Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Well, neither Proteas nor Mez responded, so you'll have to do.

At 6/28/08 06:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Why? We wouldn't have that right in any other country. Why should they have it here?

I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to be the GOOD guys. If you're willing to stoop down to the level of Saddam or Osama, go right ahead. I'll move to Switzerland.

Iraq had WMDS.

Bull. Shit.

How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!

And if we hadn't invaded Iraq...we STILL wouldn't have found Bin Ladin, cause he wasn't in Afghanistan.

He was in...... where, then?

Yawn.

Cute.

That's a ridiculous argument. Holding people so they can't kill innocents MAY be misguided...never evil.

Their capacity to kill innocents hasn't been proven. That's what this argument is about (I think).

On that note, I'll ask you the same thing I ask people in Cap punishment arguments.

What is the acceptable "Fail Rate"? How many people have to be wrongly imprisoned/tortured (I'm not even sure which one this argument is about to be honest) before the system has a problem and needs to be overhauled?

I'd just like your opinion on this one.

---

At 6/28/08 10:38 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Well, neither Proteas nor Mez responded, so you'll have to do.

You and coherent both are taking isolated cases and using them to make out like the U.S. Military, as a policy, condones these abuses, which is Converse accident, and stating that you don't want to see them get any worse than that, which is Slippery Slope. Your point relies on a poorly constructed argument that is not based in reality, and you knew it.

How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!

When you can tell us what happened to the weapons we have receipts for.

---

At 6/28/08 12:15 PM, Proteas wrote:

You and coherent both are taking isolated cases and using them to make out like the U.S. Military, as a policy, condones these abuses, which is Converse accident,

And here we go again. Debating the use of these logical fallacies is both tiring and pointless. Well, truthfully, debating you is pointless given how made up your mind is, but I'll assume it makes my own ability sharper.

and stating that you don't want to see them get any worse than that, which is Slippery Slope.

See, the thing about slippery slope is that it shows that something doesn't HAVE to happen because the first one happens. What it does do is increase the likelihood of the next increment occurring. And then you move from there.

Your point relies on a poorly constructed argument that is not based in reality, and you knew it.

If we have to be mean spirited, fine.

Your argument is based on a high school debate team style of argument construction which relies on intimidating your opposition with an extensive knowledge of a glossary of terms which really have no importance in the discussion.

How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!

When you can tell us what happened to the weapons we have receipts for.

You mean the ones we gave him in his little scuffle with Iran?

I thought he shot those at Kuwait. Or did I dream that war?

---

At 6/28/08 02:18 PM, SlithVampir wrote: And here we go again. Debating the use of these logical fallacies is both tiring and pointless.

I'm not debating logical fallacies, I'm illustrating the fact that you and coherent are both guilty of making them.

See, the thing about slippery slope is that it shows that something doesn't HAVE to happen because the first one happens. What it does do is increase the likelihood of the next increment occurring. And then you move from there.

Except, here's the thing; your using the slippery slop argument after claiming that the U.S. Military condones torture as a policy and it practices it on a regular basis, therefore you want it stopped before it gets worse. I on the other hand have shown that the U.S. does not in fact practice torture as a policy, thereby rendering your slippery slop argument (which you knowingly made) null and void.

Your argument is based on a high school debate team style of argument construction which relies on intimidating your opposition with an extensive knowledge of a glossary of terms which really have no importance in the discussion.

My argument is based on soundly constructed points that are based in reality which cannot be easily refuted. Your arguments rely heavily on bullshit emotional appeals and blowing isolated incidents out of proportion to fit in with your viewpoint that the U.S. Government and it's military are inherently evil entities that need to be punished.

You're not convincing anyone by putting this tripe forth, you're only getting yourself involved in a intellectual circle jerk with others who share your viewpoints.

You mean the ones we gave him in his little scuffle with Iran?

I thought he shot those at Kuwait. Or did I dream that war?

Then WHAT may I ask did Saddam have to cause the Head U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix to say the following;

"During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." Hans Blix on 11/08/2002 about Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of weapons to the UN.

---

At 6/28/08 10:38 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Well, neither Proteas nor Mez responded, so you'll have to do.

All right, let's go.

At 6/28/08 06:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to be the GOOD guys. If you're willing to stoop down to the level of Saddam or Osama, go right ahead. I'll move to Switzerland.

Don't be stupid. We're not hacking them to death or hanging them.

When I said, "We wouldn't have that right in any other country", I meant in ANY other country. Not England or Australia, or Canada or France, or Wales or Prussia. Never before in the history of man have war criminals been afforded the rights of a CRIMINAL justice system. It's unheard of.

The idea that 12 random people should decide...on our CRIMINAL LEGAL standards whether or not someone is an enemy combatant is foolish.

Bull. Shit.

Try again chuckles.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2004 99,00.html

It's this simple:
Everyone in the world knew that Saddam had WMDs before the war. Hanz Blix flat out said that Saddam was reconstituting his arsenal. We found weapons he wasn't supposed to have. By Saddam's own admission, he was buying all the chemicals to make VX and Sarin. We have satilite footage of convoys of trucks leaving inspection sites before UN inspectors arrived. Bunkers usually were recently cleaned when we inspected them.
After the invasion we found hundreds of weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed before the war, some sold by Iraqi forces on the black market. While degraded, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam never destroyed his old arsenal. The top Iraqi general, George Sada testified that the WMDs went to Syria. Syrian reporters and defects have confirmed this.

In the face of all the evidence, those who deny Saddam had WMDs are either insanely stupid or ridiculously partisan.

How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!

Hmmm?

He was in...... where, then?

By the most liberal sources we have available, he fled into Pakistan early into the Afghanistan war.

Cute.

Not really. You have no clue what you're talking about, yet you're rambling on like you're Methusala.

Their capacity to kill innocents hasn't been proven. That's what this argument is about (I think).

100% of these people were picked up on battlegrounds. They were put in front of military tribunals. Anyone found lacking basic qualifications to be held was released. These people AREN'T here without cause.

On that note, I'll ask you the same thing I ask people in Cap punishment arguments.

It's not the same argument. At all.

What is the acceptable "Fail Rate"? How many people have to be wrongly imprisoned/tortured (I'm not even sure which one this argument is about to be honest) before the system has a problem and needs to be overhauled?

This is war, not grade school "fairness". Get it wrong with one person freed and hundreds of people die. Get it wrong with imprisoning someone and they lose a year of their lives (more than the average time for a detainee we release).

Look, bud, even if you were right on everything (and you're not), a fundamental reform of the military tribunals would be in order...not putting them in our criminal system. By our own jurisdiction, not a single one of these men can be tried in our courts. So putting them through our courts means they are all legally required to go free. We cannot charge people for murders done in other countries after all......

---

At 6/28/08 12:14 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/27/08 02:48 PM, Coherent wrote: I'm saying the government should be able to provide EVIDENCE for holding someone.

To whom? You?

The Judicial System

And for what purpose?

Oh, I don't know... maybe to prove they actually have a reason for holding someone?

4 men, out 770, in 8 years at gitmo.

4 men that we know about. You can't assume that they were the only ones being tortured, especially considered the testimonies from employees at Guantanamo.

You are guilty of the prior fallacies I have presented and your continued statements have only gone to show that.

Whatever you say.

It was an implied argument

No it wasn't. I never implied anything like that.

one that is backed up by your personal bias in the matters we have discussed.

I never even made that argument. You have to put words in my mouth to make an argument now?

No, it was not. You are lying.

Haha

It is not a "fact" that human rights abuse is the policy or that it is as widespread as you claim it to be, and I am not denying that it has never happened.Wwhat I am denying is your claim that torture as a widespread policy exists at these detention centers

There's evidence to support it. And there's evidence to support that the torture is being ordered by the interrogators.

something that has as yet to be conclusively proven thus far.

There's much more evidence for it then against it.

What you have are isolated cases and nothing more.

You're only believing what you want to believe

That's the standard you're setting? Better than Saddam?

and using it to justify ignoring the testimony's of soldiers from Iraq?

I'm using it to point out the illogical nature of the point you made; if the military was comprised of nothing but indiscriminate heartless killers

I never said it was, you're putting words in my mouth again. But honestly man, you take people who have never been in control at any point in their life, and you give them a gun, and you give them power, and you put them in a situation where they can abuse that power and get away with it... What do you think is going to happen? It's a formula for disaster.

And that's just the rogue soldiers, the military itself has some pretty despicable policies. When is it ever ok to liquidate a crowded area full of civilians?

then these men would not be allowed to live as the government would have silenced them by now.

Why even bother? Nobody cares anyways. The military doesn't have to do a thing. Every American in the entire country watches Iraq on the news and hears about the dead soldiers and Iraqis, and afterwards they say "Oh, that's terrible" and go back to eating their dinners. The American (Western Countries in general actually) population is disgustingly apathetic. Besides, there's a difference between killing US citizens and killing Iraqis. There are all sorts of pesky investigations if you kill a US citizen.

The same way if the Government was behind 9/11 then no-one would have heard of Dylan Avery and Loose Change. Your point is crap.

I see you've been reading Maddox. I think you need to man up and just realize that this is for real, and stop hiding behind your illogical arguments.

They're human beings who have been through hell, and I don't intend to hold them personally accountable for the matter.

How does that exonerate them from what they've done? they've "been through hell?". You know, I'd say most likely that when someone joins a terrorist faction because their family was blown to bits by a bombing run, they've been through hell too. Does that exonerate all these "terrorists" you've been condemning? Seems like a double standard to me.

And just like the random sampling deal you mentioned earlier, this too is bullshit.

Additionally, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a provision that guarantees "minimum" protections for detainees, applies to the war against al-Qaeda, and is thus a part of the "law of war," Stevens wrote.

...from your own link no less. That's disapointing

Then how do you expect them to correctly interpret the law and how it is to be applied?

What do you expect the Justices to do if they're presented with something that's never been ruled on? Throw it out because it's never been ruled on? Then they'd never have ruled on anything ever.

What the Justice Roberts stated in the dissenting opinion was right, as the ruling itself is far too vague to be usefull. This was legislation from the bench, and nothing more.

It's descriptive enough to allow prisoners to question their imprisonment. That sounds pretty useful to me.

---

Got to bump it up, another thread's been made.

---

"Wall street got drunk, and now it needs to sober up". Is apparently what happened to the housing crash in the US, according to Bush that is. Only after asking everyone to turn off their recorders did he speak. Did he honestly think nobody would record him after he asked everybody NOT TO?

But he is probably right, I mean, he is an authority on getting drunk and hungover.

---

At 7/6/08 03:24 PM, Coherent wrote: The Judicial System

So you're saying that the same government you don't trust to investigate itself should hold itself responsible for trying these prisoners?

4 men that we know about. You can't assume that they were the only ones being tortured, especially considered the testimonies from employees at Guantanamo.

That small a number of men out of that long frame of time is a huge ratio, coherent. And it begs a question that you are not willing to answer because it will go against the truth as you claim it; IF torture was the policy of the U.S. Armed Forces, why is it that these four men out of all the others over the last 8 years are the only ones that can be conclusively shown to have BEEN tortured?

When is it ever ok to liquidate a crowded area full of civilians?

When is it ever okay for an enemy soldier to fire from a crowded area full of civilians? Because that's what these men are facing; the insurgents that you so seek to give rights to and defend are hiding in plain sight dressed in civilian clothing. They are violating the rules of international law by being an organized military force that will not identify itself.

Why even bother?

Because it supports the point which you made, namely; if the government was as an entity capable of such evil acts, it would have no qualms in silencing it's opposition.

I think you need to man up and just realize that this is for real, and stop hiding behind your illogical arguments.

How are my arguments illogical? You took a fucking week to come back with a response that mainly consisted of you laughing and going "Nuh uh, YOU'RE WRONG" without so muich as giving concrete proof of the matter.

Seems like a double standard to me.

Except, in this instance, the someone that joined the terrorist faction with the intention of waging guerilla warfare did so of their own volition. You can't argue that everyone who joined the army did so with the intention of going to war and NOT simply to take advantage of getting a college education. Hell, if I had a dollar for everytime I saw that argument presented on this bbs in the last 5 years I could buy an oil company by now.

...from your own link no less. That's disapointing

I've been looking for that paragraph now for a good 10 minutes, and still can't find it.

What do you expect the Justices to do if they're presented with something that's never been ruled on?

The point isn't that they were ruling on something that been previously ruled on, the point is that they ruled on something that was a non-issue for them. They took time out of their day to rule on an issue that had not yet come before them in a docket. They made legislation from the bench instead of interpreting pre-existing legislation and how it should be applied in a particular case. If you don't see something glaringly wrong with that in the context of the arguments you've presented, then there is something wrong with you.

---

Bush needs to be reelected for another term.

REPEAL THE 22ND

anyone who doesn't think so can suck my hairy balls for being such a little wuss who loves terrorists. what do you people learn at school? don't your parents teach you any respect for the law?

---

At 7/6/08 03:24 PM, Coherent wrote: The Judicial System

Awesome. Hopefully they'll get in the 9th California district, where they just make up the law as they go along.

Oh, I don't know... maybe to prove they actually have a reason for holding someone?

This is war. Not a criminal trail.
They go before military tribunals.

4 men that we know about. You can't assume that they were the only ones being tortured, especially considered the testimonies from employees at Guantanamo.

No others have come forward.....hmmmmmmm....

There's evidence to support it. And there's evidence to support that the torture is being ordered by the interrogators.

No, there's not.

Yawn, done with you.

---

Bush administration discusses ways to provoke a war with Iran. Cheney considered proposal to dress up navy seals as Iranians and shoot at them. Holy war mongering Batman. Too bad this kind of news doesn't hit FOX or CNN, I guess it would destabilize the region, the US region that is.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/chen ey-proposal-for-iran-war/

A pile of other sites carrying the story.

---

At 8/3/08 09:14 AM, bcdemon wrote: Bush administration discusses ways to provoke a war with Iran. Cheney considered proposal to dress up navy seals as Iranians and shoot at them. Holy war mongering Batman. Too bad this kind of news doesn't hit FOX or CNN, I guess it would destabilize the region, the US region that is.

A buncha sites I'vde never heard of=bullshit.

---

At 8/4/08 04:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote: A buncha sites I'vde never heard of=bullshit.

LOL I get it, if it isn't mainstream media, its bullshit, got it....