• 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!

Bush 'knew Guantanamo prisoners were innocent'

Just a word of warning: questioning mod decisions in threads is infraction worthy. I doubt what you said so far would get you infracted, but careful.

Is that your way of not answering the question through threat?
 
Is that your way of not answering the question through threat?

No. I can't answer the question because I don't make the decisions. If you want to question it, PM a mod.
 
One accusation without any supporting evidence.

Duh. :roll:

That would explain why I did not call it a fact, but a supposition, yes.
 
That would explain why I did not call it a fact, but a supposition, yes.

Once again you don't even read what you write

Your statement:

Except most likely some are not.

That is a statement of fact made by you and when I asked you to prove your claim you pointed back to a single witness who doesn't even support his own claims.

Typical.
 
Once again you don't even read what you write

Your statement:



That is a statement of fact made by you and when I asked you to prove your claim you pointed back to a single witness who doesn't even support his own claims.

Typical.

What does the phrase "most likely" mean? I know, one of those words has more than one syllable, but I got confidence you can figure it out.
 
The pattern is that kool-aid drinking rightees don't believe any proof when it is provided by anyone except their kool-aid dispensing lying leaders. That's not what "justice is blind" means. :roll:

It's always entertaining how the right "eats their own" when one of their former heroes comes forward after witnessing illegalities. Wilkerson and Powell were well respected military men and Republicans serving on a very neo-con administration. Both of them have come forward chastising the Bush administration on a number of issues. To do so takes honor and courage. Qualities their former bosses never possessed.

This country has a credo, make that a law, stating "innocent until proven guilty". Yet, right wing zealots don't think that applies to anyone taken prisoner under the banner of Bush's "War on Terror". Rewards were offered and people were "given up" for the reward. No proof was required before those people were thrown in jail. How is this a Repub or Dem issue?

Could someone please tell me where the ignore button is? Thanx in advance.
 
note: yes, I know I sometimes manage to go the "low road" myself. I am not perfect either, but I do try and be fair.

:lamo :roll: ..........
 
If they are prisoners of war, shouldn't the Geneva Convention apply?

He misspoke... they are "enemy combatants" and do not fall under the Geneva conventions.

They actually fall under the terms and conditions of spies, and can be detained forever without charges, or taken out and shot at any time someone wants to........ boo hoo, that's what happens when you pickup a gun and start shooting at someone else’s soldiers when out of uniform.
 
So they are not prisoners of war. You want to have things both ways, but it don't work that way.
Pull your head out........ he just corrected himself, and he is absolutely correct.

Enemy combatants have no rights on the field of battle, or off.
 
How do you declare war on a non-nation? Can some one declare war on the Republican party?

You are just working for the ass hat of the year award this year......... right?
 
Pull your head out........ he just corrected himself, and he is absolutely correct.

Enemy combatants have no rights on the field of battle, or off.

And yet we have some evidence now that they are not enemy combatants either.
 
You are just working for the ass hat of the year award this year......... right?

Now there's good debating. Can't argue facts, just call some one an ass.
 
Your sources are from blogs and conservative sites, care to get any evidence from non-biased sources? I don't go around posting links to MSNBC or my grandma's blog since obviously they are biased.

Washington examiner?

Fox news?

Climatecooling. org?

Washingtom times?

What do you want, a link from algores page? :roll:
 
Now there's good debating. Can't argue facts, just call some one an ass.


No... you are all over the place, just tossing **** to see if it will stick......... thought you might be going for the ass hat of the year award, it's very prestigious.
 
No... you are all over the place, just tossing **** to see if it will stick......... thought you might be going for the ass hat of the year award, it's very prestigious.

No, I am trying to highlight the difficulty of this whole issue. While it may be simpler to try simple cliches, it's actually not a simple issue with no easy answers.
 
Washington examiner?

Fox news?

Climatecooling. org?

Washingtom times?

What do you want, a link from algores page? :roll:

If you actually read my post you would know what I want.
 
Could someone please tell me where the ignore button is? Thanx in advance.


Oh no, are those facts-based allergies flaring up again? :mrgreen:
 
Maybe someone has asked the question being begged here:

Did Bush "know"? Larry Wilkerson, in pursuing a legal claim made by a detainee, claims as such.

Is everyone accepting that as sufficient evidence that Bush "knew"? I hope not.

Seems that the lefties will latch on to anything to smear Bush and Cheney. It's humorous that I and conservatives have far more substantive and meaningful criticisms of Bush that these clowns on the left...
 
Back
Top Bottom