A Deadly Kindness

[HaloGuardian]

Dude come on. Relax and don't take this shit so personal.
I don't think ANYONE claimed this opinion piece was a factual document.

I don't take it personal. I'm never upset or fired up when responding. Even though it may come out that way. :naughty:


So no one is trying to prove you wrong. I'm not against your issues with all this, it's a nasty no win situation that I'm pretty sure no one is happy about. If anything I'm frustrated with what you keep insisting I mean when I say something. I'm speaking from the heart about what's happening to our world right now. I'm aggravated to no end by every aspect of this shit. It's feels like you're more about how wrong we are (the US) than concerned with a genuine threat to our way of life.

I'm not upset with the US, I'm upset with the leadership and with "a genuine threat to our way of life". Listen, supposedly the terrorists hate our freedoms. You've heard it, I've heard it, I'm sure we've all heard it. But who is the one legislating and throwing them away? It sure as hell isn't al-qaeda.


I'm shocked by how easily you give the benefit of the doubt to the enemy. Accused, suspected, or whatever you need to call them. Someone did it, someone is responsible, groups of someones. Do I know who they are? No. But there is definitely people responsible for the deaths of many Americans. That's a fact.

They aren't the enemy necessarily. You are assuming that, I'm not. People are responsible for the deaths of many Americans but what has that got to do with those in Guantanamo?


You seem more offended by your own government than those who wish to kill us all.

These are 2 different things?


If I'm wrong, then please confirm that. I'd love to be wrong on this one.

You are half right.

[HaloGuardian]

Sounds like you have all your answers then.

It took you this long to get to that post? That's gotta be a record.

[TheZenMan]

I don't take it personal. I'm never upset or fired up when responding. Even though it may come out that way. :naughty:



I'm not upset with the US, I'm upset with the leadership and with "a genuine threat to our way of life". Listen, supposedly the terrorists hate our freedoms. You've heard it, I've heard it, I'm sure we've all heard it. But who is the one legislating and throwing them away? It sure as hell isn't al-qaeda.



They aren't the enemy necessarily. You are assuming that, I'm not. People are responsible for the deaths of many Americans but what has that got to do with those in Guantanamo?



These are 2 different things?



You are half right.


Well then I don't know what else to say.

I don't support torture, and I don't think everyone we have in custody is guilty.
But I do have faith in our government. I think that's the real difference between us.
I'm convinced the terrorist threat is real, I don't consider current administration to be the enemy and I'm willing to tolerate and forgive a lot of mistakes and growing pains as we struggle to adjust to the world as it is.

I'm sorry if people die. I'm sorry if people's rights are violated.
I think there's a much bigger issue at steak here, it's worth the suffering if that's what it takes. I would die for that which I support. Life isn't always comfortable and just.

So yes, I'm a tad hard hearted these days. I've had enough of this shit.
If I'm wrong, then we're all safe and the government is just evil. Time will tell.

If I'm getting you correctly, it sounds like you're telling me the terrorists aren't real?
You ended a comment with: "It sure as hell isn't al-qaeda."
That's why I ask.

[TheZenMan]

It took you this long to get to that post? That's gotta be a record.


Oh that's right, you live in slow motion.
My bad. I'll uninstall some RAM or something.

[TheZenMan]

They aren't the enemy necessarily. You are assuming that, I'm not. People are responsible for the deaths of many Americans but what has that got to do with those in Guantanamo?


Well, from where I stand, I'm not assuming. So I consider those in Gitmo to be the one's I'm talking about. We just don't agree, that's all.

[HaloGuardian]

Well then I don't know what else to say.

I don't support torture, and I don't think everyone we have in custody is guilty.

But yet you won't defend those who are locked up and are not guilty.


But I do have faith in our government. I think that's the real difference between us.

Why do you have faith in the government? What have they done for them to deserve your faith?


I'm convinced the terrorist threat is real, I don't consider current administration to be the enemy and I'm willing to tolerate and forgive a lot of mistakes and growing pains as we struggle to adjust to the world as it is.



I'm sorry if people die. I'm sorry if people's rights are violated.
I think there's a much bigger issue at steak here, it's worth the suffering if that's what it takes. I would die for that which I support. Life isn't always comfortable and just.

I'm not saying it is.



If I'm wrong, then we're all safe and the government is just evil. Time will tell.

What is safety? 3000 is a very small chunk of the American population. You do realize we will never be perfectly safe from anything. I know I heard 4 or 5 years ago that there are enough nukes to blow the world up atleast 6 times. I'm not worried about it are you?

Oh and the government is indeed evil and I think most people realize it Democrat, Republican, independent or otherwise. They do not work for us.



If I'm getting you correctly, it sounds like you're telling me the terrorists aren't real?
You ended a comment with: "It sure as hell isn't al-qaeda."
That's why I ask.

Al-qaeda is not locking people up in the name of safety. Al-qaeda is not starting wars. They provoked the war. Who runs them I do not know specifically, but I haven't heard much from Osama these days. He seems to just be that convenient enemy who is out there all the time just waiting to strike. That is how I see it.

[HaloGuardian]

Well, from where I stand, I'm not assuming. So I consider those in Gitmo to be the one's I'm talking about. We just don't agree, that's all.

We don't agree but we both need to get the facts straight before debating and criminalizing or decriminalizing anyone.

[TheZenMan]

But yet you won't defend those who are locked up and are not guilty.

How do I know that? Like I said, I'm sorry. Defending them won't do a thing but stroke my sense of morality. I have faith that anyone the government has detained is probably there for a reason. Of course I don't and will never know the truth, but I'm not gona lose sleep over it.



Why do you have faith in the government? What have they done for them to deserve your faith?

Displayed guts, integrity and sincerity. You don't have to agree, but you asked.
I'm not going to give you specifics because you won't agree with them, and they're all based on my gut reaction.



What is safety? 3000 is a very small chunk of the American population. You do realize we will never be perfectly safe from anything. I know I heard 4 or 5 years ago that there are enough nukes to blow the world up atleast 6 times. I'm not worried about it are you?

Safety = The terrorist threat is propaganda, so safe from attacks only.
And yes, I'm not an idiot, I realize life itself can be a threat to those who live through the eyes of a victim. And no, I'm not worried about anything, I don't think we live only once remember. Death is just a change to me. But I have chosen a side and taken a position.



Oh and the government is indeed evil and I think most people realize it Democrat, Republican, independent or otherwise. They do not work for us.


I just plain disagree.


Al-qaeda is not locking people up in the name of safety. Al-qaeda is not starting wars. They provoked the war. Who runs them I do not know specifically, but I haven't heard much from Osama these days. He seems to just be that convenient enemy who is out there all the time just waiting to strike. That is how I see it.

No, al-Qaeda is killing people and threatening the infidels. They live for war, so no, they're not starting one, just insisting on it. I don't know where Osama is either, but I also disagree with you.

[TheZenMan]

We don't agree but we both need to get the facts straight before debating and criminalizing or decriminalizing anyone.


No we don't. We can't. We don't agree on what the facts are.
So it's pointless to hold it to such a tidy paradigm.

[HaloGuardian]

No we don't. We can't. We don't agree on what the facts are.
So it's pointless to hold it to such a tidy paradigm.

The fact is that a majority of those in Guantanamo have never been convicted or tried for a crime. Do you agree or not?

[TheZenMan]

The fact is that a majority of those in Guantanamo have never been convicted or tried for a crime. Do you agree or not?

Sure, but does that make them innocent? Nope.

It's just a statistic. I go with my heart/gut...whatever you wanna call it.

When something comes along that we agree with, we call it truth.
That doesn't make it so.

When something comes along that we disagree with, we call it propaganda.
That doesn't make it so.

So what is one to do?

[Gred]

look, sometimes you just have to toss out the basic values underlying the constitution to protect... um... er...

[Gred]

Sure, but does that make them innocent? Nope.

It's just a statistic. I go with my heart/gut...whatever you wanna call it.

When something comes along that we agree with, we call it truth.
That doesn't make it so.

When something comes along that we disagree with, we call it propaganda.
That doesn't make it so.

So what is one to do?

me? i rely on the rule of law. because you're right. we're far too passionate to do the right thing all the time.

a government of laws, not of men. it's what the revolution was about.

[Gred]

Still no comment on my article I put up of detainees who were released because they weren't a supposed threat, yet they went right back and fought for their Jihad, and how logic would dicate since the others weren't let go we must have reason to believe they're a threat and that's the reason they're still behind bars. Some of you people I believe have brain damage.

As far as not commenting on the article I put up, I'm truly not surprised. :eyeroll:

hmm... guess that kinda proves the people in charge down there don't know what the FUCK they're doing.

[outsider]

me? i rely on the rule of law. because you're right. we're far too passionate to do the right thing all the time.

a government of laws, not of men. it's what the revolution was about.

Hey shush now, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms that we use all the time... I mean that were legislated away last week......

Rule by law? Nah, that's only for pansies and suburbanites. I've got a six-shooter and I'm ready to rock, that's what law really ought to be.

[Tex]

Did you even read what I posted? Obviously not. You and Zen were BOTH WRONG about the Guantanamo detainees. It's proven a majority of them have actually commited no crime and no opinion piece will prove or say otherwise. You didn't respond to my post. I've read the article you posted a long time ago. Should we lock up people for crimes they could commit in the future??

You said this:


[B]I didn't see that article but you obviiously didn't read the article of FACTS not opinion that I posted just by your response.

My article wasn't an "opinion piece," and you know it. You say you "didn't see that article"? It took up a huge part of the page with a bolded area for reference to the main point I was driving at, which lies at the heart of this debate, and you've not addressed it. Unlike Gred, I like helping the reader cut to the "meat and bones" of my position.

I think YOU'RE WRONG as far as it relates to seeing the big picture here, but that really goes without saying. Or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, in fairness to you, I went back; and, no, I didn't read the article. You didn't post a normal link. You had it with your writing over it (something I don't know how to do btw) and I just flat-ass missed it. That's not hard to do. I read what you write, Halo.

So, let's discuss this article. Last I checked there were over 500 detained at Gitmo. The article references a small portion of that 500. They narrow it down to 132 that they're discussing.

Now, we have to remember, if you're following my point, detainees that were released, who we didn't see as a threat, have already rejoined their Jihadist agendas.

From the article:

"Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like Farouq Ali Ahmed, the subject of National Journal's accompanying story -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.)

Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; Farouq lived in a house associated with the Taliban.

Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others."

So, what it is you're doubting is their "assocation" with any terrorist group? I don't understand how this article supports your stand on this issue, but so be it. We're looking through different glasses, apparently.

And, look, I've never said 100 percent of the people detained at Gitmo are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's impossible to know, and I'm sure it's not the case.

Hell, I've been falsely imprisoned for something somebody said I did and didn't do. That shit happens. There's people on death row that get exonerated by DNA evidence years after an event. The world's not perfect, and it never will be. Innocent American citizens are in jail as we speak who didn't do anything; though, somebody said they did. Such is life.

But from reading everything I have on this subject, including the article you passed over about detainees we released who returned to their Jihad (I'm sure more have done the same, but they just haven't been caught yet) it would make sense to believe the others are in Gitmo for a reason. That's just simple, common sense.

The article that talks of these 132, makes a small case about them being detained, doesn't mention the other 368. I wonder why? Maybe they're GUILTY.

As far as your question you asked. If one of these detainees say they will kill Americans upon their release, want America to be nuked, etc., sure they should be locked up. Are you advocating they should be released? Bullshit. They could commit such an act in the future.

Now, if you're trying to say something along the lines of if Mohammed Numbnuts in Pakistan says these types of things and has no "association" to terror groups, but is just another pissed off extremist raghead, then, no, they shouldn't be locked up.

That doesn't appear to be the case from the article you posted or what I've read about Gitmo. At least for a majority of the detainees.

[Tex]

Did you even read what I posted? Obviously not. You and Zen were BOTH WRONG about the Guantanamo detainees. It's proven a majority of them have actually commited no crime and no opinion piece will prove or say otherwise. You didn't respond to my post. I've read the article you posted a long time ago. Should we lock up people for crimes they could commit in the future??

You said this:


[B]I didn't see that article but you obviiously didn't read the article of FACTS not opinion that I posted just by your response.

My article wasn't an "opinion piece," and you know it. You say you "didn't see that article"? It took up a huge part of the page with a bolded area for reference to the main point I was driving at, which lies at the heart of this debate, and you've not addressed it. Unlike Gred, I like helping the reader cut to the "meat and bones" of my position.

I think YOU'RE WRONG, at least in seeing the big picture here, but that really goes without saying. Or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, in fairness to you, I went back; and, no, I didn't read the article. You didn't post a normal link. You had it with your writing over it (something I don't know how to do btw) and I just flat-ass missed it. That's not hard to do. I read what you write, Halo.

So, let's discuss this article. Last I checked there were over 500 detained at Gitmo. The article references a small portion of that 500. They narrow it down to 132 that they're discussing.

Now, we have to remember, if you're following my point, detainees that were released, who we didn't see as a threat, have already rejoined their Jihadist agendas. Our "gut" feeling was wrong.

From the article:


"Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like Farouq Ali Ahmed, the subject of National Journal's accompanying story -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.)

Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; Farouq lived in a house associated with the Taliban.

Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others."

So, what it is you're doubting is their "assocation" with any terrorist group? I don't understand how this article supports your stand on this issue, but so be it. We're looking through different glasses, apparently.

And, look, I've never said 100 percent of the people detained at Gitmo are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's impossible to know, and it's more than likely not the case.

Hell, I've been falsely imprisoned for something somebody said I did and didn't do. That shit happens. There's people on death row that get exonerated by DNA evidence years after an event. The world's not perfect, and it never will be. Innocent American citizens are in jail as we speak who didn't do anything; though, somebody said they did. Such is life.

But from reading everything I have on this subject, including the article you passed over about detainees we released who returned to their Jihad (I'm sure more have done the same, but they just haven't been caught yet) it would make sense to believe a majority of the others, if not all, are in Gitmo for a reason. That's just plain and simple common sense.

The article that talks of these 132, makes a small case about them being detained, doesn't mention the other 368. I wonder why? Maybe they're GUILTY of being a threat.

As far as your question you asked. If one of these detainees say they will kill Americans upon their release, want America to be nuked, etc., sure they should be locked up. Are you advocating they should be released? Bullshit. They could commit such an act in the future.

Now, if you're trying to say something along the lines of if Mohammed Numbnuts in Pakistan says these types of things and has no "association" to terror groups, but is just another pissed off extremist raghead, then, no, they shouldn't be locked up.

That doesn't appear to be the case from the article you posted or the many articles I've read about this issue, though. At least for a majority of the detainees.

[Tex]

I've been told that I say the US is wrong all the time, well are you willing to say when they are wrong even once?

I know this was directed at Zen, but I'll answer it. They should hurry up and be tried to where this becomes a nonissue and people like you will pipe it down a notch, so it won't appear we have a group of Americans who are sympathetic to Islamic extremists.

That's the only thing I can see "wrong" the government is doing in this instance, is not trying these people ASAP.

Now, what's the reason behind that? I don't know. It might be in the interest of our national security. It might be our government just being a dick and dragging their feet. Or it's all a big conspiracy and we're detaining these people just because we can.

You believe the latter I know. But I really don't see that as using common sense, to feed, house, and detain these Muslims, just for fun and waste taxpayer's dollars and our resources. That's nuts.

But I will say this, as I've said before. I don't give a flying fuck about these people. I could honestly care less. I want them to have their day in court, but I'm not going to lose sleep over if they get it tomorrow, next year, or 10 years from now.

[Tex]

hmm... guess that kinda proves the people in charge down there don't know what the FUCK they're doing.

I thought, as the article stated, it was the government trying to be "reasonable." I guess it proves what appears to be a non-threat can actually turn around and bite you in the ass in the end.

Now, the ones they haven't released, who they really see as a supposed threat, just might be one. I mean, damn, the ones they thought weren't ended up back in their Jihad.

So they FUCKED up releasing the ones they did. At least as it relates to the ones the article mentions. Ain't that a bitch? I'm sure more will be killed, captured, before it's all said and done.

[BillyBobRedneck]

I like pizza.