quote:

I do wonder if there's a single person who actually believes that crap you spout.

I notice you weren't able to refute the crap you spouted earlier.

"You think. You think. You think."
afenton, that is a peculiarly silly debating tactic because you have no idea what I think. If you try to argue on what you ASSUME, MAKE UP or DISTORT, then just forget it.

Why don't you stick to facts for a change and produce some evidence.

Since you refer to Obama's dilemma I might add that I haven't yet decided how good or bad he's going to be. I won't assume, I'll wait for some facts.
However, he did say something that I've believed for many years:
Guantanamo has already weakened American national security.
"It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries."

You don't see that the longer America flouts the law, the Geneva convention and morality the greater the danger is from fundamentalists. Scores more are attracted to an alternative when they see or even experience the stupidity of maintaining an American terror.

"I haven't made up my mind yet (clueless)...however..."!

Produce evidence and don't assume?? What a jerk! What, I have to produce evidence that the Guantanamo 250 are guilty before Obama can keep them locked up? Evidence? Don't assume? Have you ever re-read a single word you've written? Time after time, I've laid out quotes, stat's, facts and figures (remember the one time you did, and where it came from; and what you chose to do with the stat's coming from Iraq, post-war?
To quote you:
"Stuff the Iraqis; they don't know what they want."
"Don't factor anyone but yourself into the equation."
"Saddam was a human being, and I'm so terribly upset that he was subjected to the law of the land of people that I don't give a stuff about and actually wanted left in abject misery under the guardianship of the peron that I feel so desperately sorry for - me being such a morally perfect example for all man-kind."

And Obama said that it is a rallying cry for enemies; he did NOT say it was a justifiable reason for slaughtering little Scottish children who were heading away for the ****ing weekend! Of course, with apologists like you and the likes of Bin Laden (with explosives), and Imams a-plenty using those exact same words, yep, it will be a part of the conditioning that will lead to excuses to commit atrocities!
I mean, that is what you are saying, isn't it - that the terrorists now have a good reason, in jailing the planners of 9/11, to commit further mass murders! Oh, that isn't what you are saying? Bollocks! That's precisely what you advocate: the US locks up Muslims who are determined to not only wipe Israel off the face of the world, but also destroy the mechanics of your freedom to condemn the US in the first place. Unless you are agreeing with Obama, that the Muslim extremists will use Guantanamo as just another excuse to continue the WAR against the West and Israel and all Kufars... oh, and any Muslims who don't go along with this crap that they spout, and you listen to with receptive ears, and further with your condemnation of all things US.
Then you have the bloody cheek to say that those opposed to Muslim extremisms need to show proof that you, as an apologist (see your misrepresentation of Obama's statement) for them, need not, nor ever will, show!

All you EVER do is put yourself forward as some sort of moral beacon, when you are nothing but an apologist.
As I've said before, I'll stick with Obama, Bush and Cheney, and the defense of your family.

MY mind? Did you change yours on Obama?

Again you misquote - I presume to shore up your non-existent arguments. (I bet you'll say that it was such an obvious misquote that everyone should realise it.) But I'll let it go because we've talked your misquotes to death.

Do you know, I've just had an epiphany.

The really interesting thing is that you are demonstrating some quite manic tendencies yourself. I suspect you recognise in yourself that urge to be a terrorist, that urge to kill or maim. Evidence your willingness to torture.
As such you need to justify those urges, give them the stamp of approval. You can only do that by justifying someone else's willingness to torture. For if you ever let yourself think that America's behaviour was just a little bit immoral, you'd have to say the same about yourself.

There's also the vicarious pleasure you get when you read about Guantanamo.

Don't beat yourself up over it (though one part of you would like it).

You can always get help.

A Dibbly Dobbly if ever I saw one!


"Asa really is looking a rather dejected and forlorn character. His last few innings have left him all Dibbly Dobbly; the Yips have definitely got to him."

"Have to agree with you, Richie; it's as though the realisation is finally hitting him that his Cherry's broken."

"The contrast with Fenton is becoming ever more evident; while Asa can't seem to handle his balls, Fenton seems to thrive on driving Asa's Silly Off-Side Middle-Leg-leaning Tosses way off to the boundaries. That last six would have been inspirational if it weren't for the fact that Asa had bowled to him with such lackluster - Fenton had all the time in the world to place his shot exactly where he wanted to."

"Have to agree with you, Richie; it's as though the realisation is finally hitting him that his Cherry's broken."

"Fenton's strength seems to lie in his ability to predict where the bowler will pitch his Chinaman or epiphany, and so he can hit a Lofted Drive in any direction."

"Have to agree with you, Richie; it's as though the realisation is finally hitting him that his Cherry's broken."

"With Fenton's easy Sweeps and Attacking Shots, and Asa's failure to control his Balls and his Buffet Bowling leading to Sticky Wickets, it's a bit like watching a match between a top flight County cricket team playing the old chaps down on the village green on a Sunday morning. "

"Have to agree with you, Richie; it's as though the realisation is finally hitting him that his Cherry's broken."

"One has to wonder if someone should tell old Asa that it's maybe time to hang up his Grubber before he loses Grip on his Jaffer Meat; he's in danger of becoming a Mullygrubber."

"It's a funny old game, Richie."

"It is indeed."



Hey, Asa, do people actually pay for that sort of anaylsis?? Man, they'd have to be pretty ****ed up!


Anyway, here're the scores on the doors:
Bush, with wisdom and determination, and much good advice, opened Guantanamo;

Asa disagrees;

Obama says he will close Guantanamo and stop any further military trials;

Asa has fake orgasm;

Obama reneges, and not only fails to close Guantanamo, but also promises to begin military trials;

Asa thanks the Lord, but fakes indignation;



And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final
cur
tain.

Regrets, I ain't got none,
But Asa must; of this I'm
cer
tain.

I've made
his life pure hell
he's like a rabbit on a highway
And more, much more than this,
I did him my way.



Yes, there were times, I'm sure he knew
When he bit off more than he could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate him up and spat him out.
He faced it all, but I stood tall;
And did him my way.

I've laughed, Ive laughed and laughed.
I've had my fill; my share of laughing.
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing.

To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way,
No, oh no not me,
I did him my way.

For what is Asa, what has he got?
If not his lies, then he has naught.
To say the things he doesn't truly feel;
And live a lie, not really real.
The record shows he took the blows -
But I did him...

my

way!


Fenton waltzes off into the setting sun, head cocked at a crazy angle and with a rabid look on his face, promising to return when Guantanamo 3: The Aftermath begins.

quote:

Since you refer to Obama's dilemma I might add that I haven't yet decided how good or bad he's going to be. I won't assume, I'll wait for some facts.
However, he did say something that I've believed for many years:
Guantanamo has already weakened American national security.
"It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries."

You don't see that the longer America flouts the law, the Geneva convention and morality the greater the danger is from fundamentalists. Scores more are attracted to an alternative when they see or even experience the stupidity of maintaining an American terror.

Asa, you are definitely behind the times here. You seem to be stuck in Obama's pre-election fantasy world that even he himself has pricked with the reality pin. In all fairness George actually deserves an apology at this point for having his finger on the national security pulse all these years. None of the facts revealed so far make a single dent in your fantasy that there are 'thousands of innocents' among the 250 remaining detainees. Not even the reports that of the innocents so far released, around 11% are back in the game.

"The Pentagon is set to release a report this week giving details to back up its claim that 61 former Guantánamo detainees - about 11 per cent of the 520 inmates who have been released - had “returned to terrorism”."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...s/article5594272.ece


Anyway, I look forward to Guantanamo 3... the Gitmo Cup. I have a feeling it'll be the curtain call for Dibbly, Dobbly, Wobbly whose just lost all form these days. It'll be a cracker of a match, Richie.

afenton, delusional to the end - but if it makes you happy....

None of the facts revealed so far make a single dent in your fantasy that there are 'thousands of innocents' among the 250 remaining detainees.
I didn't say that Trish. Naughty, you're close to arguing like Andrew with the misquote and assumption.

We know Bush regretted Guantanamo, unless he was lying when he said he wanted to close it.
Obama still wants to close it.

Bush deserves an apology? Not from me.

I'll await the Pentagon's report with interest.

Listened to an interesting radio interview this past week that (for me) shed enlightment upon a troubling subject of waterboarding (for me)....

Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North joins Don Wade and Roma WLs-AM Radio broadcast, 05/22/09

On May 22nd, author & syndicated columnist Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North joined Don Wade and Roma to explain what it feels like to be waterboarded and how dangerous it would be to close down Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees to America. He also gives us his analysis of President Barack Obama's and former Vice President Dick Cheney's speeches on national security. Lt. Col North was awarded 2 purple hearts after serving 22 years in the United States Marine Corp.

http://tinyurl.com/prffku (Approx. 17 min long). Lt. Col North discusses the following points pertinent to this argument:

* Motives for waterboarding

* the thwarting of a recent NY plot by Islamic radicals in American society demonstrates what kind of enemy we're dealing with; they were recruited in prisons by the likes of Farrakhan-type organizations, then handed over to radical mosques and imams for further indoctrination.

Currently, those incarcerated in American super-max prisons are there having intended to survive whatever violent crime(s) they were convicted of; those at Gitmo, by contrast, intended to die themselves, while committing an atrocity against their targets; the latter just wanted to 'take out' as many other human beings as possible, while committing a homicide-suicide.

(skip to about 15 min into the interview, if you don't want to listen to the entire broadcast)

From a practical point of view it might not be a good idea to close it.

I heard on NPR a couple days ago the US pays only $4000.00 per year to lease the place while it would cost several hundred million dollars to close it.

Is that too much to spend to send only a symbolic message?

Waterboarding by your friends might be considered a little different than by your enemies.

I like how he disparaged Obama for using the word 'I' and congratulated Cheney for saying 'we'. My take is that Obama, by using 'I' is taking responsibility; Cheney on the other hand is spreading the blame.

North, as well as his purple hearts, also illegally sold arms to Iran, admitted lying to Congress and whilst he denied knowing anything about drug trafficking he refers to it in his notebooks here

He is a remarkable man who has been protected by his government and judiciary for doing their dirty work and for being loyal.

I agree waterbourding by your friends where you know everyone around you will make sure you won't die, including a medical person, is different than by your enemies where the waterbourdee as no clue what will happen, and knows he is with his enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa:

I like how he disparaged Obama for using the word 'I' and congratulated Cheney for saying 'we'. My take is that Obama, by using 'I' is taking responsibility; Cheney on the other hand is spreading the blame.

Red Herring.

quote:

North, as well as his purple hearts, also illegally sold arms to Iran, admitted lying to Congress and whilst he denied knowing anything about drug trafficking he refers to it in his notebooks [edit note: your link isn't clear at all, Asa]

He is a remarkable man who has been protected by his government and judiciary for doing their dirty work and for being loyal.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

quote:

Waterboarding by your friends might be considered a little different than by your enemies.

As eagle noted, this is the only point that has any merit to Asa's argument.

First point about the 'I' and 'we':
You referred to his comments about the two speeches so I thought it merited comment. If others would like to listen to the audio they can make up their own minds.

Having brought North into the argument I thought it fair to comment on his credibility.
Your ad hominem point I understand to be valid if I were to attack you. (Something I would never do to you Airedale.)

Couldn't wait for Guantanamo 3: The Wet Fish (Red Herring). Not often one gets the chance to see Aire debating, so thought I'd nip back in. Besides, couldn't leave the obviousness of Asa's most recent hypocrisy unspoken.

" I didn't say that Trish. Naughty, you're close to arguing like Andrew with the misquote and assumption."

Never assume, in an argument/debate, unless you're Asa. His very next post says:

"My take (assumption) is that Obama, by using 'I' is taking responsibility; Cheney on the other hand is spreading the blame (assumption)."

A couple of other examples of hypocrisy follow.
Therefore, apparently, bad debating. I don't agree, of course - just thought I'd point out the glaring flaw.

Oh, by the way, how many friends do you have that lay you down then place a wet cloth on your face? Some friends! Hey, maybe it's some type o' Micheal Hutchence thing.
Also, how many detainees actually died from the Nasty Wet Cloth thing? Oh, none? Oh, ok. And how many suicide bombers died? Oh, all of them, and tens of thousands of innocents? Oh, ok.
And - just for the sake of the debate, of course - if waterboarding had been used on those ex-Guantanamoers who went on to re-join Al Qaeda, isn't there a chance that they would not now (now not?) be in positions of planning to commit other atrocities?

"If others would like to listen to the audio they can make up their own minds."

Make up their own minds? Don't you mean assume?

There is a world of difference between starting a sentence with 'I assume' or 'my take is' etc. and a pretence of fact (which is an undeclared assumption).
The former is what you use when you are being open and honest, the latter when you are dissembling and have a weak or non-existent argument.
I use the former, you use the latter.

Funny how my argument is somehow non-existent, even though it was and is Bush's, and is now Obama's, too, don't you think??
You wouldn't know open and honest if it bit your leg. As for the selective definitions - you've gotta be kidding! It doesn't seem to even enter your head that you are all alone in your beliefs, yet it's others who "dissemble" and have no argument. You HAVE no argument; as always, you simply say "imagine all the people", then... nothing. The fact that Obama has swung onto Bush's side also means nothing. And almost the entire US senate disagrees with you. And, I would suggest, almost the entire bloody world does, too. Still, you have al qaeda on your side.
And as for your ridiculous suggestion (assumption? Abso-frigging-lutely) that you would not condone some torture, even if it meant saving your own childrens' lives... who the hell do you think you're kidding?
Cloud frigging cuckoo-land, that's where you live.
See, this has nothing to do with facts, or even opinions: this is about an appearance.

"You're all alone
Running out of ways to
Hold on to hope
And it always slips away
You're all alone
But you don't have to
Pretend to cope
There is a brighter way..."

...and it's called honesty.

quote:

Funny how my argument is somehow non-existent

At last he sees the light!
Yes, I know I didn't quote the whole thing, but I thought you'd appreciate a little of the selectivity at which you're so good.

The rest of the post is the 'usual' stuck record which has become tedious.

Can't you get back to the cricket? Whilst only in fiction (and in your mind) can you win, at least it was entertaining.
Well, very nearly.

Selective? Me? My dear Asa, one hardly need be selective with your posts; they're all the same: empty.

Fenton - this fine All-Rounder and absolute master of the controlled batsmanship - really does Anchor his batting. He uses his Sweet Spot to such devastating effect, even when on a Sticky Dog. Not that the present match is even remotely similar to a Sticky Dog; this match is more of Straight Up and Down. This bowler's attempts at Rib-Tickling are somewhat feeble, with his Balls a bit of a Queer Pair, and his Point Of Release poorly timed, causing premature Appeal.

There ya go, cobber!

Now, how about actually joining the debate? We've mentioned how you're isolated, hypocritical, self-deceptive, contradictory, deficient in facts or opinions, and you tend to avoid white fish, prefering to go straight to the red herring.
Come on, Asa, do try to make it into at least a bit of a debate! Why not suggest that the suicide bombings in Pakistan today, which killed a rather high number of Pakistani citizens, can reasonably be explained as Al Qaeda reacting to the awful wet-cloth treatment of innocent Muslims in Guantanamo? The old "we can cut off the heads of Western engineers who are forced to wear orange jumpsuits, in revenge for the US using the barbarous wet-cloth treatment on Muslims forced to wear orange jumpsuits" routine is always good for propoganda - of the sort so popular with the liberal terrorist apologists.
Or you could just admit that your only defense is the Fast Leg Theory. Or you haven't managed to watch the Al Jazeera channel today, therefore you are not sure what to 'think'.

"Hard to be sure
Some times I feel so insecure
And love so distant and obscure
Remains the cure...

All by myself
Don't wanna be
All by myself anymore..."

So, I condone torture by the US 'secret services' - don't care who it's on or on how many it's done to. If it saves lives, thet'll do me; if it's the lives of your family, that's a good enough reason for me.
I'm with Bush, Obama and more or less the entire US government.
You want world peace, a destabilised Iraq and bigger audiences for 'Smooooth Radio'. And more cricket on tv.
And a bag of crisps.

This debate is now boring.

We need new info., new developments or new blood.

Until then we seem to be going around in circles. Senseless to repeat ourselves.

May I suggest a time out? I don't think we are close to degenerating into a heated discourse where inappropriate words might be used, but I'd rather avoid the risk.

At this point, speaking for myself, I believe we are at an impasse.

Obama will continue to do almost precisely what Bush did and intended to do. Guantanamo will remain open 'til all inmates (I prefer the term bastards, but I'll use the euphemistic inmates) are either locked away in a high-security prison or have been sentenced or released after a trial - military or otherwise.
In other words, I'm absolutely fine with things the way they are. An impasse? See, I'm fine with that too!