Is this seriously worth it? Guantanmo inmate never charged with a crime, dies after 11 years in US custody

[Hovik]

No, you're splitting hairs because you have a need to be contrary. We have no reason to assume he was involved in terrorist activities, and all evidence points to the contrary. How is it an unsafe assumption to presume his innocence?

I'm not about to get into a pissing match with you over this. The point stands regardless of my wording.

And, here we go again. I point out you overblew your argument and you assume it must be because I'm a big, fat meany head. Well, I tried. It is not unsafe to presume he is innocent. It is unsafe to rage off willy nilly saying that the man "has never committed an act of terrorism." That's like me saying, "Hovik has never wiped his ass because no one has ever proven it." That you fail to see this baffles me.

It's not a pissing match. Well, I'm not in a pissing match with you. That you can't keep your emotions where they belong is no problem of mine. I will relieve my bladder without measurement, thank you very much.

I do agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. It is the histrionic bullshit artistry that the argument does not even need that I object to. It's simple. Don't make shit up, and you won't feel the need to piss against me.

That's certainly not an apt comparison. It's reasonable to assume that I've wiped my ass before. Is it reasonable to assume the man has never committed an act of terrorism? This seems to be the point at which we differ. Lacking any evidence that he's done so and apparently plenty of evidence that he hasn't, I'd say it's a pretty sure bet he's never been implicated in terrorism. The reality of the matter might be very different, but I'm going with the assumption of his innocence, as any rational individual should.

You're literally nit-picking my wording. Had I written "and died presumably never having committed terrorism," we wouldn't even be having this ridiculous discussion.