of big Government' AND YOUR FAILING THAT CHALLENGE, shows your disregard for fair debate.

So I fail to see why I should debate with you further.

You don't win if you use shabby tactics to SEEM TO gain 'an upper hand', Fj. Though you'll doubtless try some discreditable spin to try and argue otherwise.

You, Fj, are a waste of my time.

[aboutime]

What Fj's last post proved is that we're both right. Check out his 'reply' to my post, and, this time, how much of it was crossed out, branded not worth replying to ...

... which is a joke !

Case in point .. I challenged Fj to show that I was a so-called 'fan' of big Government. I wanted him to prove that I'd shown this to be true. First, he ducked the challenge (because he couldn't answer it). When this was pointed out, the text where I'd done so was crossed out, as part of what he calls 'blather'.

This, Aboutime, is a Leftie wedded to propagandising, for whom the truth only has meaning during those rare moments when it serves him to use or acknowledge it. When it doesn't, which is most of the time, it's summarily dismissed.

Fj ... for propaganda to work, it has to at least seem to be credible. But, any halfway detailed examination of your tactics shows you to be transparent in what you do. The case I've highlighted .. an uncomfortable truth, my challenging you to prove that I'm 'a fan of big Government' AND YOUR FAILING THAT CHALLENGE, shows your disregard for fair debate.

So I fail to see why I should debate with you further.

You don't win if you use shabby tactics to SEEM TO gain 'an upper hand', Fj. Though you'll doubtless try some discreditable spin to try and argue otherwise.

You, Fj, are a waste of my time.


Agreed, Sir Drummond. A total waste of our time. But we must remember how Impressed FJ is with HIMSELF.
Anything anyone who isn't fj, says, thinks, believes, or alludes to in any way IS NOT WORTHY of fj. That's what being a Miserable, Selfish, Intolerant, Arrogant person like fj deserves, and I am more than willing to allow fj to continue to be Impressed with fj.

[Drummond]

Agreed, Sir Drummond. A total waste of our time. But we must remember how Impressed FJ is with HIMSELF.
Anything anyone who isn't fj, says, thinks, believes, or alludes to in any way IS NOT WORTHY of fj. That's what being a Miserable, Selfish, Intolerant, Arrogant person like fj deserves, and I am more than willing to allow fj to continue to be Impressed with fj.:clap::clap::clap:

Nicely put, and very much to the point !

In my last reply, I could have cited more. Another case in point ... FJ's so-called 'rebuttal', where he 'answers' me by saying ...


I never said that there should be no trial

... this referring to Gitmo detainees.

What I had said beforehand, was ...


You want an end to indefinite detention without trial.

... which adds up to the SAME THING, which makes the 'rebuttal' actually a sham !!! What we NOW see for Gitmo is that detainees are detained without trial. I pointed out that Fj wanted that scenario of no trials to end. His 'rebuttal' said, essentially, much of THE SAME THING !!

So we have an invented disagreement on a point made, with my supposedly claiming something I actually HADN'T ... how's that for Leftie shabby tricks ???

Fj is a waste of time ... QED. And if Fj, as self-styled egotist, is impressed with himself ... well ... WHY ????

... Bizarre ....

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap:

Nicely put, and very much to the point !

In my last reply, I could have cited more. Another case in point ... FJ's so-called 'rebuttal', where he 'answers' me by saying ...



... this referring to Gitmo detainees.

What I had said beforehand, was ...



... which adds up to the SAME THING, which makes the 'rebuttal' actually a sham !!! What we NOW see for Gitmo is that detainees are detained without trial. I pointed out that Fj wanted that scenario of no trials to end. His 'rebuttal' said, essentially, much of THE SAME THING !!

So we have an invented disagreement on a point made, with my supposedly claiming something I actually HADN'T ... how's that for Leftie shabby tricks ???

Fj is a waste of time ... QED. And if Fj, as self-styled egotist, is impressed with himself ... well ... WHY ????

... Bizarre ....

Sir Drummond. Agreed again. In fact. What we are seeing with fj, in almost every case, is. His attempt to use his own brand of political-speak, much like Obama. Talking out of both sides of his mouth; trying to impress others whom fj believes...aren't quite as sharp, or able to recognize when he...or Obama are talking out of their "BUM" (pardon the U.K. accent).
fj seems to be nothing less than another Obama, Wannabe Impersonator who bedazzles those he speaks DOWN TO, and Impresses with his own Ignorant ability to Impress himself.
The fj's of the world are just as sick, and brainwashed as those who were convinced to accept all of Obama's lies...to the point of actually voting for him...TWICE.

[fj1200]

What Fj's last post proved is that we're both right.

...

Fj ... for propaganda to work, it has to at least seem to be credible. But, any halfway detailed examination of your tactics shows you to be transparent in what you do. The case I've highlighted .. an uncomfortable truth, my challenging you to prove that I'm 'a fan of big Government' AND YOUR FAILING THAT CHALLENGE, shows your disregard for fair debate.

What my last post proved was that you are unable to discuss an issue without resorting to your pat resort of assumption and cries of, "Aack! Leftie." Besides, I use no propaganda... or at least no more than you. ;) BTW I've proven your proclivities in multiple posts and threads, no need to go down that rabbit hole again.


... which adds up to the SAME THING...

Fine, make an intelligent point rather than run to your peanut gallery. Prove to me that you are actually capable of argument without resorting to your crutch. Per usual though you do go running once an actual article was presented; makes it much harder to just proclaim, "Aack! Terrorist!"

[aboutime]

What my last post proved was that you are unable to discuss an issue without resorting to your pat resort of assumption and cries of, "Aack! Leftie." Besides, I use no propaganda... or at least no more than you. ;) BTW I've proven your proclivities in multiple posts and threads, no need to go down that rabbit hole again.



Fine, make an intelligent point rather than run to your peanut gallery. Prove to me that you are actually capable of argument without resorting to your crutch. Per usual though you do go running once an actual article was presented; makes it much harder to just proclaim, "Aack! Terrorist!"



fj. Guess you just don't care to see it, or recognize it. But. If you feel such a need to defend against what we have said. That alone, tends to prove us right about you.
You see. Those who are honest, and those who make it a point to always tell the truth. HAVE NO NEEDS TO DEFEND what they say. As in. What we have said about you.
YOU are the only one who keeps coming back to endlessly defend, or make excuses. Unlike the rest of us who are now. Enjoying your own admission...and you still can't see it.

[fj1200]

^Echo chamber? :dunno:

[aboutime]

^Echo chamber? :dunno:



Thanks again for proving our suspicions about you are correct.

[Drummond]

What's the point in rising to the bait ?


What my last post proved was that you are unable to discuss an issue without resorting to your pat resort of assumption and cries of, "Aack! Leftie." Besides, I use no propaganda... or at least no more than you. ;) BTW I've proven your proclivities in multiple posts and threads, no need to go down that rabbit hole again.

"Aack" is a word I've never used in any other post except this one.

You argue like a Leftie ... you'll be called one (if I can be bothered with you sufficiently). You don't like that ? Then stop being one.

[fj1200]

What's the point in rising to the bait ?



"Aack" is a word I've never used in any other post except this one.

You argue like a Leftie ... you'll be called one (if I can be bothered with you sufficiently). You don't like that ? Then stop being one.

It's sad that you think engaging in reasoned discussion is "rising to the bait." :shakeshead:

Nevertheless, your "leftie" fetish is all in your head.

[aboutime]

It's sad that you think engaging in reasoned discussion is "rising to the bait." :shakeshead:

Nevertheless, your "leftie" fetish is all in your head.



And, your endless needs to always deny is very telling fj.

[fj1200]

And, your endless needs to always deny is very telling fj.

Agreed, telling of your blinding, willful ignorance.