I quite literally quoted her in my first post. Then I quoted it again in masterminds post.
I also said that I agree with her general sentiment outside of that framing.
So why the fukk are you still engaging me?
UN Report on Guantanamo Criticizes US Human Rights Abuses and Calls for an Apology, Reparations and Demands is Closure
- Thread starter mastermind
- Start date
I also said that I agree with her general sentiment outside of that framing.
So why the fukk are you still engaging me?
So we not doing nuance now? We just gotta accept everything because we agree with the conclusion?
As a philosophy major, I'm disappointed im y'all
As a philosophy major, I'm disappointed im y'all
It's just reasonablemust have been an ironclad argument
Last edited:
I don't understand why folks who bemoan intellectual dishonesty have N issue with this narrow critique. 
You didn't quote her saying ANYTHING like what you claimed she said. And for those with poor reading comprehension, what she actually said has been explained to you three times now, yet you can't admit you were wrong.
The actual statement that you quoted was:
In other words, the fact that detainees were tortured is what has kept those who were perpetrators from being put on trial, as well as kept the evidence against them from being made public in full, and thus has kept victims from getting closure and justice.
You somehow jumped from there to claim:
"Sorry James, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not give them a sense of justice. What they really need to is reparations for gitmo detainees to feel whole."
Those statements are completely nonsense and have nothing to do with what she said.
* She never said restitution to the detainees is necessary for the victims to feel justice
* She never said shutting down Gitmo is necessary for the victims to receive justice
* She never said the victims have any responsibility for the actions of the US government
She said the torture at Gitmo is what has kept the 9/11 victims from receiving justice. She said that because it has prevented the perpetrators from being tried for their crimes. All that other bullshyt you're adding on is nowhere in that quote at all.
She is pointing out that the torture is wrongheaded both in that it is a violation of human rights and in addition that it was counterproductive to one of the main supposed aims of the entire program.
Are you being this rock-headed about it merely because you hate being wrong in general, or is the fact that you're arguing with me causing some sort of temporary blindness?
I've quoted this same line in my first quote and a subsequent response.
I've already given you first hand experience that what you thinks matters as justice for 9/11 victims doesn't actuallyy matter.
Anyone who actually followed gitmo knows it was just another cia blacksite and wasn't exclusive to 9/11.
No she said it was required for them to actually have justice. That's worse.
Most 9/11 victims found justice when we finally killed Osama Bin Laden.
Do you disagree?
Please tell me you aren't suggesting people didn't feel it wasn't justice because he didn't go to trial?
Actually, please tell me YOU don't believe he wasn't given jurisprudence for something he admitted to.
Last edited:
I actually agree with many of her conclusions, but I'm actually arguing with you want to be smart guys because I disagreed with one characterization she made.
My best advise for you, don't act like you do in here in real life for the sake of your family
I've quoted this same line in my first quote and a subsequent response.
Yes, that's why I called it the "statement you quoted". Are you not even trying to read right now?
No she said it was required for them to actually have justice. That's worse.
No she didn't. You're lying, again, even after it's been pointed out to you 5 times that she never said that.
In the statement, she said the fact that Gitmo detainees were tortured is what has kept 9/11 victims from getting justice (because the torture is what has prevented them from being put on trial).
You somehow warped that into, "She said restitution to detainees is necessary for 9/11 victims to get justice!", which is nowhere in her statement at all.
Yes or no. Did she say:Yes, that's why I called it the "statement you quoted". Are you not even trying to read right now?
No she didn't. You're lying, again, even after it's been pointed out to you 5 times that she never said that.
single most significant barrier” to ensuring justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
Do you actually believe this?
I've also decided when engaging you I should also use debate tactics. And this is a weak point.
Until
either of you can accept that the single biggest barrier for justice for 9/11 victims isn't the handling of gitmo I don't think I should waste any of my time with your two.
either of you can accept that the single biggest barrier for justice for 9/11 victims isn't the handling of gitmo I don't think I should waste any of my time with your two.
She said torture was the barrier. Torture is what kept the perpetrators from being tried for their crimes. THAT is the issue she is pointing out.
There is nothing about restitution anywhere in that statement. Restitution will not bring justice to the victims, and she never said that it would. You said she claimed restitution would bring justice for the victims, and that is a lie. You claimed she said the victims had responsibility for the actions of the US government, and that is a lie.
Everything with you is academic.
But I’ve actually been outside and some things are personal.
Army Pfc. Morris L. Walker| Military Times
Honoring those who fought and died in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn
thefallen.militarytimes.com
Let me give you his family’s info so you can do your routine
The argument isn't about some subjective ranking of what justice entails. I've heard 9/11 victims themselves desiring many different things when it comes to justice, and those will be ranked differently by different persons.
The argument is about you blatantly lying regarding what she said, and refusing to admit it. She never says that restitution to detainees is what will bring the 9/11 victims justice. She never says that the victims are responsible for the US government's actions.
And the manner in which you keep trying to paint over your falsehoods with these ridiculous logical fallacies is embarrassing. None of your strained "connections to victims" have jack shyt to do with the fact that you misrepresented the investigator's statement.
Why would I have anything to say to his family? You're the liar, not them.
And lol at some white collar office worker using "I've actually been outside" with me on this issue.
No, the Biden admin gave her unprecedented access and I support it.
But that doesn’t mean where we are today is where we were when gitmo was created.
The conversation has been had and their are multiple documentaries about our black sites during that time and that has led to that population going from. 750 to 30. And if trump didn’t win vitro would be completely closed.
I jut want to tell you politely that you are no where as smart as you believe and you definitely aren’t even close to experiencing the world people have lived in that you feel entitled to speak for.
But that doesn’t mean where we are today is where we were when gitmo was created.
The conversation has been had and their are multiple documentaries about our black sites during that time and that has led to that population going from. 750 to 30. And if trump didn’t win vitro would be completely closed.
I jut want to tell you politely that you are no where as smart as you believe and you definitely aren’t even close to experiencing the world people have lived in that you feel entitled to speak for.