He doesn't mean the war on terror. He can't, because there is no way that can legally be classified as a war. But the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and will be for some years to come.mikkel wrote:
One of the many questionable "advantages" of waging war on concepts that will always exist. There are so many actions carried out that are justified solely on poor, circular logic, and are completely at odds with the moral high ground rhetoric spouted in the century. It's saddening.FEOS wrote:
Of US citizens.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Supreme Court make a ruling that essentially invalidated indefinite detention? I might be missing something, though.
Non-US citizens captured on the battlefield can be held without charge or trial until hostilities are ended, per the Geneva Convention.
Hostilities have not ended.
As far as I'm aware, the war in Afghanistan is authorised by Senate Joint Resolution 23, which mentions nothing about Afghanistan, but simply serves to ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", and has been extended to involve conflicts all over the world with "Al-Qaeda" involvement. Those conflicts are commonly referred to as part of the Global War on Terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
He doesn't mean the war on terror. He can't, because there is no way that can legally be classified as a war. But the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and will be for some years to come.mikkel wrote:
One of the many questionable "advantages" of waging war on concepts that will always exist. There are so many actions carried out that are justified solely on poor, circular logic, and are completely at odds with the moral high ground rhetoric spouted in the century. It's saddening.FEOS wrote:
Of US citizens.
Non-US citizens captured on the battlefield can be held without charge or trial until hostilities are ended, per the Geneva Convention.
Hostilities have not ended.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
Not according to the GC. That is a domestic US law ruling, not an international one.Dilbert_X wrote:
And they are never going to.FEOS wrote:
Hostilities have not ended.
I thought there was a ruling that they had to be brought before a court at some point.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The war is against AQ and AQ-affiliated groups (hence the catch-all phrase "war on terror")...but let's not confuse soundbites with policy. The war is still going on, hence hostilities have not ended. Hence detention without charge or trial is still in line with the GC.mikkel wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the war in Afghanistan is authorised by Senate Joint Resolution 23, which mentions nothing about Afghanistan, but simply serves to ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", and has been extended to involve conflicts all over the world with "Al-Qaeda" involvement. Those conflicts are commonly referred to as part of the Global War on Terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
He doesn't mean the war on terror. He can't, because there is no way that can legally be classified as a war. But the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and will be for some years to come.mikkel wrote:
One of the many questionable "advantages" of waging war on concepts that will always exist. There are so many actions carried out that are justified solely on poor, circular logic, and are completely at odds with the moral high ground rhetoric spouted in the century. It's saddening.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
The war in Iraq was authorized under separate legislation, and thus is a separate action. When Iraqi insurgents were captured, they were turned over to Iraqi authorities. When AQ-affiliated foreign fighters were captured, they were/are held under the previously discussed GC tenets.
It's quite simple.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So simple that you failed to address any part of my post other than confirm what I said.FEOS wrote:
The war is against AQ and AQ-affiliated groups (hence the catch-all phrase "war on terror")...but let's not confuse soundbites with policy. The war is still going on, hence hostilities have not ended. Hence detention without charge or trial is still in line with the GC.mikkel wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the war in Afghanistan is authorised by Senate Joint Resolution 23, which mentions nothing about Afghanistan, but simply serves to ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", and has been extended to involve conflicts all over the world with "Al-Qaeda" involvement. Those conflicts are commonly referred to as part of the Global War on Terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
He doesn't mean the war on terror. He can't, because there is no way that can legally be classified as a war. But the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and will be for some years to come.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
The war in Iraq was authorized under separate legislation, and thus is a separate action. When Iraqi insurgents were captured, they were turned over to Iraqi authorities. When AQ-affiliated foreign fighters were captured, they were/are held under the previously discussed GC tenets.
It's quite simple.
If you were only talking about Afghanistan, then yes.mikkel wrote:
So simple that you failed to address any part of my post other than confirm what I said.FEOS wrote:
The war is against AQ and AQ-affiliated groups (hence the catch-all phrase "war on terror")...but let's not confuse soundbites with policy. The war is still going on, hence hostilities have not ended. Hence detention without charge or trial is still in line with the GC.mikkel wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the war in Afghanistan is authorised by Senate Joint Resolution 23, which mentions nothing about Afghanistan, but simply serves to ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", and has been extended to involve conflicts all over the world with "Al-Qaeda" involvement. Those conflicts are commonly referred to as part of the Global War on Terrorism.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
The war in Iraq was authorized under separate legislation, and thus is a separate action. When Iraqi insurgents were captured, they were turned over to Iraqi authorities. When AQ-affiliated foreign fighters were captured, they were/are held under the previously discussed GC tenets.
It's quite simple.
But you weren't, now were you?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I can't really identify any point in which I, or the posts that I've replied to talked of anything other than the resolution authorising the military action in Afghanistan. Could you specify where precisely it is I've talked of anything else?FEOS wrote:
If you were only talking about Afghanistan, then yes.mikkel wrote:
So simple that you failed to address any part of my post other than confirm what I said.FEOS wrote:
The war is against AQ and AQ-affiliated groups (hence the catch-all phrase "war on terror")...but let's not confuse soundbites with policy. The war is still going on, hence hostilities have not ended. Hence detention without charge or trial is still in line with the GC.
The war in Iraq was authorized under separate legislation, and thus is a separate action. When Iraqi insurgents were captured, they were turned over to Iraqi authorities. When AQ-affiliated foreign fighters were captured, they were/are held under the previously discussed GC tenets.
It's quite simple.
But you weren't, now were you?
Then maybe you should stop hero worshipping Muhammad ( peace be upon him), for he clearly did not practice or teach what you believe.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
WTF???lowing wrote:
Then maybe you should stop hero worshipping Muhammad ( peace be upon him), for he clearly did not practice or teach what you believe.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
I don't hero worship Muhammad.
I am not Muslim
Musta been the way I read your post.nickb64 wrote:
WTF???lowing wrote:
Then maybe you should stop hero worshipping Muhammad ( peace be upon him), for he clearly did not practice or teach what you believe.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
I don't hero worship Muhammad.
I am not Muslim
You specifically related the Afghanistan invasion authorization with the "War on Terror" which (unfortunately) includes Iraq and many other locales. Then you imply there is no specific target, just an ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Specific individuals and groups are targeted world-wide for their terrorist activities. Sometimes, just to observe, sometimes to turn into a fine red mist. Either way, their ideology isn't being targeted or warred against...they are.mikkel wrote:
I can't really identify any point in which I, or the posts that I've replied to talked of anything other than the resolution authorising the military action in Afghanistan. Could you specify where precisely it is I've talked of anything else?FEOS wrote:
If you were only talking about Afghanistan, then yes.mikkel wrote:
So simple that you failed to address any part of my post other than confirm what I said.
But you weren't, now were you?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The 'enemy' wear no uniform, use no form or identification and are not likely to freely admit they are part of these 'groups'. Now given these groups operate on a global scale, does that give the US (or any other government) the right to pick up anyone and hold them without trial indefinitely because they 'suspect' them of terrorism?FEOS wrote:
The war is against AQ and AQ-affiliated groups (hence the catch-all phrase "war on terror")...but let's not confuse soundbites with policy. The war is still going on, hence hostilities have not ended. Hence detention without charge or trial is still in line with the GC.mikkel wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the war in Afghanistan is authorised by Senate Joint Resolution 23, which mentions nothing about Afghanistan, but simply serves to ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", and has been extended to involve conflicts all over the world with "Al-Qaeda" involvement. Those conflicts are commonly referred to as part of the Global War on Terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
He doesn't mean the war on terror. He can't, because there is no way that can legally be classified as a war. But the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and will be for some years to come.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
The war in Iraq was authorized under separate legislation, and thus is a separate action. When Iraqi insurgents were captured, they were turned over to Iraqi authorities. When AQ-affiliated foreign fighters were captured, they were/are held under the previously discussed GC tenets.
It's quite simple.
Now as I said a week ago on th first page, if you want to hold people without trial you had better be damn sure the people you have captured are actually the people you say they are, which involves some kind of proof of identity.
yea what you are saying actually makes sense I agree u cant just go arresting people and claim they work for the terrorists, there ought to be some good damn evidence before proceeding. Or thats wut one would expect at least if we claiming that we are so democratic. If we are gonna apply democracy dont beat around the bush and choose to whom to apply it to, if the gov. is so democratic everyone should deserve a fair trial.DrunkFace wrote:
The 'enemy' wear no uniform, use no form or identification and are not likely to freely admit they are part of these 'groups'. Now given these groups operate on a global scale, does that give the US (or any other government) the right to pick up anyone and hold them without trial indefinitely because they 'suspect' them of terrorism?FEOS wrote:
The war is against AQ and AQ-affiliated groups (hence the catch-all phrase "war on terror")...but let's not confuse soundbites with policy. The war is still going on, hence hostilities have not ended. Hence detention without charge or trial is still in line with the GC.mikkel wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the war in Afghanistan is authorised by Senate Joint Resolution 23, which mentions nothing about Afghanistan, but simply serves to ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", and has been extended to involve conflicts all over the world with "Al-Qaeda" involvement. Those conflicts are commonly referred to as part of the Global War on Terrorism.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
The war in Iraq was authorized under separate legislation, and thus is a separate action. When Iraqi insurgents were captured, they were turned over to Iraqi authorities. When AQ-affiliated foreign fighters were captured, they were/are held under the previously discussed GC tenets.
It's quite simple.
Now as I said a week ago on th first page, if you want to hold people without trial you had better be damn sure the people you have captured are actually the people you say they are, which involves some kind of proof of identity.
Yes, I related the authorisation for military action against "those responsible for the recent attacks on the United States" with a general war on terrorism. Are you somehow trying to pedal back to a point where you can argue that by talking specifically about the war against Al-Qaeda and supposedly related organisations, I'm somehow also talking about the war in Iraq? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something here, or grasping for straws so thin that I can't see them.FEOS wrote:
You specifically related the Afghanistan invasion authorization with the "War on Terror" which (unfortunately) includes Iraq and many other locales.mikkel wrote:
I can't really identify any point in which I, or the posts that I've replied to talked of anything other than the resolution authorising the military action in Afghanistan. Could you specify where precisely it is I've talked of anything else?FEOS wrote:
If you were only talking about Afghanistan, then yes.
But you weren't, now were you?
At no point did I imply that there was no specific target. In my very first post I quote Senate Joint Resolution 23, ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", which clearly defines an enemy. I don't know what you draw your implications from, but I'd suggest that you pay attention to the explicit before going with your contradictory assumptions of insinuation.FEOS wrote:
Then you imply there is no specific target, just an ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Specific individuals and groups are targeted world-wide for their terrorist activities. Sometimes, just to observe, sometimes to turn into a fine red mist. Either way, their ideology isn't being targeted or warred against...they are.
What I did say is that this resolution has been extended very far, and to many groups with supposed "Al-Qaeda links", and that the wording of the original resolution defines the enemy very loosely. Which is obvious and evident.
I think you need to cool off a bit and make sure you aren't just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-06-09 17:50:23)
The flawed assumption here is (again) that there is no intel/evidence supporting said individual's detention. And, more specifically, their detention at GITMO. There is. Just because you (or I) do not know what that information is, does not mean it does not exist.DrunkFace wrote:
The 'enemy' wear no uniform, use no form or identification and are not likely to freely admit they are part of these 'groups'. Now given these groups operate on a global scale, does that give the US (or any other government) the right to pick up anyone and hold them without trial indefinitely because they 'suspect' them of terrorism?
Now as I said a week ago on th first page, if you want to hold people without trial you had better be damn sure the people you have captured are actually the people you say they are, which involves some kind of proof of identity.
Yes, you are somehow also talking about the war in Iraq, as AQI has freely admitted they are a branch of AQ in Iraq. I know full well AQI was not in Iraq before the invasion and was not a rationale for the invasion. But they are there now (though weakened greatly from their height of power there) and are clearly aligned/allied with AQ and thus fall under that provision.mikkel wrote:
Yes, I related the authorisation for military action against "those responsible for the recent attacks on the United States" with a general war on terrorism. Are you somehow trying to pedal back to a point where you can argue that by talking specifically about the war against Al-Qaeda and supposedly related organisations, I'm somehow also talking about the war in Iraq? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something here, or grasping for straws so thin that I can't see them.
^This paragraph clearly implies a lack of clarity in definition of the enemy, which is what I was referring to. "...supposed 'Al-Qaeda links'..." is clearly scoffing a bit at the definition of the enemy, assuming a lack of clarity on the identity of the adversary where there is no lack of clarity. The groups that have aligned/joined themselves with AQ have proudly advertised that action, thus clearly identifying themselves with "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States"...which (in your own analysis) "clearly defines an enemy".mikkel wrote:
At no point did I imply that there was no specific target. In my very first post I quote Senate Joint Resolution 23, ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", which clearly defines an enemy. I don't know what you draw your implications from, but I'd suggest that you pay attention to the explicit before going with your contradictory assumptions of insinuation.
What I did say is that this resolution has been extended very far, and to many groups with supposed "Al-Qaeda links", and that the wording of the original resolution defines the enemy very loosely. Which is obvious and evident.
Gee thanks Dad. But I think it's fairly clear I'm not heated up here and don't need to cool off. But thanks for the bit of condescension, though. It's always refreshing.mikkel wrote:
I think you need to cool off a bit and make sure you aren't just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I really have absolutely no idea what on Earth it is that you're trying to accomplish with this. First you're trying to distinguish between the resolution allowing for military action against those responsible for attacks on the United States, and the war in Iraq, despite the fact that I had already done that. Now you're trying to argue that they're related. If you have a point to this, feel free to come out with it now, because you've presented none so far.FEOS wrote:
Yes, you are somehow also talking about the war in Iraq, as AQI has freely admitted they are a branch of AQ in Iraq. I know full well AQI was not in Iraq before the invasion and was not a rationale for the invasion. But they are there now (though weakened greatly from their height of power there) and are clearly aligned/allied with AQ and thus fall under that provision.mikkel wrote:
Yes, I related the authorisation for military action against "those responsible for the recent attacks on the United States" with a general war on terrorism. Are you somehow trying to pedal back to a point where you can argue that by talking specifically about the war against Al-Qaeda and supposedly related organisations, I'm somehow also talking about the war in Iraq? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something here, or grasping for straws so thin that I can't see them.
So this is what you're throwing a hissy fit about? We obviously disagree on this, because when I see that any organisation can be a target of a war to bring down parties responsible for an action carried out prior to the organisations affiliation with said parties, I consider that pretty open-ended and loosely defined. You can disagree all that you want, and if you remember what I said in the first post of mine that you replied to,FEOS wrote:
^This paragraph clearly implies a lack of clarity in definition of the enemy, which is what I was referring to. "...supposed 'Al-Qaeda links'..." is clearly scoffing a bit at the definition of the enemy, assuming a lack of clarity on the identity of the adversary where there is no lack of clarity. The groups that have aligned/joined themselves with AQ have proudly advertised that action, thus clearly identifying themselves with "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States"...which (in your own analysis) "clearly defines an enemy".mikkel wrote:
At no point did I imply that there was no specific target. In my very first post I quote Senate Joint Resolution 23, ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", which clearly defines an enemy. I don't know what you draw your implications from, but I'd suggest that you pay attention to the explicit before going with your contradictory assumptions of insinuation.
What I did say is that this resolution has been extended very far, and to many groups with supposed "Al-Qaeda links", and that the wording of the original resolution defines the enemy very loosely. Which is obvious and evident.
.. then hopefully you'll come to the realisation that you're wasting time trying to force your own interpretation through. Neither of us are "right", we just have different opinions. You need to come to terms with this.Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
What's fairly clear is that you're arguing just to argue, and running around in argumentative circles without being upfront about what you're trying to say. It's a waste of time.FEOS wrote:
Gee thanks Dad. But I think it's fairly clear I'm not heated up here and don't need to cool off. But thanks for the bit of condescension, though. It's always refreshing.mikkel wrote:
I think you need to cool off a bit and make sure you aren't just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-06-10 11:00:17)
I can't make it any simpler. If you can't keep up, that's your issue, not mine.mikkel wrote:
I really have absolutely no idea what on Earth it is that you're trying to accomplish with this. First you're trying to distinguish between the resolution allowing for military action against those responsible for attacks on the United States, and the war in Iraq, despite the fact that I had already done that. Now you're trying to argue that they're related. If you have a point to this, feel free to come out with it now, because you've presented none so far.FEOS wrote:
Yes, you are somehow also talking about the war in Iraq, as AQI has freely admitted they are a branch of AQ in Iraq. I know full well AQI was not in Iraq before the invasion and was not a rationale for the invasion. But they are there now (though weakened greatly from their height of power there) and are clearly aligned/allied with AQ and thus fall under that provision.mikkel wrote:
Yes, I related the authorisation for military action against "those responsible for the recent attacks on the United States" with a general war on terrorism. Are you somehow trying to pedal back to a point where you can argue that by talking specifically about the war against Al-Qaeda and supposedly related organisations, I'm somehow also talking about the war in Iraq? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something here, or grasping for straws so thin that I can't see them.
I never said the resolutions for Afghanistan and Iraq were related. I said that when AQ decided to operate in Iraq, the activities against them were covered equally by both resolutions. It's not an argument, but a statement of fact. Sorry if you can't wrap your brain around it.
I'm not throwing a hissy fit. I'm debating some points with you. Unless you consider anyone who disagrees with something you've come up with to be "throwing a hissy fit"? If so, that's just plain sad.mikkel wrote:
So this is what you're throwing a hissy fit about?FEOS wrote:
^This paragraph clearly implies a lack of clarity in definition of the enemy, which is what I was referring to. "...supposed 'Al-Qaeda links'..." is clearly scoffing a bit at the definition of the enemy, assuming a lack of clarity on the identity of the adversary where there is no lack of clarity. The groups that have aligned/joined themselves with AQ have proudly advertised that action, thus clearly identifying themselves with "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States"...which (in your own analysis) "clearly defines an enemy".mikkel wrote:
At no point did I imply that there was no specific target. In my very first post I quote Senate Joint Resolution 23, ".. authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States", which clearly defines an enemy. I don't know what you draw your implications from, but I'd suggest that you pay attention to the explicit before going with your contradictory assumptions of insinuation.
What I did say is that this resolution has been extended very far, and to many groups with supposed "Al-Qaeda links", and that the wording of the original resolution defines the enemy very loosely. Which is obvious and evident.
And you're wrong. It's neither open-ended nor loosely defined. Those parties were either identified or have self-identified and made themselves part of that group. Think about it for half a second: Is the US going after Hamas? What about Hezbollah? Any other organization on the list of recognized terrorist organizations that IS NOT aligned with AQ?mikkel wrote:
We obviously disagree on this, because when I see that any organisation can be a target of a war to bring down parties responsible for an action carried out prior to the organisations affiliation with said parties, I consider that pretty open-ended and loosely defined.
No. We're not. That, in and of itself, proves my point.
Yes, and what you wrote in your first quote is just as wrong now as it was then. So thanks, I will continue to disagree with something that is factually incorrect and unsubstantiated by reality.mikkel wrote:
You can disagree all that you want, and if you remember what I said in the first post of mine that you replied to,.. then hopefully you'll come to the realisation that you're wasting time trying to force your own interpretation through. Neither of us are "right", we just have different opinions. You need to come to terms with this.Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
I actually AM right. I don't need your validation to realize this.
So this is how you react to people who disagree with you on facts and debate your points? That's nice. Perhaps you shouldn't visit a forum called "Debate and Serious Talk" then. It clearly isn't for you if that's how you're going to respond to "debate" on your points.mikkel wrote:
What's fairly clear is that you're arguing just to argue, and running around in argumentative circles without being upfront about what you're trying to say. It's a waste of time.FEOS wrote:
Gee thanks Dad. But I think it's fairly clear I'm not heated up here and don't need to cool off. But thanks for the bit of condescension, though. It's always refreshing.mikkel wrote:
I think you need to cool off a bit and make sure you aren't just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
It's fairly clear I haven't been arguing just to argue. I haven't been running around in argumentative circles. I have been up front about what I'm trying to say. I can't help the fact that you just can't seem to get it in spite of multiple clarifications. Maybe it is a waste of time trying to debate with someone who reacts the way you do.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think this is the third post in a row where I've asked for the purpose of pointing this out, and you continually repeat yourself without answering that question. It has nothing to do with keeping up or wrapping my brain around it. It has to do with you doing the same thing over and over, and not making clear to what end you're doing so.FEOS wrote:
I can't make it any simpler. If you can't keep up, that's your issue, not mine.mikkel wrote:
I really have absolutely no idea what on Earth it is that you're trying to accomplish with this. First you're trying to distinguish between the resolution allowing for military action against those responsible for attacks on the United States, and the war in Iraq, despite the fact that I had already done that. Now you're trying to argue that they're related. If you have a point to this, feel free to come out with it now, because you've presented none so far.FEOS wrote:
Yes, you are somehow also talking about the war in Iraq, as AQI has freely admitted they are a branch of AQ in Iraq. I know full well AQI was not in Iraq before the invasion and was not a rationale for the invasion. But they are there now (though weakened greatly from their height of power there) and are clearly aligned/allied with AQ and thus fall under that provision.mikkel wrote:
Yes, I related the authorisation for military action against "those responsible for the recent attacks on the United States" with a general war on terrorism. Are you somehow trying to pedal back to a point where you can argue that by talking specifically about the war against Al-Qaeda and supposedly related organisations, I'm somehow also talking about the war in Iraq? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something here, or grasping for straws so thin that I can't see them.
I never said the resolutions for Afghanistan and Iraq were related. I said that when AQ decided to operate in Iraq, the activities against them were covered equally by both resolutions. It's not an argument, but a statement of fact. Sorry if you can't wrap your brain around it.
If you need to grab generalisations and unsubstantiated characterisation out of nowhere, don't bother replying to my posts. You've been aggressively replying to my posts because you disagree on something that I clearly and visibly stated is open to interpretation. Your attitude towards an opinion of mine that did in no way claim any fact or impose on you in any way is what I would call a hissy fit.FEOS wrote:
I'm not throwing a hissy fit. I'm debating some points with you. Unless you consider anyone who disagrees with something you've come up with to be "throwing a hissy fit"? If so, that's just plain sad.mikkel wrote:
So this is what you're throwing a hissy fit about?FEOS wrote:
^This paragraph clearly implies a lack of clarity in definition of the enemy, which is what I was referring to. "...supposed 'Al-Qaeda links'..." is clearly scoffing a bit at the definition of the enemy, assuming a lack of clarity on the identity of the adversary where there is no lack of clarity. The groups that have aligned/joined themselves with AQ have proudly advertised that action, thus clearly identifying themselves with "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States"...which (in your own analysis) "clearly defines an enemy".
Since you apparently did not bother reading my post, and instead continue to reply with arguments contradictory to unexamined arguments, I don't see why I should continue to participate in this. Nor do I see why I should pay any attention to an argument based in something as narrow-minded as the "all or nothing" mentality with regards to conflict. If dismissing arguments without reason is your way of debating, then I have no interest in doing so with you. Not that I did in the first place.FEOS wrote:
And you're wrong. It's neither open-ended nor loosely defined. Those parties were either identified or have self-identified and made themselves part of that group. Think about it for half a second: Is the US going after Hamas? What about Hezbollah? Any other organization on the list of recognized terrorist organizations that IS NOT aligned with AQ?mikkel wrote:
We obviously disagree on this, because when I see that any organisation can be a target of a war to bring down parties responsible for an action carried out prior to the organisations affiliation with said parties, I consider that pretty open-ended and loosely defined.
No. We're not. That, in and of itself, proves my point.
Well, now you've validated to me that you're absolutely wrong in your basis for establishing your opinion, and judging by your way of trying to trumph through your opinion rather than arguing the merits of it, this will definitely be the last of my replies to you. I have no interest in being party to your self-pandering.FEOS wrote:
Yes, and what you wrote in your first quote is just as wrong now as it was then. So thanks, I will continue to disagree with something that is factually incorrect and unsubstantiated by reality.mikkel wrote:
You can disagree all that you want, and if you remember what I said in the first post of mine that you replied to,.. then hopefully you'll come to the realisation that you're wasting time trying to force your own interpretation through. Neither of us are "right", we just have different opinions. You need to come to terms with this.Of course it's open to interpretation, but as far as I see it, this is a war on the concept of terrorism, and the enemy is very loosely defined, even on the legislative level.
I actually AM right. I don't need your validation to realize this.
I'm not responding to debate. I'm responding to a person who is unwilling to move an inch from his position, a person who disregards arguments without examination, a person who summarily disregards conflicting opinions without reasoning, and a person who makes repeated statements without pointing out in any way how they're relevant to the discussion. You're the obstruction to debate here. Not me.FEOS wrote:
So this is how you react to people who disagree with you on facts and debate your points? That's nice. Perhaps you shouldn't visit a forum called "Debate and Serious Talk" then. It clearly isn't for you if that's how you're going to respond to "debate" on your points.mikkel wrote:
What's fairly clear is that you're arguing just to argue, and running around in argumentative circles without being upfront about what you're trying to say. It's a waste of time.FEOS wrote:
Gee thanks Dad. But I think it's fairly clear I'm not heated up here and don't need to cool off. But thanks for the bit of condescension, though. It's always refreshing.
On the contrary, you've been clarifying what you're saying, but not why you've been saying it. I could also reply to any of your posts with completely arbitrary statements, and then repeatedly clarify the statement, rather than its purpose, and characterise you as a simple-minded individual. My reaction is to this behaviour, and that behaviour has nothing to do with debate.FEOS wrote:
It's fairly clear I haven't been arguing just to argue. I haven't been running around in argumentative circles. I have been up front about what I'm trying to say. I can't help the fact that you just can't seem to get it in spite of multiple clarifications. Maybe it is a waste of time trying to debate with someone who reacts the way you do.
I'm not going to waste my time replying to any more of your posts in this thread, as I don't make a habit of running into walls. Knock yourself out with your follow-up reply.
For one thing, intel is not evidence. It's something completely different and there is a bloody good reason intel is never used to convict anyone.FEOS wrote:
The flawed assumption here is (again) that there is no intel/evidence supporting said individual's detention. And, more specifically, their detention at GITMO. There is. Just because you (or I) do not know what that information is, does not mean it does not exist.
But most importantly, who cares if there are info or not when they cannot be made public in the first place? I cannot stress how bad this is for our freedoms and rights. It's actually quite simple: you can't pretend to be free when the government has the power to imprison you without announcing the reason. End of story.
ƒ³
THEN PROVE IT!FEOS wrote:
The flawed assumption here is (again) that there is no intel/evidence supporting said individual's detention. And, more specifically, their detention at GITMO. There is. Just because you (or I) do not know what that information is, does not mean it does not exist.DrunkFace wrote:
The 'enemy' wear no uniform, use no form or identification and are not likely to freely admit they are part of these 'groups'. Now given these groups operate on a global scale, does that give the US (or any other government) the right to pick up anyone and hold them without trial indefinitely because they 'suspect' them of terrorism?
Now as I said a week ago on th first page, if you want to hold people without trial you had better be damn sure the people you have captured are actually the people you say they are, which involves some kind of proof of identity.
I know someone who has been arrested for terrorism. They had great 'intel', but after 6 weeks in solitary confinement, a $200,000 bail and over 4 years investigation the charges were dropped due to lack of any evidence. These Obama proposals would mean innocent people like the one I know could be held without trial indefinitely.
I don't have any flawed assumptions, I just require any Evidence/intel to be fucken proven before you indefinitely hold someone without trial and ruin there entire life for what you can and will get wrong.
Oh, ffs.mikkel wrote:
I think this is the third post in a row where I've asked for the purpose of pointing this out, and you continually repeat yourself without answering that question. It has nothing to do with keeping up or wrapping my brain around it. It has to do with you doing the same thing over and over, and not making clear to what end you're doing so.
You said there wasn't a clearly defined enemy and/or the legislation is open-ended. The point I've made (apparently three times now)--quite clearly--is that your assessment is incorrect. Using your own words, btw.
That's now four times I've answered your question. Is that enough?
Good thing that you simply calling something a name does not make it such.mikkel wrote:
If you need to grab generalisations and unsubstantiated characterisation out of nowhere, don't bother replying to my posts. You've been aggressively replying to my posts because you disagree on something that I clearly and visibly stated is open to interpretation. Your attitude towards an opinion of mine that did in no way claim any fact or impose on you in any way is what I would call a hissy fit.
"Aggressively replying"? It's called simply "replying". If you find it aggressive, that's your problem, not mine. You're the one finding aggression where there is none. Seems you would be the one throwing the "hissy fit", if anyone.
Yes, I disagreed with something you said was open to interpretation. So what? Do you think putting the catchphrase "it's open to interpretation" obviates anyone's ability to debate your opinion? Of course it's open to interpretation...otherwise, it wouldn't be your opinion. It would be fact.
Again...if you don't like someone debating your opinion, then don't post said opinion in a forum called "Debate and Serious Talk".
I did bother to read your post. Apparently, you didn't bother to read mine. Nor did you bother to apply any thought to what I said in the post as it relates to the position you've taken.mikkel wrote:
Since you apparently did not bother reading my post, and instead continue to reply with arguments contradictory to unexamined arguments, I don't see why I should continue to participate in this. Nor do I see why I should pay any attention to an argument based in something as narrow-minded as the "all or nothing" mentality with regards to conflict. If dismissing arguments without reason is your way of debating, then I have no interest in doing so with you. Not that I did in the first place.
I have not dismissed arguments without reason. I have debated your stated position that the enemies in the WoT are not clearly defined. That's it. Are you now saying you didn't say that?
But the snideness and condescension is a nice touch, mik.
Prove my opinion is wrong. I did so for yours.mikkel wrote:
Well, now you've validated to me that you're absolutely wrong in your basis for establishing your opinion, and judging by your way of trying to trumph through your opinion rather than arguing the merits of it, this will definitely be the last of my replies to you. I have no interest in being party to your self-pandering.
What merits? Or are you referring to the facts I used? Were those inconvenient to your stated position in that they showed there was no foundation to it? Disprove the facts I presented to show your opinion is valid.
That simply isn't the case. You haven't disproved anything I've said, but I have done so for your stated opinion.mikkel wrote:
I'm not responding to debate. I'm responding to a person who is unwilling to move an inch from his position, a person who disregards arguments without examination, a person who summarily disregards conflicting opinions without reasoning, and a person who makes repeated statements without pointing out in any way how they're relevant to the discussion. You're the obstruction to debate here. Not me.
So I guess we're not debating, as you don't seem willing to examine or defend your own position. I mean, it IS "open to interpretation" and all.
I guess it's easier to just say that someone isn't reasoning through your position (even though they have...four times now, I believe) than to defend it.
I have repeatedly stated why I said it. You said something and I disagreed with it. I then posted facts to support my disagreement with your position.mikkel wrote:
On the contrary, you've been clarifying what you're saying, but not why you've been saying it. I could also reply to any of your posts with completely arbitrary statements, and then repeatedly clarify the statement, rather than its purpose, and characterise you as a simple-minded individual. My reaction is to this behaviour, and that behaviour has nothing to do with debate.
Then you got pissy and said I hadn't done exactly what I've done repeatedly. Then you claim I didn't do what I did yet again and attempt to demean me. If that's your style, that's fine. I never saw that before in your posts. Maybe you're having a bad day.
If you can't grasp that I simply disagreed with your original assessment of "clarity" WRT the adversary, then proceeded to explain why (which I DID do, btw)...then I guess you're just a simple-minded individual. You haven't said anything at all to back up your opinion, only attempted to demean my position by claiming the debate we were having wasn't debate. I guess it wasn't, since you didn't do anything at all to defend your position.
I'll continue with this "behavior" known as "debating" while posting in D&ST. Maybe you should just follow along for a bit to get the hang of it?
Well. Thanks for the permission.mikkel wrote:
I'm not going to waste my time replying to any more of your posts in this thread, as I don't make a habit of running into walls. Knock yourself out with your follow-up reply.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
How many US citizens have been imprisoned without announcing the reason? Name one.oug wrote:
For one thing, intel is not evidence. It's something completely different and there is a bloody good reason intel is never used to convict anyone.FEOS wrote:
The flawed assumption here is (again) that there is no intel/evidence supporting said individual's detention. And, more specifically, their detention at GITMO. There is. Just because you (or I) do not know what that information is, does not mean it does not exist.
But most importantly, who cares if there are info or not when they cannot be made public in the first place? I cannot stress how bad this is for our freedoms and rights. It's actually quite simple: you can't pretend to be free when the government has the power to imprison you without announcing the reason. End of story.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'm not going to prove anything in an on-line forum. I made agreements with my country not to divulge classified information.DrunkFace wrote:
THEN PROVE IT!FEOS wrote:
The flawed assumption here is (again) that there is no intel/evidence supporting said individual's detention. And, more specifically, their detention at GITMO. There is. Just because you (or I) do not know what that information is, does not mean it does not exist.DrunkFace wrote:
The 'enemy' wear no uniform, use no form or identification and are not likely to freely admit they are part of these 'groups'. Now given these groups operate on a global scale, does that give the US (or any other government) the right to pick up anyone and hold them without trial indefinitely because they 'suspect' them of terrorism?
Now as I said a week ago on th first page, if you want to hold people without trial you had better be damn sure the people you have captured are actually the people you say they are, which involves some kind of proof of identity.
Oh...and I'm not a prosecutor. So it's not up to me to prove anything WRT an individual's case.
Do you know he's innocent? OJ was acquitted of murder charges, but he wasn't innocent of murder.DrunkFace wrote:
I know someone who has been arrested for terrorism. They had great 'intel', but after 6 weeks in solitary confinement, a $200,000 bail and over 4 years investigation the charges were dropped due to lack of any evidence. These Obama proposals would mean innocent people like the one I know could be held without trial indefinitely.
As oug pointed out, there is a difference between intel and evidence. That difference doesn't make one more or less true than the other.
Oh...and was your friend captured by US/Coalition forces and sent to GITMO? If not, then your response is moot, as I was talking specifically about people being shipped to GITMO after being captured on the battlefield.
If someone is arrested domestically, I agree with you. Domestic laws work differently.DrunkFace wrote:
I don't have any flawed assumptions, I just require any Evidence/intel to be fucken proven before you indefinitely hold someone without trial and ruin there entire life for what you can and will get wrong.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I take it non-US citizens are inferior humans then. The fact that I could be held without charges by your government is unimportant... Why the fuck should you care.FEOS wrote:
How many US citizens have been imprisoned without announcing the reason? Name one.oug wrote:
For one thing, intel is not evidence. It's something completely different and there is a bloody good reason intel is never used to convict anyone.FEOS wrote:
The flawed assumption here is (again) that there is no intel/evidence supporting said individual's detention. And, more specifically, their detention at GITMO. There is. Just because you (or I) do not know what that information is, does not mean it does not exist.
But most importantly, who cares if there are info or not when they cannot be made public in the first place? I cannot stress how bad this is for our freedoms and rights. It's actually quite simple: you can't pretend to be free when the government has the power to imprison you without announcing the reason. End of story.
ƒ³
I can see the issue, but I don't think it's as radical as she puts it. Potentially dangerous, yeah - but imagine how well this would work against mobsters
Also, I hate that woman... No wait, despise.
-kon
Also, I hate that woman... No wait, despise.
-kon