yall

It certainly came close. I think what saved it for me was how well the did the crash. That was a pretty realistic scene. Other than that I thought the whole "wow look at me I'm bleeding from my ear and I'm still smarter than you" combined with the "look at me OD on alzheimers drugs and die, but then come back from the brink with the answer" was pretty much nonsense. Hell yeah - her a$$ was incredible.

Your example shows that the innocents are slowly being cleared. We may not like the timeline, certainly the process should be sped up within reason. But I still doubt there is torture and a total suspension of habeas corpus if people are eventually being released.

This is a lot to respond to all at once, but I'll just take on the first article for now The subject of the article admitted to delivering the explosives that killed innocent people. He admitted to attending an AQ training cap for "self defense purposes". He also admitted to helping AQ operatives obtain fake passports and cross boarders illegally. Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me to hold him indefinitely. From the article you linked: "Ghailani, a Tanzanian, is suspected of buying the Nissan truck used to deliver the bomb, supplying the TNT and detonators, and later running a document forgery office for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He was arrested after a gunbattle in Gujrat in eastern Pakistan in July 2004." In his own words: "At times speaking in English, Ghailani said he went to an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan after the bombing, because he wanted military training for self-defense." Again his words:"Ghailani said he later he worked for Al Qaeda in Pakistan providing passports and documents to help them get across borders" I'm not feeling too bad for this guy if he knowingly worked with a known terror organization and then later admitted it, and now regrets it because he is locked up.

Yeah - I'm just trying to display my super-awesome level of reading comprehension.

Didn't the wiki entry (I know, I know ) also state there was no evidence of sexual assualt?

FYI - She denies this.

Wasn't this on the 190 last night?

Godamit Sketch - you stole my idea!

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.