• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Releasing 1/3 Of Gitmo Detainees

Excon said:
Not sure were I got that?
That clearly shows you are not paying attention.
I even provided it to you again so you could understand.
When I entered this topic, I quoted two people and made one response.
Let me provide it for you AGAIN!

​

Do you now see were indoctrination came into this?
And the likelihood that it, or what you proffer (just taking up arms against the US), is small, because, and I say again;

"Those who are incarcerated want to get back to living their life.
While there is always an exception to the rule, that exception is always miniscule.

If terrorism is the life they were living, that is most likely the life they are going back to." ​




Oy vey. :doh

No, the point is that the numbers are so small for your point, or the other (of indoctrination) that there is no reason to change any policy over it.
Click to expand...

You misreading is not me not paying attention. There is nothing in my statement about recruitment. Is there a comprehension issue here? I'm just asking.

The point is we don't know the numbers at all. I repeat, we don't know the numbers at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
You misreading is not me not paying attention. There is nothing in my statement about recruitment. Is there a comprehension issue here? I'm just asking.
Click to expand...
The misreading or lack of comprehension is all yours.

You are the one who said the following:
Boo Radley said:
No one said anything about indoctrinated.
Click to expand...
And I replied.
Excon said:
You said; "No one said anything about indoctrinated." That clearly was a false statement, and shows that you were not paying attention.
Click to expand...

I have shown that you were wrong/not paying attention because someone did speak of such.
That clearly shows a lack of comprehension or misreading on your part. You choose.



Boo Radley said:
The point is we don't know the numbers at all. I repeat, we don't know the numbers at all.
Click to expand...
And we do not need to know the numbers for you to bring it up like it matters, right?
Nor do we know the actual numbers to know that the averages is that they are a very small percentage.
Such a small percentage as to not be any reason to change any policy. That is the point.
 
Excon said:
The misreading or lack of comprehension is all yours.

You are the one who said the following:

And I replied.
​

I have shown that you were wrong/not paying attention because someone did speak of such.
That clearly shows a lack of comprehension or misreading on your part. You choose.



And we do not need to know the numbers for you to bring it up like it matters, right?
Nor do we know the actual numbers to know that the averages is that they are a very small percentage.
Such a small percentage as to not be any reason to change any policy. That is the point.
Click to expand...

We can play this for ever, but you are simply wrong. You have shown nothing and have badly misread what is being said. People said relasing people meant they were returning to the battle. You leap in on that. We don't know anyone is returning. We don't know that those we released were even in the battle in the first place. How small or large is meaningless. Those who are angry that they are ebing released assume that they are guilty and will retrun, despite not knowing anything about them at all. Instead of the criteria for them being guilt or innocence, they have leap all the way to being guilty and returning. You, well, you're all over the place and not on point at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
We can play this for ever, but you are simply wrong. You have shown nothing and have badly misread what is being said. People said relasing people meant they were returning to the battle. You leap in on that. We don't know anyone is returning. We don't know that those we released were even in the battle in the first place. How small or large is meaningless. Those who are angry that they are ebing released assume that they are guilty and will retrun, despite not knowing anything about them at all. Instead of the criteria for them being guilt or innocence, they have leap all the way to being guilty and returning. You, well, you're all over the place and not on point at all.
Click to expand...
:doh:lamo:doh:lamo:doh
You are the one who is wrong, so you say I am.
You are the one whose argument holds no water, so I am the one who is wrong again.
You really have a weird way of looking at things.

The game is all yours.
You were wrong.
Someone did say something about indoctrination.


Secondly; These individuals were caught in area's of battle.
So yes, they are returning.

And the whole point of countering what you said, is that there is no reason to alter policy over exceptions to the rule.
That is not being all over the place, but being specific. Duh!

So your claim is just an act of desperation in being unable to counter the argument made against what you said.
And most likely just a diversionary tactic to distract from you being wrong on the other point.


And if you think I am playing a game, here is a suggestion... Stop playing!
 
Excon said:
:doh:lamo:doh:lamo:doh
You are the one who is wrong, so you say I am.
You are the one whose argument holds no water, so I am the one who is wrong again.
You really have a weird way of looking at things.

The game is all yours.
You were wrong.
Someone did say something about indoctrination.


Secondly; These individuals were caught in area's of battle.
So yes, they are returning.

And the whole point of countering what you said, is that there is no reason to alter policy over exceptions to the rule.
That is not being all over the place, but being specific. Duh!

So your claim is just an act of desperation in being unable to counter the argument made against what you said.
And most likely just a diversionary tactic to distract from you being wrong on the other point.


And if you think I am playing a game, here is a suggestion... Stop playing!
Click to expand...

You actually have your facts wrong. People we captured all over. Being in the country doesn't make it on the battlefield. A tax driver, for example, who we killed, was not guilty. He was a taxi driver. So, no, you have your facts wrong, and still don't understand what is being argued.
 
Boo Radley said:
You actually have your facts wrong. People we captured all over. Being in the country doesn't make it on the battlefield. A tax driver, for example, who we killed, was not guilty. He was a taxi driver. So, no, you have your facts wrong, and still don't understand what is being argued.
Click to expand...
Still trying to deflect from your error I see.

No I do not. But it is apparent that you do.
You may want to brush up on your facts.
The people were caught up in capturing of enemy combatants (ie: area's of battle), if it was able to be determined that they were an innocent bystander they were released, but those who were in close proximity who had no reason to be there and couldn't be cleared were suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom