yall

I might just put the word 'Hitler' in my sig, that way every thread I post in will be insta-Godwin'd.

I'm not sure what is funnier, the comment from ieatcrayonz, or the fact that you made this thread, and then took a crap in it.

Post of the year candidate.

I am and will at least see if any of therm are in the library. I may take extreme positions on the subject matter when arguing on the internet, but many times it's simply to elicit a response for a wide variety of opinions.

I ran into him on Saturday, looked pretty good.

Buy 'em and have them shipped and I will gladly read them. Edit: And have you actually read those books, or are you just linking them? Just reading the descriptions from one of the books, the author mentions that the people in organizations like Hamas, etc, mostly aren't religious. That doesn't seem to be the case with the detainees. I don't necesarily disagree with the notion that suicide bombing is (in the eyes of a would be bomber) a tactic rather than some easy way to paradise in their eyes. Certainly Saddam was secular, and not very pious, and he helped fund suicide attacks. Again though, all I've really said in this thread is that if there is some evidence that these guys in Gitmo are 'bad' I have no problem detaining them. And I don't consider that a violation of human rights. And do we actually have verifiable proof that the only way to get a trial/tribunal is to plead guitly?

I would say that I wasn't the one who made that argument.

It says "FIGHTS AT THE RALPH" not "FIGHTS AT THE SKYDOME" The original post was not talking about games in Toronto.

It seemed like you were justifying the efforts of those who oppose the existence of Israel based upon their religious claim, and I was just pointing out the Jews have just as valid a claim. Sorry if I misconstrued your meaning. Yes. We have been best freinds for years and lived together. He refers to me as his 'uncle' because he is a few years younger and I took him under my wing at college. I trust him implicitly. I never made (in this thread anyway) any sweeping generalizations about muslims or their support or dislike for terrorism. I merely referred to those who are currently detainees. I have also (3 times now?) stated that there should be tribunals. I think what I did not do well was clearly state my thoughts on the situation. I'm ok with holding the indefinite detention of people who are committed to being violent. I would like sufficient proof that someone falls into this category and this should be done in a timely manner. Based upon that, as long as the govt follows the same logic (and I can't say with certainty that they are) I do not believe that constitutes a human rights violation

Great article. Thanks!

I don't know that we are really that far off on the 'basics'. I have stated (twice I think) that i support tribunals for those incarcerated at Gitmo. I don't think I have advocated that anyone be tortured or that we continue to hold those who are obviously innocent. Primarily, where we seem to differ is on the impact of Gitmo on the hearts and minds of people around the world. I tend to think it's in the negligible range, and you and some other posters seem to think it's much higher.

Riveting exchange.

Yes - ha ha irony. Thanks Alanis. I was hoping you had something more specific than "laws and principles" especially since both can change.

Guys - the title says fights at the Ralph. With that out of the way, I won't be surprised if some loudmouth gets into a scuffle because he yells some sh*t about the Bills moving. I'm also willing to bet it won't be a Canadian Bills fan, but rather an obnoxious fan of a visiting team. Doesn't mean anyone should get beaten, I'm just saying it's likely to happen.

It's pretty easy to state the obvious. What would you actually propose as a solution?

How so? I clearly stated that it "could contribute", although I feel the level of impact is lower than others. Obviously there is not one sole issue that contributes to any problem at any level. If you go back and read my other posts, I'm not totally defending Gitmo, but I can't currently think of a better option. (Still there should be tribunals at the very least)

Come on BF, let's be real here - my point is that it isn't likely that someone who could be convinced that blowing themselves up is going to have Gitmo be the final straw. They have already been brainwashed to some extent. Could it contribute? Sure, but likely not to the level that some people here have suggested. I don't think there would be a net loss of radicals who are willing to kill in the name of their religion if Gitmo never existed. And to your harping on the "rational" point, say what you want, but by just about any standard, someone who has beliefs that cannot be swayed by logic isn't being rational, and this would include would be terrorists. The same could be said for creationists or anyone else who ignores fact in favor of mystical beliefs.

I also feel it isn't valid, as the most of the Japanese Americans (and Japanese Canadian's - FYI Canada was just as bad and for some reason they are always let off the hook on this one...) hadn't done anything to deserve being put into camps. They weren't fanatical murderers who feel our culture and way of life was some tool of the devil. As far as this "OMFG Gitmo is recruiting them!!!" nonsense, try to keep in mind that there have only been detainees in Gitmo for what, 6 years? Was there a shortage of radical muslim nutjobs prior to Gitmo?

I'm not a big fan of Disturbed, but I have heard some live tracks and they are very tight. So even if your aren't fully into their style, you might be able to appreciate their abilities.

Of course, it was Israel's holy land long before that, but hey, let's only pay attention to the last 60 years... Radical islam predates any American involvement in the ME. Beyond that, look no further than countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, and Afghanistan to see where radicals are killing and violating basic human rights with impunity, and virtually no good reason to blame the US or western culture. But that doesn't stop them as it's a very convenient excuse. The truth? I have no obvious reason to assume he is lying to me.

If you are going to view the "they hate us because of our freedom line is simplistic" approach, the same can easily be said for your response. Radical Islam and it's desire to subjugate has been around a lot longer than the US. To say their hatred is fueled only by our presence in the ME ignores history and the nature of their religion and it's intolerance of other ways of life and belief systems. It's a nice quote, but I wonder how BF (not BlueFire )would have felt in the age of nukes and suicide bombers? I have a feeling there might be a caveat or two there. I'm not advocating trouncing all over human rights, but try to look at the situation with a bit more objectivity. AFAIK, the population at Gitmo consists of what are essentially POW's. The unfortunate part is, we can't just let them go, back to their places of origin as the bulk of them will simply seek to reorganize and continue to attack innocent people who don't agree with their interpretation of Islam. You let POW's go home when the war is over and one side has won. That simply hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. But how do you give them a trial? Of what crimes are they guilty other than being enormous douches that will most likely attempt to kill people if they are released? I just don't see a good solution. If there are genuinely detainees who are there with no just cause, everything should be done to send them home. But ferreting those out wont happen overnight. As a side note, my best friend is a guard at Gitmo. He has always been pretty liberal, both socially and politically. His take on the situation is that every single person they have there is a killer. They will do everything they can to inflict harm upon any human being that doesn't share their POV. Edit: Also regarding the articles claiming prisoner abuse - again, according to a person who I consider a best friend, it's utter BS. He claims the prisoners are treated with kid gloves and are not beaten or mistreated. Yeah, they are still prisoners and that no doubt is awful, but these stories of beatings sound like complete nonsense, and are more likely propaganda after listening to his first hand accounts. He has been there almost a full year, so perhaps things have greatly changed, but again, according to a guard with first hand experience, the abuse allegations are nonsense.

My 2 cents on the whole cops are dicks/mostly great guys argument: A lot of it has to do with which force you are on. I know plenty of NYS Troopers and even have one as a brother-in-law. They seem to be pretty professional for the most part. Contrast that with a city police officer and sherriff that I worked with in a national guard unit. These two would brag about how they mistreated people. They would discuss putting black suspects in half-nelson type holds and 'rock' them against the hood of the police cars to make it appear like the suspects were resisting, all the while yelling 'STOP RESISTING'. Plenty of scumbag cops out there.

Did you even bother to follow the thread? I would suggest you go and read a few posts on page 2.

I'm glad he can play guard, after seeing him play center...

In the eyes of either party - if you don't own a pharmaceutical company, you don't really matter.