• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

Deuce said:
Who said they were leader types? What evidence did they present that this is correct?
Click to expand...

Did you already forget the Fab five of the Taliban he released. Oh and one that was even a known former Minister of Intelligence. You weren't going to say that Pakistan, Afghanistan, and several different Western Intel Agencies got that part wrong, did you?

Did you want to start over now?

Again, several leader types are locked up. Does this reduce or increase the Risk of Harm?
 
MMC said:
Did you already forget the Fab five of the Taliban he released. Oh and one that was even a known former Minister of Intelligence. You weren't going to say that Pakistan, Afghanistan, and several different Western Intel Agencies got that part wrong, did you?

Did you want to start over now?

Again, several leader types are locked up. Does this reduce or increase the Risk of Harm?
Click to expand...

Apparently the same intelligence agencies you put faith in decided it wasn't a problem to release them.
 
Deuce said:
Apparently the same intelligence agencies you put faith in decided it wasn't a problem to release them.
Click to expand...

Oh are you saying a Former Minister of Intelligence wouldn't raise the risk of harm? It appears those other agencies didn't have any say.
 
MMC said:
Oh are you saying a Former Minister of Intelligence wouldn't raise the risk of harm? It appears those other agencies didn't have any say.
Click to expand...

Are you saying those agencies can't be wrong or corrupt?
 
Deuce said:
Are you saying those agencies can't be wrong or corrupt?
Click to expand...

How does this change the risk of harm being increased regardless if they were Right or wrong? What is the Reality of the fact?
 
MMC said:
How does this change the risk of harm being increased regardless if they were Right or wrong? What is the Reality of the fact?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. There could be risk or there could be no risk. I am not omniscient, are you?
 
Deuce said:
It doesn't. There could be risk or there could be no risk. I am not omniscient, are you?
Click to expand...

Nice try.....if there is already a risk of harm and you have one that is locked up and is keeping that risk down by being locked up. Then you release that risk of harm.

The Risk is increased. Simple formula and the basics.

But I don't mind if you want to demonstrate how difficult that formula is to figure out for the left.
 
Deuce said:
It doesn't. There could be risk or there could be no risk. I am not omniscient, are you?
Click to expand...

Deuce, do you really think that everyone in Gitmo is innocent? Or poses no risk for future attack?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom