Red Cross believes we are hiding detainies

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I'm not hiding anyone. That makes it not "we".

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    I'm not hiding anyone. That makes it not "we".



    That's a dissapointingly anemic response
  • Reply 2 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    That's a dissapointingly anemic response



    Saying "we" such as you did is as bad as saying "they" in such ways as "they are talking all our jobs" or "they want to rape our women" or "they hate spending money"...



    "We" are not holding prisoners from the Red Cross. Various individuals in our government "might" be.



    I don't need to be implicated in order to be responsible.



    I want it investigated, and the people punished if it's true. But "we" Americans are not guilty.



    "We" Americans share responsibility to find the truth, but "we" Americans are not guilty of myriad possible things being kept hidden from us by corrupt leaders since the hiding implies it is against our wishes.



    I will not stand for collective punishment, be it Palestinians, Jews or yes, even Americans.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    I will not stand for collective punishment, be it Palestinians, Jews or yes, even Americans.



    How about Iraqis or Afghanis?
  • Reply 4 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    How about Iraqis or Afghanis?



    Of course.



    See, this is your "if he disagrees with tone or scope he must be disagreeing altogether" mentality.



    Does the mere fact that I countered pfflam's post automatically mean I am pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-Iraqi/Afghani (the people)?



    I think to you it does.



    It's not that simple. Our only difference is that my list of people to not demonize or make rash generalizations about happens to also include Americans.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Ah. So we are not responsible for anything. Iraq? Hey, America didn't bomb it. Various individuals in the military did.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Ah. So we are not responsible for anything. Iraq? Hey, America didn't bomb it. Various individuals in the military did.



    Did you read or just skim and presume?



    Didn't I just minutes go say:



    I don't need to be implicated in order to be responsible.

    and:

    "We" Americans share responsibility to find the truth



    I am responsible for the actions of our government.

    You are responsible for the actions of our government.

    The American people are responsible for the actions of their government.

    I am not guilty of the actions of our government.

    You are not guilty of the actions of our government.

    The American people are not guilty of the actions of their government.

    ("you" presumes I'm speaking to voting Americans)



    None of those are mutually exclusive.



    AND: The American government is responsible of the actions of it's own. The guilt lies with those found to be guilty in our system/s of justice.



    I and all Americans are responsible. However we are not collectively guilty.



    At the most I'm "guilty" of not having helped Gore get more votes in swing states - period.



    I'm sorry if nothing short of assassination will please some of you. But in this country we vote with ballots not bullets.



    "Guilt" and "responsibility" are not the same thing.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    Of course.



    See, this is your "if he disagrees with tone or scope he must be disagreeing altogether" mentality.



    Does the mere fact that I countered pfflam's post automatically mean I am pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-Iraqi/Afghani (the people)?



    I think to you it does.



    It's not that simple. Our only difference is that my list of people to not demonize or make rash generalizations about happens to also include Americans.




    Your 'pro' stance on any subject never crossed my mind. All I wanted to know was if you felt the same way about Iraqis and Afghanis.



    Sometimes, when discussing things in a group setting, it's best to play other people off of each other to make a point a completely different party is meant to understand. I know nothing about you, and frankly I don't care, but how you responded (assuming you responded honestly) could be enlightening for some other people around here who need it.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Topic successfully killed.



    It would have been wisest to just ignore johnq's first post.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Your 'pro' stance on any subject never crossed my mind. All I want to know is if you feel the same way about Iraqis and Afghanis.



    It should have gone without saying.



    I shouldn't have to list all ~192 countries just to make my point clear.



    The point of your question eludes me.



    What then, did you mean to imply, other than to suggest that Iraqis and Afghanis were somehow not included in my statement?
  • Reply 10 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Topic successfully killed.



    It would have been wisest to just ignore johnq's first post.




    Topic: Red Cross believes we are hiding detainies



    Johnq's posts: "We" are not hiding detainees.



    How does your post further the topic beyond silencing a person?



    Do I have to wear my "I hate Bush and am going to vote for Kerry" on my frigging sleeves just to be able to speak?



    It's a big world and I'll talk when and where I please.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Topic successfully killed.



    It would have been wisest to just ignore johnq's first post.




    I agree with that. Let's go back on topic.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I agree with that. Let's go back on topic.



    Of course...
  • Reply 13 of 16
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Pinochet's Chile, but it's still a very good point.



    I could play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that pinochet's reforms made Chile prosperous and stable compared to the rest of latin american. *ducks*



    Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Hence the little size.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Oh, and I'd be tremendously surprised if all of the prisoners were disclosed.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Topic successfully killed.



    It would have been wisest to just ignore johnq's first post.




    What post?



    Dumb question: isn't this business as usual? Don't we do this kind of thing? Hide people? Extradite people to countries where they can be tortured?



    I'm serious.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    What post?



    Yay, successfully ostracized by the usual clique.



    :roll frigging eyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.