BF2S Forums See? Torture DOES work!

Feos, I think 3 people above gave youmore than adequate reasonable belief that the dude was actually tortured.  Yet you still gotta piss and moan and provoke ME to change.  I tried conceding to get you to shut up, but no, you have to keep sidetracking my thread.  I conceded to you twice, and you're still here.  I've even asked you to contribute.  That's all I want out of DS&T is reasonable debate..preferably on topic.

What is evident is that you have posting behavior that suggests you're stalking me with some kind of female type vengeance that you can't let go.   If you hate me so much or can't stand to read my posts, then don't..or PM me with your gripes. 

DIsputing things with you is not possible after yesterday.  You simply can't see things for what they are, and you definitely cannot yield when proven wrong..you just shift to other irrelevent side topics like you're doing here already.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Feos, I think 3 people above gave youmore than adequate reasonable belief that the dude was actually tortured.  Yet you still gotta piss and moan and provoke ME to change.  I tried conceding to get you to shut up, but no, you have to keep sidetracking my thread.  I conceded to you twice, and you're still here.  I've even asked you to contribute.  That's all I want out of DS&T is reasonable debate..preferably on topic.

No, they didn't. The only one supporting your notion that the guy was tortured was Dilbert. And if you want to use him as a backup, that's your business.

You conceded nothing, and there's no sidetracking going on here. The discussion is about the root of your post. You claim he was tortured. I'm arguing he wasn't. How exactly is arguing your OP sidetracking? And how is discussing the main point of your OP not contributing?

How's this: Sounds like we had the right guy and then let him go, and it resulted in the deaths of innocents. So maybe we shouldn't extradite any of the Gitmo detainees to their home countries.

IRONCHEF wrote:

What is evident is that you have posting behavior that suggests you're stalking me with some kind of female type vengeance that you can't let go.   If you hate me so much or can't stand to read my posts, then don't..or PM me with your gripes.

Or you can grow up and get over yourself. You post nonsense, I'll call you on it. You don't like it, quit posting nonsense.

IRONCHEF wrote:

DIsputing things with you is not possible after yesterday.  You simply can't see things for what they are, and you definitely cannot yield when proven wrong..you just shift to other irrelevent side topics like you're doing here already.

And what happened yesterday? Do you expect people to just roll over and say "oh, golly, you're right" when you debate them? What color is the sky on your world? If you prove me wrong, I'll acknowledge it. It's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again.

Sure

This thread is more intellectually dishonest than a congress full of Democrats.

The guy was most likely innocent when he came there, got pissed off for being treated like shit for a few years ,then took his revenge....Good job creating terrorists

rawls2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:

The guy was most likely innocent when he came there, got pissed off for being treated like shit for a few years ,then took his revenge....Good job creating terrorists

You start off with ...most likely, added a made up scenario, then end your post with a statement thats written like fact. Ok.

Well mr smartypants The U.S said that he was innocent and released him. And even a idiot could guess that somebody that has been treated like a dog for years will want some form of revenge. Just change channel from fox news and get some real news for once..u might learn something

Pug wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, friggen idiots around here.

a) I said the source of that wiki entry was from Guantanamo.  WOuld it be realistically (see  Occam's razor reference) possible that they'd report anything resembling truth regarding one of their prisoners, they freely turned over to Kuwaiti authority, who later bombed iraqi policemen?  Or is it likely we simply won't know...save it be by a guard or otherwise "fly-on-th-wall" type informant inside gitmo if he was the real deal or not.  I believe my OP said I don't know, yet i stated my opinion that he was probably pushed to his end by his incarceration.

b) You're an asshole, quite often, but I'm not saying anything about that because you're trying to add to the conversation/debate..until now.  And while I would agree you do have stalker behavior, like feos, you also show maturity in your posts, less bad language, and you don't dwell on things like an afflicted, disgruntled woman.

Well, that was uncalled for.  Is it possible to think about something besides the chip on your shoulder?

Let's review what I said:

I pointed to a reference where the guy has links to the Taliban.  I also said his lawyer is angling for institutionized terrorism.  That's pretty balanced.

I also said I believe the gitmo report.  That's an opinion.

I also stated, like others in this thread, including you, that there isn't enough information to pass judgement.  Of course, you have the right to believe the worst, as it is your opinion.

And then I drop in a poorly constructed request, as I have done many times before, for a debate that doesn't include you worrying about your e-penis.




Many people stated the same opinion as I have in this thread, and there's a disjointed debate occuring because of you believe you have been singled out.  Perhaps the reason I show up disagreeing with you is because...well we disagree.  We have different points of view.

If I was specific, the reason why I might be showing up so often is I show up so often when you post are: you push an agenda beyond the information provided, toting the party line, being jaded and full of negativity, overhyping inconsequential issues, we are polar opposites on many topics, expanding issues beyond the scope, and TBH, I'm dull and don't consider the same angles because of differences in ideology.  But to be fair, I admire your idealism, fervor, usually (but not always) well thought out points, and plus you're a good kisser.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but at least in this thread, it's you not FEOS who acted incorrectly.  I'm sure that in other threads, its FEOS.   At no point do I feel I acted unfairly in this thread (not always true...).  But the common theme is people who disagree with you are idiots and stalkers.

I'm sure this isn't the last time we'll talk about this topic, but I always wonder...what if?

Now, to address your last post:
Respectfully go fuck yourself.  (sarcastic)

FEOS called people who disagree with me stalkers, not me.  I demonstrated how he does stalk me, and I demonstrated that you too have such behavior.

FEOS asked the question initially wanting to know if the subject was tortured as assumed in my sarcastic thread title.  He was replied to by at least 3 people suggesting it's a safe assumption, because no, I certainly did not state my sarcastic opinion as fact that he was tortured.  DO I believe he was, absolutely.  So then, because I'm stalked, I'm ridiculed for my (probably accurate) opinion that he was tortured.  Regardless of how I argue it, I'm still wrong somehow.

PUG, you need to reread your comment after I replied with the citation of the wiki article you posted.  How did I have a chip on my shoulder when you first insulted me because you thought I was going after you?  lol  I sincerely do not credit that wiki entry because it was derived by "guantanamo."  Am I not entitled to believe it was inaccurate?

I react to you and FEOS because you provoke this shit.  It's old, we've talked about it (even privately) and you still act like an ass and cleverly make me out to be the e-penis here.

Did I push an agenda here?  I sarcastically said Torture does work (sarcastic because it doesn't).  That is actually NOT the heart of the OP as FEOS thinks.  It's the heart of it because he thinks he can read my mind and intentions.  THe heart of this OP is that "I OPINE that he was likely innocent, having been kidnapped, incarcerated, tortured, released, then because I imagined what I would do if I were him, I believed he did the suicide bombing out of revenge...having ben 'made' a terrorist where he may have not been one before.  See that?  THe Heart of the matter is that he was likely made to be one, and I asked for opinions..not requests to qualify my opinion.

So in short, stop harassing me, stalking me, looking for fights in me.  If you don't like my posts, don't read them and draw out arguments you know will start fights.  I want real debate and serious discussion just as much as you do.  And believe it or not, I forget and usually forgive things the next day or so after a bad day posting.  I come here for good topics, fun, and to learn opposing opinions..not to be challenged on BS and irrelevent wording.  You guys are as annoying as grammar police.

FEOS wrote:

Actually, the US released him into Kuwaiti custody. They are the ones who felt he should be set free (as opposed to feeling he is "innocent"...there is a distinction).

WOuld the US let him go if they thought he was guilty still?  WOuld they continue to extract intelligence from him?  Or is it possible they got nothing from him, and turned him over to Kuwait so they could do further intelligence extraction?

Heck of a guy to withstand "being peaceably questioned" by two sets of captors and then fulfill his original plans to take out some Iraqi police.

Since I'm not debating the quality of that idiot, I won't speculate..though I'm sure you're right.

I will dispute the ethics of Gitmo simply releasing someone because they don't have enough on him.  THat prison has gobs of innocent people in it, and they have ZERO evidence on many of them (yes, I have proof, but can't reveal it due to attorney client privilege)...surely they're holding on to them for a reason.

Anyway, my point was that I doubt Gitmo would release someone to Kuwait if they were still guilty, disputing FEOS's idea that he was not innocent.  Whatever his actions after, have nothing to do with the terms of his release..obviously...if it was known he'd blow himself up and kill iraqi police...they'd keep on "peaceably talking to him about his feelings!" lol

DBBrinson1 wrote:

And if you are right, the world cannot afford for the US to release all of these now potential suicide bombers from Gitmo.  Hell, I guess the military when in doubt should have shot these guys to begin with instead showing mercy and taking them out of the fight.

Agreed.  Even if we compensated them and offered our sincerest apologies...I wouldn't suspect reconciliation from them.  I wouldn't give it.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-05-08 12:34:13)

IRONCHEF wrote:

FEOS called people who disagree with me stalkers, not me.

No. YOU called ME a stalker. What I did was explain that all I did was disagree with your position and you label me a stalker. But nice technique trying to blame your delusions on me.

IRONCHEF wrote:

I demonstrated how he does stalk me, and I demonstrated that you too have such behavior.

Did you? Really? Must've missed it, as you can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist.

IRONCHEF wrote:

FEOS asked the question initially wanting to know if the subject was tortured as assumed in my sarcastic thread title.  He was replied to by at least 3 people suggesting it's a safe assumption, because no, I certainly did not state my sarcastic opinion as fact that he was tortured.  DO I believe he was, absolutely.  So then, because I'm stalked, I'm ridiculed for my (probably accurate) opinion that he was tortured.  Regardless of how I argue it, I'm still wrong somehow.

Don't kid yourself. Your opinion was blatantly obvious, which is why I asked the question about where the article you linked said he was tortured. It didn't. You drew your opinion from nothing, backed it with nothing, then get pissy when people call you on it.

IRONCHEF wrote:

I react to you and FEOS because you provoke this shit.  It's old, we've talked about it (even privately) and you still act like an ass and cleverly make me out to be the e-penis here.

How does getting called a stalker by someone "provoke this shit"? Perhaps you should go back and re-read your posts.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Did I push an agenda here?  I sarcastically said Torture does work (sarcastic because it doesn't).  That is actually NOT the heart of the OP as FEOS thinks.  It's the heart of it because he thinks he can read my mind and intentions.  THe heart of this OP is that "I OPINE that he was likely innocent, having been kidnapped, incarcerated, tortured, released, then because I imagined what I would do if I were him, I believed he did the suicide bombing out of revenge...having ben 'made' a terrorist where he may have not been one before.  See that?  THe Heart of the matter is that he was likely made to be one, and I asked for opinions..not requests to qualify my opinion.

Hence the question from my first post. The heart of the matter is you assumed he was tortured and that's what drove him to be a terrorist. You have no foundation to say that he was tortured, therefore your OP is flawed. And you can't back it up. So you get pissy.

Here's a thought: Do you think this guy was out collecting fucking butterflies when he was captured? Do you think that just because he's an A-rab, that the US government went to the trouble of rolling him up, toting him off to Gitmo and questioning the bejesus out of him? Gitmo isn't for your run-of-the-mill suspects. You assume that simply because he was released to the Kuwaitis that there was no reason to hold him any longer, which is a flawed assumption. Most likely, it was determined that any intel he could provide was no longer useful, so he was turned over to his home country's government, which has been done many times.

Then the little fucker straps a bomb to himself and blows up a bunch of innocent people. You (wrongly) confuse coincidence with causation. It's just as likely that he was a murderous bastard long before going to Gitmo.

But I suppose explaining all that makes me a stalker, right?

IRONCHEF wrote:

So in short, stop harassing me, stalking me, looking for fights in me.  If you don't like my posts, don't read them and draw out arguments you know will start fights.  I want real debate and serious discussion just as much as you do.  And believe it or not, I forget and usually forgive things the next day or so after a bad day posting.  I come here for good topics, fun, and to learn opposing opinions..not to be challenged on BS and irrelevent wording.  You guys are as annoying as grammar police.

Again, go back and read the post history. You'll see YOU escalated this shit. YOU made your bed, now lie in it.

Maybe you'll be able to accept opposing opinions without getting your inner child wounded and quit lashing out at those who disagree with you.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Since I'm not debating the quality of that idiot, I won't speculate..though I'm sure you're right.

I will dispute the ethics of Gitmo simply releasing someone because they don't have enough on him.  THat prison has gobs of innocent people in it, and they have ZERO evidence on many of them (yes, I have proof, but can't reveal it due to attorney client privilege)...surely they're holding on to them for a reason.

Anyway, my point was that I doubt Gitmo would release someone to Kuwait if they were still guilty, disputing FEOS's idea that he was not innocent.  Whatever his actions after, have nothing to do with the terms of his release..obviously...if it was known he'd blow himself up and kill iraqi police...they'd keep on "peaceably talking to him about his feelings!" lol

DBBrinson1 wrote:

And if you are right, the world cannot afford for the US to release all of these now potential suicide bombers from Gitmo.  Hell, I guess the military when in doubt should have shot these guys to begin with instead showing mercy and taking them out of the fight.

Agreed.  Even if we compensated them and offered our sincerest apologies...I wouldn't suspect reconciliation from them.  I wouldn't give it.

Yea, I have a feeling that he'd still be rotting above ground rather than in little pieces boxed up below ground if they knew what he was going to do.  I dunno what the Kuwaitis did to him.  Hell, I don't know what happened to him in Gitmo.  I doubt his testicles were hooked up to a car battery though.  I do think he all along regretted not doing the "martyr" thing before he was apprehended.  I think in Gitmo he saw that there is no way his cause can defeat the US.  Didn't the article say he went to Syria to communicate with his family?  Why the hell are they over there if they have nothing to hide?  Heck, why didn't his family try to stop him if this was a huge misunderstanding.  You would think absence from your family, you'd want to be with them again -not be in a hurry to run off and explode somewhere.  Nah, this guy was a baddie and never should have been let go... Which begs the question, how many "enemy combatants" has the US released  returned to fight against US?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Please stop hijacking/thread crapping.  You win dude.

Please stop hijacking/forum crapping.  Actually get your facts straight before posting BS.

You mean get my opinions straight?  Why?  I don't have to prove my opinions to anyone, certainly not well corroborated ones like Gitmo torturing it's prisoners.

Thanks for the hijack and thread crap.