Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wildo7, Jun 18, 2008.
So he wasn't in the Taliban or AQ, but he was arrested because he might have been, and then a couple of years after his release he was considered one of the top twenty AQ leaders in the world?
Damn...that's advancement right there. I wonder if he got a raise with it?
Seriously--how do you go from having no connection to being a top dog in a couple of years?
That's what the story is about, maybe you should actually read it.
ding, ding, ding...............
Couldn't be he was a freakin terrorist when he went in, and then just went back to being one after we pampered and fattened him up for was year.
NAWWWWWW, couldn't be
Nice find Wildo. :singing:
I can't take this anymore
ding, ding, ding! Pure genius! That's why they let him go right? Good analysis.
Should I just keep posting this article in pieces so that those who refuse to read it before arguing against it don't keep putting a foot in their mouth?
As for the second story.........
Wow, the Iraqi guy had scars on his thumbs that are basically identical and consistent to a KNOWN*** methods of torture used in Saddam-era Iraq, and claims to have had a stick shoved up his butt, but refused to allow the medical exam to prove it.
Damn, that's smoking gun stuff if I ever saw it.
Color me skeptical.
How about I color you a deceitful cherry-picker?
They probably let him go cuz the SUPREME COURT wanted to give him Habius Corpus cookies. You can't prove this sh!t either way, just cuz they claim that they are now working against the US. They probably were before hand.
We'll NEVER KNOW, cuz someone's lying, and none of us have the ability to prove otherwise, dispite your proclamations otherwise.
Show me DECEIT. I'm saying there is an agenda, and no proof.
The fact that you chose ONE out of ELEVEN and failed to acknowledge the other evidence says enough.
Well, you're one of the people who says the Bush administration is completely incompetent after all...
Um no actually, the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it. And the U.S. would never release a terrorist only to put his face on card #16 of the most wanted. Does that make sense to you?
And I haven't even seen the U.S. deny this yet, so the "someone is lying" excuse is a tad premature don't ya think?
Here's a question for you: In the right wing mind, does it make sense that someone imprisoned wrongfully, without any idea of time, place or status, and probably abused would most likely strongly dislike his captor upon release? Or does the flag worship block your mind from thinking about such things?
When did I say that? The Bush administration is very competent at doin what it wants to do.
And that's another pathetic argument, especially for someone who throws around the "apologist" label like it's going out of fashion.
Apologist label? I've only called Patters that that I know of--and there's a whole different dynamic at work there--remember the other day when you got mad at FTW and posted "I dare you to give me an infraction"? It's that kind of thing with Patters. I like him, but he overstepped on something.
And I should've put a or even a in my post.
Of the 11, the seven at Abu, assuming they can prove they were abused, should be compensated, as known abuses occurred then during the period they were there. Of the other 4, they only gave specifics on 1, and as I outlined, details on that one are skeptical at best and should be looked at as such.
Talk abut cherry picking............ this study CHOSE to focus on Abu Ghraib during the time that KNOWN ABUSES took place there. It conveniently ignores the fact that that is ONE VERY ISOLATED period in the 7 years history of dealing with THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of prisoners and treated them far more decently that we could ever expect to be treated in return, the wide majority of them being GUILTY as sin.
Tell you what, I'll answer that question, when you answer this one. In your left wing, "I HATE AMERICA" brain, does it ever embarrass you to spew your hate filled rhetoric knowing that people that were FAR BETTER THEN YOU died to give you that right.
I'm not talking being critical of our country............. We all are from time to time...... including me, so I have no problem with that. YOU ARE ALWAYS critical and since you hate this country so much, I don't know how you sleep at night in this here in the place you obviously LOOTHE so much. People like you disgust me.
I don't hate this country, I hate it's leadership and some of the things it's done. Maybe some day you'll figure out the difference. Hopefully soon. People like you amuse me. And which war exactly have we fought in the last 60 years in defense of my right to free speech? Care to give an example? Which country has actually attacked us since WWII? Oh that's right, none.
The War on Terror.....................
Sorry it escaped you.
Thanks for the laugh, sorry you fell for that.
Separate names with a comma.