User talk:Aggrieved

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Aggrieved, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Aggrieved!

-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
The topic of the debate was "Which is worse?". Your comments appeared unrelated. If you want to complain that you (or your sock) isn't allowed to post "relevant information", the burden of proof is on you to establish its relevance. This is not an opinion blog. Try everything2 if that's what you want.
Or start a debate like "Is Expelled fair?" --Ed Poor Talk 17:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Guantanamo Bay releasees

Sir, you just called me a liar with regard to released Gitmo prisoners going right back to the battlefield and doing the exact same thing all over again that they landed at Gitmo for in the first place: killing Americans.

You had better do one of three things:

  1. Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them.
  2. Retract your last comment and apologize to me.
  3. Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration.

No need for you to reply on my talk page; I shall set a watch on this one.--TerryHTalk 18:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok, Terry, if you want to take such a combative tone, let's get more specific - what you said was that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", yes? I take it you have proof of this, yes?
Now, why is it I who has to prove an allegation? You prove yours first. Aggrieved 18:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
When my life is at stake, you can repose one hundred percent confidence that I will be combative.
You show me an ironclad reference about someone who landed at Gitmo for longer than a couple of years, got out, and did not go right back to doing the thing whereof he stood accused, and we'll go from there.
And mind your tone when you talk to me. I'm an administrator and you're not.--TerryHTalk 18:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Hi Terry, I fully understand your desire to do something about terrorism. I suggest that you do what I did. Join the U.S. Marine Corps. You will be able to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and fight them. You will also discover a sense of esprit d' corps that is impossible in civilian life. Semper Fi.--Marquard 08:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
You might want to apologize for threatening to block him now. Wandering 19:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and if you have some free time:
Happy researching! Wandering 19:06, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

<- Murat Kurnaz StatsMsn 19:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a story (from Fox News no less) that says 7% of the 500 released are "confirmed or suspected" by the Pentagon of returning to the war [1]. As I understand it, the original claim on main page talk was that released prisoners aren't typically going back, although in the list above the demand is for a citation that they're innocent. Presumably the former is the issue, and this ought to resolve it. Murray 19:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

David Hicks, I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks in my backyard recently. StatsMsn 19:10, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
  1. I don't know who David Hicks is, so that name is irrelevant.
  2. The reason that some of you might not have heard of any terrorist attacks in your backyard might be Guantanamo. You shut that down, and you will hear of a terrorist attack in your backyard. Or mine.
  3. The case of Omar Deghayes is incomplete. Notice that if that Wikipedia entry is accurate, then he still faces extradition to Spain.
  4. I suspect that some people suffer from yet another "fundamental flaw of presumption," in this case that everything that a lawyer says, in or out of court, is always true, complete, and correct to best of said lawyer's knowledge and belief.
  5. That 7% statistic is probably conservative in a way that normally doesn't impress me. And that's a far cry from the zero that some people have been presuming.

We deal here, if I may so observe, with two competing probabilities with distinctly different levels of cost. One is having somebody languish in prison for a few years. The other is to have a million Americans dead. Which would you rather?--TerryHTalk 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry, if you dont know who David Hicks even is how can you through around accusations that everyone from Gitmo has turned out back on the battlefield? David Hicks WAS a prisoner and David Hicks WAS released and now lives quietly in Australia. You seem to have little knowledge on the subject so don't insult those who do know. AdenJ 19:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh for heaven's sake Terry, how could you have an interest in this subject and NOT know who David Hicks is? It was a HUGE, international news story - both his detainment in Afghanistan (because he was a white westerner) and his trial (because Australia had to decide if they would allow him to be tried by a US military tribunal). If there has been one Guantanamo Bay detainee in the past six years whose name might actually be known by the general public, it would be his. I advise you know something - anything - about a topic before you make such wild claims again in the future.. His case was ANYTHING but irrelevant to the entire saga of Guantanamo Bay, as you'll learn if you read the linked article. Aggrieved 19:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Terry - it is you who have made an unsubstantiated assertion, not I. Again I ask you for proof of your assertion. I note you have found it impossible to come by. It is easier to prove my case, much easier. Try Murat Kurnaz, for example, living in Germany since his release. David Hicks is alive and well in Australia. There are countless numbers of them who have not returned to combat Terry, and while I am certainly not denying that some have returned to combat, your claim that "to a man, every one of them" has done so is obviously completely incorrect. The Dept. of State's official report clearly says that "some detainees upon their release are returning to combat" (search for the phrase, no way to provide a hard link) - I imagine that if they could have made your claim, they would have been much happier, but they couldn't, so they didn't. Because it's not true.
Clearly, you are wrong, and childish attempts to bully me with your 'superior sysopship' don't change reality, sadly. Do you admit that you are wrong, and do you apologize? I would also ask you to mind your tone, thank you. Aggrieved 19:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I admit no such thing. Those cases you've cited are still open, as far as I'm concerned. And I ought to block you just for using words like "childish" even if it is on your talk page. Retract that remark right now or you will get blocked just for that.--TerryHTalk 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

So until they die having committed no further terrorist act you will not be convinced that a single person released from Guantanamo has not returned (or turned) to being a terrorist? David Hicks was one of the most publicised trials (to the best of my knowledge being the first). I would be surprised if anyone could claim knowledge about Guantanamo or its prisoners without knowing his name. StatsMsn 19:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Also we're talking about whether those released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield, not whether Guantanamo was effective or whether or not its prisoners were innocent. Please keep on topic. Your second and third points above (when you used numbers) are wholly irrelevant, and as for the 7% statistic you challenged someone to show that one person did not return to combat (allowing 99.8% to return - ?), even if you increase the stat fivefold to 35% your position is still very flawed. StatsMsn 19:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
"to a man, every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans." - those are your own words, Terry, and they are wrong. Additionally, "then he still faces extradition to Spain.". You might be interested in this: Wandering 19:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I said no such thing as the above, and you know it. I ought to tell you to stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration. That I haven't until now is that earlier you provided some information that might have been helpful. Your latest comments are not helpful.

I remind everyone that the war is not over yet, and will not be over until some person or group of persons, having a legitimate claim to speak for all Muslims everywhere, publicly repudiates the Medina Surat of the Koran, the ones containing all the fighting words. Words like "Fight and slay the infidels wheresoever ye find them." And even then it's going to take a lot of convincing, because lying is a part of how a Muslim deals with non-Muslims. The Arabs call it taquiyya. Josef Goebbels no doubt had another name for it.

I have yet to see anyone mentioned who didn't get off on technicalities. I'm not conceding anything until I see a report of someone who was absolutely peaceful and still is.--TerryHTalk 19:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry - here is the difflink to where you made the claim. I'm sorry, but you said it. And don't try moving the goalposts - we're only debating one thing here - your claim that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again". And nothing else. Aggrieved 19:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

You also obviously have no clue about Islam, because it is not an organised religion (such as Catholicism) and therefore no person can ever legitimately speak for all Muslims everywhere. Also please note that you started threatening a user because he disputed you stating that all of those released have returned to the battlefield, not that all those released were originally innocent. Please try and keep on topic. StatsMsn 19:49, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
  • TerryH, it seems you came here to discuss something with User:Aggrieved, but have been mugged by wikistalkers. May I give short blocks to some of these more notorious trolls? HenryS 19:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
HenryS, I would politely ask that you stay out of this. The "wikistalkers" at least know what they are talking about. The idea that someone could make a claim about released combatants and not know who David Hicks is beggars belief, and I would gently suggest that you leave us to finish this debate amongst ourselves. Thanks a million for your concern. Aggrieved 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
[Edit conflict] He threatened to block a user if he couldn't provide the name of a person who was released from Guantanamo and who did not return from combat. Many people such as myself viewed this as an unfair challenge and try to prevent any damage by providing names to Aggrieved. TerryH then chose to argue against the information we provided. This is not wikistalking or trolling, it is a debate and an attempt to prevent a user being blocked for what we perceive as an unfair cause. StatsMsn 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Administrative action ==


This user is now blocked for two weeks.

He had the bad sense to make demands of me on Talk:Main_Page.

Users Wandering, StatsMsn, and AdenJ: Stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration, or you'll get the same thing that this user got. And don't you ever, EVER, tell another administrator what to do on this site. I'm going to watch this page for another twenty-four hours. You have that long to apologize.

HenryS, thanks for the offer of assistance. But as you can see, about all that need you to do is to bear witness.

And anyone else who reads this page: The issue here is a lot larger than some people seem to realize or want to acknowledge. It's a lot bigger than somebody who got off on a technicality, and someone else on whom some Spanish judges took pity while not repeat not acquitting that someone of guilt for his offenses. It's also about unreliable sources, and about news organs that pretend to be objective when in fact they are the house organs for the Democratic Party or even for Al-Qa'ida (I speak here of Al-Jazeera, but the way some other news organs have been acting...well, you get the idea).

And that's why, as a contributor, I don't concede anything as regards detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

And as an administrator, I don't tolerate public expressions of contempt for my position as an administrator.

Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.--TerryHTalk 22:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

What do I have to apologize for? Wandering 22:37, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
For meddling in a quarrel that was not yours, and expressing your own contempt of an administrator in the process. And you're doing it all over again. Stop it right now, or get blocked for three days.--TerryHTalk 22:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I see no reason why I shouldn't work to correct an inaccuracy where a discussion is actively held (such as a Talk: page, whether for a user or article). I never expressed contempt for you - I said you might want to apologize (for threatening to block him over the fact that he said you were incorrect, when you were), but I never implied that you had to. The most contempt I ever showed you was when I accidentally quoted the paraphrase of what you said instead of what you actually said (because I was distracted at the time), and I corrected that and apologized. I don't see anything that I should apologize over, which is why I asked why I should apologize, and that's hardly contempt. But since this isn't an apology, I suspect you will block me (and that's not contempt either). Wandering 23:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is. AdenJ 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

This was never a quarrel with administration, this was an argument between two users about whether or not those released from Guantanamo returned to the battlefield. We provided numerous examples of cases where your statement was wrong, the most notable being David Hicks. You chose to ignore these and try to shift the debate to one about their innocence before their detention, not afterwards. You threatened to block Aggrieved if he failed to provide supporting evidence, he and others have done so on this page, however you have chosen not to address it.
Contempt of the administration is when someone actively derides those in charge, not when (s)he has a disagreement with someone who has been granted administrative powers. You want to block me for pointing this out, go ahead. However, keep in mind that at the end of the day the only way this encyclopedia is going to succeed is if all users are given the same rights in debates, and sysops only use their privileges to block those who break the rules, not those they disagree with. StatsMsn 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is. I never called you are liar, never asked you to apologise or anything. I am at a loss to what I would be apologising for..? AdenJ 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

And you don't think you're actively deriding me? And am I not one of those in charge around here?
Yes, I now know who David Hicks is. He's an active supporter of terrorism, and appears on his way to getting off on a technicality that the US Supreme Court unwisely handed him. That does not make him innocent; only one who gamed and beat the system.
Besides, this issue is a whale of a lot bigger than you seem to want to admit. The potential deaths of a million Americans ought to be big enough. But the systematic fraud perpetrated by the Fourth Estate on the consuming public is a bigger one. We're done accepting twisted news as truth. We have our own standards. And part of that is a critical examination—I say again, a critical examination—of every story that gets published anywhere, and exactly what that story actually says, not what some people would like to believe that it said.
That's enough arguing. You're now down to twenty-three hours. Start thinking, and thinking fast.--TerryHTalk 22:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I did not deride you, you said all the men from Gitmo were back on the fighting front. I disagreed and posted a link. That is all. So, please, what do you want me to apologise for? AdenJ 23:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Actively deriding is attempting to turn sysops against each other, encouraging vandalism, expressing hatred at the institution etc. The fact that you are an administrator does not automatically mean everyone who disagrees with you is holding the administration in contempt. Clearly in this case Aggrieved took offense to a statement that you made in the capacity of a user, not a sysop. The fact that you are one of those in charge does not matter.
You are also trying to change the issue. The issue is about whether those who have been released have continued to fight America on the battlefront. We have provided numerous examples of cases where people have lived peaceful lives after being set free, but you have chosen to ignore this. Again, David Hicks is a great example of this. The fact that he supported terrorism in the past or was convicted for it (not let off on a technicality, evidently you haven't researched very hard) is irrelevant to the debate, what matters is that he and many others have not continued to fight as you claimed they would.
You have provided no evidence to support your claim that all or most of those released from Guantanamo have returned to fighting. Instead you have threatened and intimidated users who disagreed with you, and attempted to use your powers as a sysop to gain an unfair advantage in a debate.
Continuing to demand that we apologise is not going to do anything. We know we have nothing to apologise for, we came to the aid of a user who was threatened with being blocked for pointing out a fallacy in another user's statements. I for one will rest happily knowing that when others look at this event, they will see that I was always in the right. StatsMsn 23:10, 14 June 2008 (EDT)