I don't know where jihad and virgins came in. Once again I said: "If I was held captive against my will without trial there is a good chance I might be inclined to take up arms against my captors." If you want to try and twist what I was saying that is on you. I don't support a "jihad" and the idea of killing yourself to gain 72 virgins in the afterlife is not congruent with my beliefs. Having said that, once more: "If I was held captive against my will without trial there is a good chance I might be inclined to take up arms against my captors." That statement has nothing to do with religion. That is a statement of how I would feel if: "If I was held captive against my will without trial"
I love political debate but I think it's a bit tacky to peg someone as a "buddy" of a despot simply because someone sees some flaws in our reasoning for invading Iraq, or even Afghanistan.. Not to mention, if I recall correctly, there was a time in the past the US was willing to look the other way where Saddam was concerned. Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein shaking hands, December 19, 1983. Rumsfeld is instrumental in providing Hussein with US-manufactured chemical and biological weapons.
I never said such was congruent with your beliefs. Nor did I say your statement had anything to do with religion. Setting the assumptions aside, what I asked was: Did you say you were, or were not defending someone?
I'm pretty sure my first post made that clear "Not to defend anyone". I don't know who the individual detainees are or were. All I can do is offer an opinion which I feel I have made clear but in case you missed it: "If I was held captive against my will without trial there is a good chance I might be inclined to take up arms against my captors." If you don't like my opinion, that is fine, but what would your reaction be if you were held captive without a right to trial?
Was it this post that led you to come to that rationale? I had no idea that the above comment would be seen as just "flaws in "our" reasoning. Perhaps it was the followup posts defending saddam? This is a myth. Rumsfeld was sent as an envoy, a private citizen, to improve relations with Iraq. It's fodder for the left.
I covered that previously, didn't I? Pretty sure I did. You are aware of what an enemy combatant is, right?
No, it wasn't that post.. it was your comment to WebDevHowTo.. I actually haven't read a post that defends Saddam yet.. just your insistence that we are because we don't agree on some of the issues. I can't believe tho that you're so naive to believe that an envoy goes without official sanction, private citizen or no... Charlie Sheen, I'd say you have a point.. but when Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with a world leader, he's there in an official capacity.
Maybe I missed it but where did you cover that? Do you mean this: Originally Posted by Perrow If I were a terrorist held captive without trial, tortured, humiliated and then released there's a slight chance that I'd pick up my weapon and fight again when I was released. All the more reason to keep them locked up, where they belong.
So you are asserting that I referred to saddam as WebDevHowTo's "buddy" despite the fact that I never did such? Are we going to be honest in debate here? I never said he was there without official sanction. Why would you suggest such a thing? He was an envoy and served a very specific short-term purpose. Perhaps you suggested this in order to not address the facts I presented that didn't match up to your initial claims?
You brought up the jihad and virgins but that had nothing to do with my question. My question is: What would your reaction be if you were held captive without a right to trial? If you want to avoid the question again, feel free.
Hm, how are things at Langley these days anyway? j/k You mentioned in a post: Originally Posted by GTech Your buddy also killed over a million of his own people and dumped them in mass graves. I must have missed who you were referring to, but I assumed you were referring to Webdevhowto for whatever reason. Further, you qualified your statement about Rumsfeld thusly: Rumsfeld was sent as an envoy, a private citizen, to improve relations with Iraq. To me, a "private citizen" means something entirely different when you state it the way you did.
I wouldn't have been participating in jihad for virgins in the first place. Did you say you were, or were not defending someone? It's hard to avoid something I've answered several times now. Any particular reason you'd pretend to be so dishonest about it? If that's all you have left to justify your sympathy for terrorists who have gone back to commit acts of terrorism again, feel free to ask again. I can bookmark it, if it will help.
Wow, it is just a simple question that you answer with words of jihad and virgins. Are not willing to say how you would feel if you were held captive without a right to trial?
Thank you. Since you were able to go back and find that post, could you also tell me to whom that was in response to? Who was quoted, when I made that post? It seems as if you are going out of your way to avoid skibstain's posts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer Hope that clears things up. Did you not want to take exceptions to any of the real issues I countered?
I'm putting gtwat on ignore. It's simply impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with this lying idiot. Instead of debating points he tries to reduce every discussion down to a farcical exchange of nonsense. And the trouble with arguing with an idiot is they bring you down to their level and beat you on experience. Bye bye Gtwat. You are a disgrace to all primates.
If I was years in prison without reason I could have been fighting against the ones that imprisoned me. Anyway, why would the US release an guilty prisoner? Shows that they are doing wrong anyway. Him being not guilty releasing him they say that they did wrong and kept him in prison for a long time without reason. If he is guilty they released a person that should not be released, they are wrong again.