Jump to content

'Obamaphobia'?


Næt.

Recommended Posts

Okay, sorry for thinking I was allowed an opinion. You seem to be in the same bandwagon too though, even you have to admit that.

Um. You said, "You believe that there are news sources on the planet that are not biased?" as a reply to Sally when she never said anything of that nature.

But thanks for thinking I just follow everyone else.

She never said that in the other thread? I had thought she was alluding to it. I am not her so do not know but she said.

"We're talking about news here. Not philosophy, not religion, not rightwing propaganda, not something that fits into ANYONE's neat little box. News should not be biased, it should not be slanted. It should simply be reportage of what happened, or what someone said, or what's going to happen. That's news. Reportage. If the news outlet wants to add opinion, and many do, it should be labeled plainly as opinion. Fox does not do that, and it is not news.

If I hear that someone watches Fox News as their main news source, I pretty much know their political views. That's not my fault; that's the fault of Fox News. If they wanted to be an unbiased real news source, they could very well do so. They don't."

Now look closer. She says. "news should not be biased". So how did she not say anything of that nature. She was saying that Fox news is biased, and that the news should not be biased. I am lost personally on this one.

As for you following everyone else, you seem to be trying to just attack me instead of talking about the subject at hand, so I am a bit defensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, him.

I think he's a good sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was being sarcastic. And please do not pull any punches with me. I mean why would you, everyone who has a difference of opinion on here constantly puts words in my mouth, and never owns up to their mistakes.

I don't pull punches with anyone, nor does any other AVEN poster that I've read. Some are simply a little more polite than others, me not among them. If Poster A repeats Poster B's words, Poster A is not not putting words in Poster B's mouth. You are responsible for your own words. Either defend them or apologize for them.

My news sources for what I said -- that most Gitmo detainees were apparently not dangerous terrorists -- are ABC News, The Leher Report, Newsweek, NPR, Amy Goodman/Democracy Now, and a number of magazines I can't remember now. Sorry, Fox News is not among them, although I'm sure they have a different opinion. I'm not an expert on this. Olivier seems to be; consult him for his sources.

I know that quoting someone is not puting words in someones mouth. I just have to constantly aruge with people on here who assume I have certain beliefs for not following lockstep along with them.

You are not showing any sources. You saying that your heard something on a news channel. I was asking for a link to anyone to prove what you wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A) Where does it say in my post that I need proof of innocence before their release? I said if I had proof of their innocence I would join the fight to try to have them released. I want them gone if they are innocent. But have alot of doubt that they are, and I belive our military perssonel over some randome person from another country on the internet.

B) also ties into A. Give me some proof. Show me a source that says we are holding innocent men snatched from their homes. I will wait.

C) I am upset over Guantanamo because they might be violating peoples rights. I could give a frak about what anyone else in the international community thinks about us to be honest with you. I hope we stay friendly with other countries, but the honest truth is alot of coutnries dislike us for asinine reasons.

In A), you say "Where does it say in my post that I need proof of innocence before their release?" In this post, it's your entire answer to B) :rolleyes:

As for C), I agree with you except you should substitute "might be" with "are". Even if they're guilty, the US is violating Gitmo detainees' rights by not putting them up for trial in a timely manner. Do you believe states have human rights obligations to suspected criminals?

Link to post
Share on other sites
B) also ties into A. Give me some proof. Show me a source that says we are holding innocent men snatched from their homes. I will wait.

Like this guy?

The detainee was captured with Abdullah Khan at the detainee's residence along with two others on January 29, 2003
The Washington Post reports that Shahzada was one of 38 detainees who was determined not to have been an enemy combatant during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. They report that Shahzada has been released. The Department of Defense refers to these men as No Longer Enemy Combatants.

Shame about the two years in between though, eh?

So what you are mad about is that we snatch a group of men, one of whom was a terrorist, found him to be innocent and released him? And you are mad?

In that link it says he denies being a Terroist, but that we have a lot of signs pointing to it. Also Wiki is not a source. It is opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now look closer. She says. "news should not be biased". So how did she not say anything of that nature. She was saying that Fox news is biased, and that the news should not be biased. I am lost personally on this one.

She said news shouldn't be biased. I don't know how you got that she believed that there are non-biased news outlets when she never said that in her post there.

And the subject at hand. Obama. Dad tells me how he's a selfish man, then goes on about Obama's involvement with womens' rights. Huh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also Wiki is not a source. It is opinion.

How?

That seems to be an odd definition of "opinion."

I'm not saying that Wikipedia is a great source, I'm just wondering how it fits into "opinion" as it just states things as facts whether they are or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you are mad about is that we snatch a group of men, one of whom was a terrorist, found him to be innocent and released him? And you are mad?

If I'm mad for believing innocent people shouldn't spend two years being detained for a vague association with a rather more unsavoury character, then yes, I am.

In that link it says he denies being a Terroist, but that we have a lot of signs pointing to it. Also Wiki is not a source. It is opinion.

If you have "a lot of signs pointing toward it" (which we traditionally call 'evidence') then put him on trial. If you can't, there's no case.

And I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not an idea source. Seeing as all you wanted was proof that people were pulled out of their homes and that particular part of the page comes from the hearing memo, I didn't think it'd matter too much.

Do you still want to deny that people weren't pulled from their homes though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not showing any sources. You saying that your heard something on a news channel. I was asking for a link to anyone to prove what you wrote.

Find the links yourself. I gave you a partial list of what I read and listen to. Gitmo has been holding people for almost 8 years. If you really care, you could probably do a search for everything that's been written by any publication or reported by any news source during that time about the prisoners. That would be a start for you. Then you could "prove" that everyone else is wrong.

Be my guest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A) Where does it say in my post that I need proof of innocence before their release? I said if I had proof of their innocence I would join the fight to try to have them released. I want them gone if they are innocent. But have alot of doubt that they are, and I belive our military perssonel over some randome person from another country on the internet.

B) also ties into A. Give me some proof. Show me a source that says we are holding innocent men snatched from their homes. I will wait.

C) I am upset over Guantanamo because they might be violating peoples rights. I could give a frak about what anyone else in the international community thinks about us to be honest with you. I hope we stay friendly with other countries, but the honest truth is alot of coutnries dislike us for asinine reasons.

In A), you say "Where does it say in my post that I need proof of innocence before their release?" In this post, it's your entire answer to B) :rolleyes:

As for C), I agree with you except you should substitute "might be" with "are". Even if they're guilty, the US is violating Gitmo detainees' rights by not putting them up for trial in a timely manner. Do you believe states have human rights obligations to suspected criminals?

Oliver, read the rest of my statement on A. Jeez guys. I am trying to have a friendly conversation, and you all seem to be nitpicking what I say, or how Isay it. You were not taking my post in context with what I was replying to(seems like this happens alot). What my post was saying is that I do not need proof. I believe the military is holding them for valid reason. But if he could give me solid proof I would fight to have them release. I just believe they are unsavory character. You can join in the search for some proof for me of their innocence. But not something from Wiki like another poster tried to give as proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you are mad about is that we snatch a group of men, one of whom was a terrorist, found him to be innocent and released him? And you are mad?

If I'm mad for believing innocent people shouldn't spend two years being detained for a vague association with a rather more unsavoury character, then yes, I am.

In that link it says he denies being a Terroist, but that we have a lot of signs pointing to it. Also Wiki is not a source. It is opinion.

If you have "a lot of signs pointing toward it" (which we traditionally call 'evidence') then put him on trial. If you can't, there's no case.

And I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not an idea source. Seeing as all you wanted was proof that people were pulled out of their homes and that particular part of the page comes from the hearing memo, I didn't think it'd matter too much.

Do you still want to deny that people weren't pulled from their homes though?

A vague associastion? Hanging out with known terrorists?

I want the detainees to be put on trial. How are you not following this? The president seems to be the one stonewalling.

Edit: I am fine with known terrorist being pulled from their homes. As well as anyone else in their home at the time, to determine if they are terrorists or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not showing any sources. You saying that your heard something on a news channel. I was asking for a link to anyone to prove what you wrote.

Find the links yourself. I gave you a partial list of what I read and listen to. Gitmo has been holding people for almost 8 years. If you really care, you could probably do a search for everything that's been written by any publication or reported by any news source during that time about the prisoners. That would be a start for you. Then you could "prove" that everyone else is wrong.

Be my guest.

So you will argue a point back and forth with me, all opinion but believing you are right, and when I ask for a source to possibly get some new information you tell me to find it myself?

You listening to a news station does not make s omething you say true. Give me proof and I will take it in and make descision differently possibly if the info is valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A vague associastion? Hanging out with known terrorists?

I wasn't aware one could be found guilty purely by association. Seeing as I wasn't there, I have no idea as to the exact relation between the two parties. That he was at his house doesn't mean a great deal. Not that I have much desire to argue this one particular case.

I want the detainees to be put on trial. How are you not following this? The president seems to be the one stonewalling.

And I myself have said nothing to the contrary of this.

I only begun participating in this discussion when you asserted that people were not pulled out of their homes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A vague associastion? Hanging out with known terrorists?

I wasn't aware one could be found guilty purely by association. Seeing as I wasn't there, I have no idea as to the exact relation between the two parties. That he was at his house doesn't mean a great deal. Not that I have much desire to argue this one particular case.

I want the detainees to be put on trial. How are you not following this? The president seems to be the one stonewalling.

And I myself have said nothing to the contrary of this.

I only begun participating in this discussion when you asserted that people were not pulled out of their homes.

Its cool. I meant it as in the U.S. was not just running around yanking people out of their homes. I will stand by my statement that I think some shady character hanging out with a terrorist when we do a raid should be picked up till we determine who he is.

We obviously do not live in a perfect world, or stuff like that would never happen. I wish we would just get the hell out of both of those wonderful places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You were not taking my post in context with what I was replying to(seems like this happens alot). What my post was saying is that I do not need proof. I believe the military is holding them for valid reason. But if he could give me solid proof I would fight to have them release. I just believe they are unsavory character. You can join in the search for some proof for me of their innocence. But not something from Wiki like another poster tried to give as proof.

So yet again you say you are happy for them to be held without proof being produced of their crimes, just on trust, unless their innocence could be proven. That's what "guilty until proven innocent" means.

I acknowledge that you, like me, want to see these guys put to trial, but we passed the point of "find something to try them with or release them" about seven years ago for some of these unfortunate sods. Even under Obama, they've been detained without charge for far longer than is reasonable, or civilised.

Remember, these are guys who have been detained and interrogated for in most cases over half a decade. Surely it's not too much to ask that the prosecutors stand ready - at no further notice - to gain a conviction if they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...