NationStates Jolt Archive

I have thinking lately, in a post-9/11 US and indeed the world, what many people see as unjustifiable foreign policy actions have been taken, namely Iraq and US belligerence in the region and even worldwide. Indeed the idea has emerged in response to this is that the 'War on Terror' is in fact a political tool employed by Neoconservatives in the current US administration to create fear and to strengthen their own political power through doing so. I believe Edwards in this debate recently with the other Democratic candidates said that the war on terror was a political ploy by Bush to gain power. Also recently I watched a Curtis documentary called 'The Power of Nightmares' which also took this view, if you haven't seen it I would highly recommend it. What do NSG'ers think, is the supposed 'terrorist threat' greatly out of proportion and has been justified for politicians to tighten their grip on power?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0430484/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Also, it's on youtube.

I have thinking lately, in a post-9/11 US and indeed the world, what many people see as unjustifiable foreign policy actions have been taken, namely Iraq and US belligerence in the region and even worldwide. Indeed the idea has emerged in response to this is that the 'War on Terror' is in fact a political tool employed by Neoconservatives in the current US administration to create fear and to strengthen their own political power through doing so. I believe Edwards in this debate recently with the other Democratic candidates said that the war on terror was a political ploy by Bush to gain power. Also recently I watched a Curtis documentary called 'The Power of Nightmares' which also took this view, if you haven't seen it I would highly recommend it. What do NSG'ers think, is the supposed 'terrorist threat' greatly out of proportion and has been justified for politicians to tighten their grip on power?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0430484/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Also, it's on youtube.

Yes...

In other news, water is wet, liquid nitrogen is cold, and standing in front of a train is dangerous.

I have thinking lately, in a post-9/11 US and indeed the world, what many people see as unjustifiable foreign policy actions have been taken, namely Iraq and US belligerence in the region and even worldwide. Indeed the idea has emerged in response to this is that the 'War on Terror' is in fact a political tool employed by Neoconservatives in the current US administration to create fear and to strengthen their own political power through doing so. I believe Edwards in this debate recently with the other Democratic candidates said that the war on terror was a political ploy by Bush to gain power. Also recently I watched a Curtis documentary called 'The Power of Nightmares' which also took this view, if you haven't seen it I would highly recommend it. What do NSG'ers think, is the supposed 'terrorist threat' greatly out of proportion and has been justified for politicians to tighten their grip on power?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0430484/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Also, it's on youtube.

It is not merely the neoconservatives. Nearly every politician has operated on the Hobbesean view that the people desperately need government to make sure they don't destroy themselves.

I'm more scared about the fact that politicians tend to be fairly retarded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mqk_8t1Rsk)

It is not merely the neoconservatives. Nearly every politician has operated on the Hobbesean view that the people desperately need government to make sure they don't destroy themselves.

And that's why we Anarchism. Either Anarcho-Communist or Libertarian Socialism. I'm rooting for the latter mixed with Green.

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him. Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him. Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

No, the point is I am not denying terrorists are out there and they may kill, but to use that fear to justify destroying constitutions of rights and to say they threaten our civilization is not only morally dubious, it's downright incorrect.

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him. Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

you want to invade Pakistan now :confused:

And that's why we Anarchism. Either Anarcho-Communist or Libertarian Socialism. I'm rooting for the latter mixed with Green.

libertarian socialism still has government though...

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him. Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

*Gets hurt by the iron(y)*

Oh FAG...

*Further iron(y)--> KO'd*

you want to invade Pakistan now :confused:



libertarian socialism still has government though...

I think he meant the decentralized type. (Or at least I hope so)

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him.
Indeed. A little justified fear is a good thing.
Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

This is where a person goes from rational to irrational. Observe:
Rational: Sure, I don't want to get killed by terrorists, but I won't be giving up any of my rights just because you say it's for my own good.
Irrational: What do you mean the government is taking away my rights? Don't be stupid, they're just trying to protect us from the evil psycho terrorists. That's terrorist talk *calls TIPS*

*Gets hurt by the iron(y)*

Oh FAG...

*Further iron(y)--> KO'd*

Was that supposed to be a joke or a pun? I don't get it at all. :confused:

I'm more scared about the fact that politicians tend to be fairly retarded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mqk_8t1Rsk)
I really liked that, the editing went pretty well and made for an interesting song.

I think he meant the decentralized type. (Or at least I hope so)

I believe so, or at least it could be a unitary central state but be elected, like Britain and other countries. I suppose parallels could be drawn to socially liberal welfare systems in Europe, I believe these are the best governments in the world.

I think he meant the decentralized type. (Or at least I hope so)

well I suppose Pakistan cutting its education budget to build nukes would be something FreedomAndGlory would be all for

you want to invade Pakistan now :confused:



libertarian socialism still has government though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism#Opposition_to_the_State
Libertarian socialists regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression, leading many to oppose the state.

In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary associations (usually called collectives, communes or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations.[25] Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice. Contemporary examples of libertarian socialist organizational and decision-making models in practice include a number of anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements[26] including: Zapatista Councils of Good Government and the Global Indymedia network (which covers 45 countries on 6 continents). There are also many examples of indigenous societies around the world whose political and economic systems can be accurately described as anarchist or libertarian socialist, each of which is unique and uniquely suited to the culture that birthed it[27]. For libertarians, that diversity of practice within a framework of common principles is proof of the vitality of those principles and of their flexibility and strength.

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example.

Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of science at explaining the natural world comes from its methods and its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions; whereas traditional dogmatic explanations of naturalistic phenomena have proved almost useless at explaining anything in the natural world.

Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve their social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are just as doomed to failure as are non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, "I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal" (The London Years, 1956).

Because libertarian socialism encourages exploration and embraces a diversity of ideas rather than forming a compact movement, there have arisen inevitable controversies over individuals who describe themselves as libertarian socialists but disagree with some of the core principles of libertarian socialism. For example, Peter Hain interprets libertarian socialism as favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state[28] and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky supports dismantling all forms of unjustified social or economic power, while also emphasizing that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence.

Proponents are known for opposing the existence of states or government and refusing to participate in coercive state institutions. Indeed, in the past many refused to swear oaths in court or to participate in trials, even when they faced imprisonment [29] or deportation.[30]


Not according to this it is. From what i've read basically it means to remove the state and set a nation bassed on small groups working in a direct democracy.

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him. Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

Very true. There's no question that the terrorist threat exists. There's no doubt that politicians will want to appear "tough on" this, and exploit it in some ways, but there's nothing unreasonable about wanting to prevent terrorism and wanting to use the best of our resouces to do it. I don't think it has been blown out of proportion by most politicians, however - most of the emphasis in the last few years has been on the economy and finishing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not doomsaying over possible threats.

well I suppose Pakistan cutting its education budget to build nukes would be something FreedomAndGlory would be all for

Oh, no, not the Islamofascist communist baby-eaters. [/US ENEMY DEGRATION SEQUENCE]

If the US did it, on the other hand...

Irrational: What do you mean the government is taking away my rights? Don't be stupid, they're just trying to protect us from the evil psycho terrorists. That's terrorist talk *calls TIPS*

First of all, not all liberals are terrorists, so calling TIPS would indeed be an overreaction. However, allowing the government to wire-tap without a warrant and detain those suspected of terrorism, for example, would not be an infringement upon your individual rights (or mine, or Joe's). Such actions would be extremely utile in foiling terrorist schemes and should thus be supported, seeing as they do not deprive anyone of rights (except a couple hundred people).

My actual perfect system would be a capitalist social welfare democracy which has no standing military, it would be a neutral state and spend all it's money on sustaining the welfare state to the people, furthermore it would have no immigration as that would threaten the cultural fabric that the welfare society depends on, very similar to the Nordic Welfare systems in Finland and elsewhere.

well I suppose Pakistan cutting its education budget to build nukes would be something FreedomAndGlory would be all for

Don't be ridiculous; of course not.

Oh, no, not the Islamofascist communist baby-eaters. [/US ENEMY DEGRATION SEQUENCE]

If the US did it, on the other hand...

I believe that the US's nuclear arsenal is sufficiently powerful to destroy the world several times over; thus, additional funding seems unnecessary and grossly wasteful. Furthermore, "Islamo-fascist" and "communist" seem to be a contradiction in terms.

First of all, not all liberals are terrorists, so calling TIPS would indeed be an overreaction.
:rolleyes:
However, allowing the government to wire-tap without a warrant and detain those suspected of terrorism, for example, would not be an infringement upon your individual rights (or mine, or Joe's).
No, it would be an infringement on the rights ot the person they're wiretapping or detaining. Obviously.
Such actions would be extremely utile in foiling terrorist schemes and should thus be supported, seeing as they do not deprive anyone of rights (except a couple hundred people).

Try reading this sentence again. One more time. See that contradiction there at the end. Those few hundred people are being deprived of their rights. One person being deprived of their rights is too many.

First of all, not all liberals are terrorists, so calling TIPS would indeed be an overreaction. However, allowing the government to wire-tap without a warrant and detain those suspected of terrorism, for example, would not be an infringement upon your individual rights (or mine, or Joe's). Such actions would be extremely utile in foiling terrorist schemes and should thus be supported, seeing as they do not deprive anyone of rights (except a couple hundred people).

Of course... you're right, FreedomAndGlory. Government doubleplusgood protectors. Government no infringed rights. Libertarians doubleplusungood oldthinkful crimethinkers.

Of course... you're right, FreedomAndGlory. Government doubleplusgood protectors. Government no infringed rights. Libertarians doubleplusungood oldthinkful crimethinkers.

Can you restate that comment in plain English? I do not understand the last part whatsoever.

I think he meant the decentralized type. (Or at least I hope so)

Yes I mean Decentrilization to the level of no state or government.

I believe that the US's nuclear arsenal is sufficiently powerful to destroy the world several times over; thus, additional funding seems unnecessary and grossly wasteful. Furthermore, "Islamo-fascist" and "communist" seem to be a contradiction in terms.

No, they aren't. Just ask Our Dear Leader.

Come on, man. Surely you can taste the satire by now. Or read white text.

Can you restate that comment in plain English? I do not understand the last part whatsoever.

*laughs* FAG no understand Newspeak. FAG Oldspeakwise goodthinkful.

Ok, FAG, I'll help you...

That was Newspeak... I was being sarcastic, that's all you need to know.

As for translation? that doesn't work well with Newspeak. You have to read 1984 before you can understand the jargon that is Newspeak.

SNIP

so its anarchy only without erm....

First of all, not all liberals are terrorists

what happened to the "if your not with us your with the terrorists" :confused:

*laughs* FAG no understand Newspeak. FAG Oldspeakwise goodthinkful.

Oldspeakers don't bellyfeel Freedom(TM). Freedom(TM) is doubleplusgood.

It's actually quite funny that everything FreedomAndGlory stands for is against every idea of the USA.

Oldspeakers don't bellyfeel Freedom(TM). Freedom(TM) is doubleplusgood.

FAG is exception. FAG is goodthinkful, but he's [an] oldspeaker... he no learned newspeak. FAG bellyfeel Freedom (TM), he [just can]not newspeak.

If a rational person isn't afraid when vicious, bloodthirsty murderers are intent upon killing him and his family, then there is something wrong with him. Pointing out this threat and seeking to take measures to diminish it cannot be termed "the politics of fear"; it plays upon common sense, not irrational fright.

And this is why we spend vast amounts more time, money and effort trying to combat heart disease and cancer than relatively insignificant threats such as terrorism :)

And this is why we spend vast amounts more time, money and effort trying to combat heart disease and cancer than relatively insignificant threats such as terrorism :)

Indeed. ;)

I think most politicians use the politics of fear at one point or another--there are varying levels. A local representative might use fear by saying "if you don't send me back to Congress, you'll lose all this shit I've gotten for you," for example. The only thing this administration has done differently is that they've been utterly shameless about it. And anyone who falls for the whole "they'll follow us home" line ought not to reproduce. That ought to be grounds for removal from the gene pool, which is painfully shallow as it is.

No, it would be an infringement on the rights ot the person they're wiretapping or detaining. Obviously.

Obviously? What do you lose if your phone is wire-tapped? Are you hurt in any way whatsoever, either physically or emotionally? No, of course not. Thus, it does not deprive you of even an iota of your well-being. Also, a criminal is detained in order to prevent him from hurting people; unfortunately, sometimes, innocent people are put behind bars, but it works out for the greater good in the end. We cannot have criminals running amok because we are too queasy to toss them in a cell. Has the PATRIOT Act affected you in any way? It has not altered my day-to-day life one whit, nor the life of anybody I know.

One person being deprived of their rights is too many.

Really? So, would you rather deprive a hundred people of the right to roam around freely or allow them to deprive one thousand people of the right to life? It's not a trick question.

And this is why we spend vast amounts more time, money and effort trying to combat heart disease and cancer

The efficient private market bears that burden, as opposed to the bloated state. We have made significant advances in both areas within the past few years. Of course, medical research is a more specialized task than apprehending terrorists, and the limiting factor is manpower, not money or willpower.

What do you lose if your phone is wire-tapped?

well you can hardly use a sex line if there is some guy breathing heavily as you go at it

and what if I want to give my credit card details to Mr Clive from the bank, he want be too happy with that :eek:

well you can hardly use a sex line if there is some guy breathing heavily as you go at it

In the modern day, that is not how wire-taps work, so you need not fear such a predicament. However, I would advise you against using such a line to begin with, as it leads to a life of sin and misery.

and what if I want to give my credit card details to Mr Clive from the bank, he want be too happy with that

The government is not going to illegally withdraw funds from your bank account; that's absurd.

Just out of curiosity, why is anyone engaging FreedomAndGlory as if he's serious about these topics? He's clearly taking you guys for a ride.

Obviously? What do you lose if your phone is wire-tapped?
Your freedom to have a private phone conversation?

Obviously? What do you lose if your phone is wire-tapped? Are you hurt in any way whatsoever, either physically or emotionally? No, of course not.

Fourth amendment.

Thus, it does not deprive you of even an iota of your well-being.

WRONG

Also, a criminal is detained in order to prevent him from hurting people; unfortunately, sometimes, innocent people are put behind bars, but it works out for the greater good in the end.

As for that guy... he doesn't matter, right?

Has the PATRIOT Act affected you in any way?

Yes.


Would you rather deprive 300 million people of the right to roam around freely and tyrannize them for the rest of their lives or allow the highly unlikely chance that the terrorists will deprive no more than a couple thousand people of the right to life?

1) Fixed
2) I like the second scenario better

WRONG

No, it's actually a fact. Your phone being wire-tapped has absolutely no effect on your life; it is not even so much as a minor inconvenience because you are unaware that you are under surveillance.

As for that guy... he doesn't matter, right?

He matters less than his potential victims.

Yes.

How so? Please elaborate. Were you trying to blow up a building only to be halted in your tracks by the new security measures?

1) Fixed

Wrong. Only the freedom of a couple hundred people has been restricted, and the majority of those are terrorists. Also, nobody is being "tyrannized" by even the most preposterous stretch of the imagination.

Just out of curiosity, why is anyone engaging FreedomAndGlory as if he's serious about these topics? He's clearly taking you guys for a ride.

That's a good point. I guess it concerns the destruction of freedom he advocates.

FreedomAndGlory - Lolz.

Oldspeakers unbellyfeel Freedom(TM). Freedom(TM) is doubleplusgood.

Fixed. To make it proper newspeak.

Your freedom to have a private phone conversation?

What the hell kind of a freedom is that? Who cares? I don't see anything wrong with monitoring every single square inch of space in the US with a camera and recording every single phone conversation within our borders. Why? Because it does not have a detrimental effect upon law-abiding citizens at all but can drastically reduce crime. The government will not disclose the details of a private conversation to the media, so the fact that your talk is being listened on does not impact you at all. Zero, zip, nada, zilch, bupkis, nil.

That's a good point. I guess it concerns the destruction of freedom he advocates.

Let him advocate it in a vacuum then. Arguing with FreedomAndGlory is like trying to teach a pig to talk, except that instead of the pig getting annoyed, you get that way, and he gets his jollies at having gotten a rise out of you. Either way, the pig never learns to talk.

He's clearly taking you guys for a ride.

Yeah, I'm taking them for a ride...to Logictown, by way of Commonsenseville.

the majority of those are terrorists.

Prove it. Now. Or you'll be forfeiting the argument and admitting you lost it.

NOW!

Either way, the pig never learns to talk.

Am I the inarticulate pig in that metaphor? Some would construe that as flaming and/or trolling.

Guys, lets leave this thread and let FreedomAndGlory rot.

Prove it. Now. Or you'll be forfeiting the argument and admitting you lost it.

The Bush administration, which has access to sensitive information that cannot be disclosed without sacrificing public security, says so. I believe them. If you can prove the opposite, please do so. Otherwise, you will be forfeiting the argument and admitting you lost it. Now!

Yeah, I'm taking them for a ride...to Logictown, by way of Commonsenseville.

Well, if that's not the funniest thing I ever heard.

The Bush administration, which has access to sensitive information that cannot be disclosed without sacrificing public security, says so. I believe them. If you can prove the opposite, please do so. Otherwise, you will be forfeiting the argument and admitting you lost it. Now!

WRONG.

I don't have to prove a negative, YOU have to prove a positive. YOU have to prove the accursed administration said any truth. You lost this argument. As much as I wish I could claim winning an argument against you is a big feat, though, it isn't.

Guys, lets leave this thread and let FreedomAndGlory rot.

If other people want to debate me intelligently, let them do so; since when do you think other posters mindlessly follow your orders?

Let him advocate it in a vacuum then. Arguing with FreedomAndGlory is like trying to teach a pig to talk, except that instead of the pig getting annoyed, you get that way, and he gets his jollies at having gotten a rise out of you. Either way, the pig never learns to talk.

True, so I'll just stop now.

@FAG: I'll leave you with this, FAG.

I could not live at peace in the world you advocate. Such a world does not take into account the inevitable corruption power comes with. Entrusting any more power to the government would only lead to tyranny and the death of the freedom the United States was founded upon.

I wish you well along your path, friend. So long as that path isn't anywhere near writing in the law books.

@ The Nazz again: I feel so much better now. Thanks! :)

I don't have to prove a negative, YOU have to prove a positive.

The Bush administration said so, and that's the truth. Of course, you can reject this. In fact, you can reject any true statement; you can deny the very existence of a nation called Iraq. You can say that all my "proof" is dubious because the source is not known for its honesty. Of course, then we wouldn't be able to get anywhere. With this in mind, the Bush administration's press releases must be taken at face value, including the assertion that the majority of the detainee population at Gitmo is terrorists.

What the hell kind of a freedom is that?
... Seriously?

The freedom to privacy is something that I hold among the most important.

Who cares?
I do. I wouldn't really like it at all if some government agent was eavesdropping on my phone conversations... I mean, some of them are really quite personal and I don't want anyone to know these things except the people I speak to. I especially don't want a recording of these conversations made. It would be like someone going through my diary almost.

I don't see anything wrong with monitoring every single square inch of space in the US with a camera and recording every single phone conversation within our borders. Why? Because it does not have a detrimental effect upon law-abiding citizens at all but can drastically reduce crime.
Unlikely on either account. Private citizens might begin to censor themselves over the phone and criminals, well, they always find a way to get around these sorts of things.

The government will not disclose the details of a private conversation to the media, so the fact that your talk is being listened on does not impact you at all. Zero, zip, nada, zilch, bupkis, nil.
I don't care if the entire world knows, I care if one person other than the person I'm speaking to knows.

Was it Franklin who said "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both." or am I mistaken? In either case, truer words have never been spoken.

The Bush administration said so, and that's the truth. Of course, you can reject this. In fact, you can reject any true statement; you can deny the very existence of a nation called Iraq. You can say that all my "proof" is dubious because the source is not known for its honesty. Of course, then we wouldn't be able to get anywhere. With this in mind, the Bush administration's press releases must be taken at face value, including the assertion that the majority of the detainee population at Gitmo is terrorists.

Appeal to an authority, and appeal to a fake authority that has been wrong on many accounts so far. You have NOTHING besides that to back up your claims. I won. You lost. I'm coherent. You're not. The Bush administration is a plague upon America. It's a group of evil, accursed people, that are unable to tell the truth.

I'm coherent.

Really? I might have let you slide with that but for what you said a couple sentences later, which makes you sound like a paranoid, ranting fanatic.

The Bush administration is a plague upon America. It's a group of evil, accursed people, that are unable to tell the truth.

I don't care if the entire world knows, I care if one person other than the person I'm speaking to knows.

I don't care if you care. I'm asking you to name one way in which such a wire-tap (assuming you are unaware of it) can affect your life. You can't; do you know why? Because it doesn't impact you at all.

Really? I might have let you slide with that but for what you said a couple sentences later, which makes you sound like a paranoid, ranting fanatic.

Really.

That's cute coming from the guy that's willing to believe EVERYTHING an administration that's proved itself willing to lie like insane just out of paranoia in relation to brown people. From a guy that's willing to grant that same Administration dictatorial powers out of abject fear. From a guy that claims liberals are trying to destroy his country. From a guy that claims evolution is an attack on Christianity. And on. It. Goes.

I have a 214 page document containing detailed proof that FreedomAndGlory is a bad troll.
I assure you that it is 100% accurate and contains no loopholes, but I can't post it, because it is classified.

I have a 214 page document containing detailed proof that FreedomAndGlory is a bad troll.
I assure you that it is 100% accurate and contains no loopholes, but I can't post it, because it is classified.

Did Shrubya sign it? It MUST be true! :eek:

That's cute coming from the guy that's willing to believe EVERYTHING an administration

That's not true. I don't agree with the administration's stance on religion, illegal immigration, and other matters; I believe some of their assertions on such issues are fallacious.

That's not true. I don't agree with the administration's stance on religion, illegal immigration, and other matters; I believe some of their assertions on such issues are fallacious.

Then why do you blindly believe them with regards to holding people on no grounds with no evidence?

Then why do you blindly believe them with regards to holding people on no grounds with no evidence?

Because they have shown admirable leadership in that arena in the past and have access to classified information which illustrates the guilt of the detainees.

Please guys, stop replying to FreedomAndGlory, reactions are what he wants, we all know he's a pathetic MTAE clone troll with nothing important to say, lets just leave him to die.

While the War on Terror and the climate it created may have allowed certain government officials to aggressively pursue goals that would have previously been unjustifiable, the threat of terrorism in the world is real and of paramount importance. The American government has not operated infallably but I sleep better knowing that the danger was recognized and steps taken to prevent it from impacting the daily lives of innocents.

Please guys, stop replying to FreedomAndGlory, reactions are what he wants, we all know he's a pathetic MTAE clone troll with nothing important to say, lets just leave him to die.

Like a wise man once said, "if you have nothing important to say, don't say anything at all." It seems you are incapable of debating me honestly; however, you are also urging others to stop such argument with me. Although I am not a psychiatrist, I believe that this is so because you are very insecure in your own left-wing views and are attempting to hide from conflicting right-wing views lest you begin to shed your precious, dearly-guarded, leftist mode of thinking. Although this is perfectly understandable, I would suggest broadening your mind and soaking in differing opinions in order to mature intellectually.

Because they have shown admirable leadership in that arena in the past and have access to classified information which illustrates the guilt of the detainees.

No, they haven't. They have shown a will to invade and rape countries.

And they were forced to release several detainees exactly because they lacked the evidence.

I'm done here with you. I win. You lose. That's how it is, and that's how it always will be.

And they were forced to release several detainees exactly because they lacked the evidence.

I never claimed that every single detainee was guilty; I simply asserted that the majority of people being held in Gitmo were terrorists.

I'm done here with you. I win. You lose. That's how it is, and that's how it always will be.

That's quite puerile, don't you think?

Offcourse everyone has his or her right to his own opinion...
But reading through this thread and seeing the replies made by FreedomAndGlory, he actually proves the point made by the initial poster...

He has been feared so much by the Goverment that he actually believes them and will follow them blindly... Made to fear and hate a group of people who would not have been a threat if America had reacted like a "adult" instead of the "World-Bully".

To think.. The chance to be a victim of a terrorist action in America is thousand times as small as being shot by your.... neighbour....
Yet terrorists are still a larger danger then the NRA.. hehe... sure mate, Travel to Logictown through commonsenseville.... I'll be waiting for you in something we call.. "The Real World"

Anyway... Enough words and energy spilled on this subject... just wanna thank FreedomAndGlory for proving to us all that the initial poster his point is the absolute truth....

Regards,

I never claimed that every single detainee was guilty; I simply asserted that the majority of people being held in Gitmo were terrorists.


That's quite puerile, don't you think?

With no evidence, which is what lost you the argument. With no evidence other than hearsay by the most lying, thieving and dangerous administration of all time.

And debates have winners and losers. Get used to it, because you're not very likely to ever be on the winning side.

Am I the inarticulate pig in that metaphor? Some would construe that as flaming and/or trolling.

And the people who would make that call have a forum where you can ask.

And the people who would make that call have a forum where you can ask.

Ah, but forgiving those who trespass against us is a virtue. In that regard, I am a better man than you.