Obama and Guantanamo Bay

[Annik]

You're not understanding. I haven't stated anything about what you believe. All I'm saying is that you statement (as quoted above) is unfounded, as you have no idea how these people even got detained to begin with. Therefore, it's impossible to make a valid judgement (in any sense of the word) as to their guilt or innocence.

[Tiberius]

I haven't stated anything about what you believe.

Others have.

[Shell B]

Was it a judgement? I don't think it was. It was a logical assumption that did not presume anyone's guilt, but merely left the idea of their guilt open. No innocent until proven guilty -- just guilty or innocent. With odds being the way they are, which is logical rather than absolutist, I made the point that a lot of Americans rightly do not want them put in U.S. prisons. Why I have to continue to explain this is beyond me.

[Annik]

I haven't stated anything about what you believe.

Others have.

When she says that in response to a quote I made, should I not assume she is talking to me or including me in the group?

[Hovik]

You're an admin, so fucking act like it instead of resorting to emotionally-driven insults. You have every right to defend your bullshit, but don't throw a hissy fit when somebody calls you on it.

Don't presume to tell me what to do. I am first and foremost a member. I can speak to anyone however I feel like speaking if I am not doing it in an official capacity. And my insults are about insight, not emotion. You seem like a fucking kid with an agenda who is willing to whip strawmen out of thin air so you have the soapbox you so desperately seek. I don't mind saying it. That doesn't mean I am emotional. If I was as bad as you would like to paint me as, I would just ban you out of anger, wouldn't I? If I can manage to keep my position on staff out of it, you should manage as well.

Since you haven't responded to a single thing I actually said, you can't say any of it is bullshit. Thanks for more "I don't have to have an argument cuz you a meanie" post. Grow a pair.

---

"Odds are many of them did."

From that, you lot of monkeys with internet access have come up with, I don't believe in the right to a fair trial, I think everyone there is guilty, I am okay with the prison, etc. Am I getting this right? Shit, I didn't even say many of them did. I said that odds lean that way.

By the way, Hovik, way to stand strong for two replies after you declared yourself not talking to me anymore. Fucking typical.

Well, since you feel the need to continue to fling shit around like a toddler, I'll break this down into super simple language for you.

You made an assertion, quoted:

he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons. Yes, some of them are not terrorists, but many of them are guilty.

Followed by another assertion, quoted:

Guilty means they did it. You and I both know that odds are that many of them did.

Do you seriously not see the issue here? You've made a valuation of these people being guilty of terrorism based on what? Probability? Whether or not they're actually guilty is beside the fucking point. What we're driving at here that you seem to be missing is that you're making a direct assessment of their guilt without them ever having stood trial.

What about this is so fundamentally difficult for you to grasp?

[Shell B]

Oh, I included you in the group. I just didn't lump you in with all of the retorts I have had. You are still behaving as if I am presuming specific inmates (namely those who have not been tried, since that suits your agenda) are guilty. I said that the odds of many of the people in a prison being guilty are good. That's a fucking logical assumption. If I said, odds are some of them have brown eyes, would you still have a shitfit? Innocent of having brown eyes until proven guilty? Some of them are likely guilty, Annik. Get over it. I don't think they should be held without trial. I already went over that. Did I say they should be convicted without trial? Did I say they are definitely guilty? No, so get the fuck off it.

[Annik]

On what are you basing that assumption?

[Shell B]

Hovik, you knew I would respond. You thought you would have the maturity to stick by your assertion that you would no longer respond to me. You couldn't. Believe me, you're not the first like you and this isn't the first time I have had to deal with a big fat pussy who stomps off because someone was a meanie poo and then came back in and tried to play the bigger person. Language is not my problem here. It is yours. Every time you bang your hairy knuckles on the keyboard, you spout another strawman. Suck my ass.

---

On what are you basing that assumption?

Oh, for fuck's sake. You are really asking the same question again? Go back two pages.

[Hovik]

Oh, I included you in the group. I just didn't lump you in with all of the retorts I have had. You are still behaving as if I am presuming specific inmates (namely those who have not been tried, since that suits your agenda) are guilty. I said that the odds of many of the people in a prison being guilty are good. That's a fucking logical assumption. If I said, odds are some of them have brown eyes, would you still have a shitfit? Innocent of having brown eyes until proven guilty? Some of them are likely guilty, Annik. Get over it. I don't think they should be held without trial. I already went over that. Did I say they should be convicted without trial? Did I say they are definitely guilty? No, so get the fuck off it.

essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons.

bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons.

terrorists

Based. On. What.

Based on the due process they went through? Oh wait.

[Annik]

Oh, for fuck's sake. You are really asking the same question again? Go back two pages.

Why don't you explain it to me again?