I identified your comment as what is was, then proceeded to explain exactly why it was that. Any "hyper aggression" your reading is your in your own mind and I assure you I would have responded the same way face to face with pretty much anyone.

Frankly it wasn't a good faith argument. Even if you somehow didn't know that one of the core issues with Guantanamo was that people were being held indefinitely without trial, a 30 second Google would've told you that, and a couple minutes of research would have told you that it was established specifically to avoid the need for a trial or anything resembling due process.

In other words the idea that Guantanamo Bay detainees "likely" got something resembling a trial is horseshit.

You're scolding this person for their impassioned comment but should also maybe self-reflect a bit. Maybe this person is upset because you're casually throwing out baseless, unsubstantiated claims.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about real life events, you may want to have more evidence for your claims than "I’m more inclined to believe" and "There likely was..."

I’m scolding them for using profanity in the first word of their first sentence. There is no way to have a constructive dialogue with someone when they show that much anger off the bat. That sort of hostility just breeds more venom which won’t lead anywhere productive. If we’re just hear to air our grievances. Then it’s fine, be angry, show that emotion. Feats of strength are next. Someone can bring out the festivus pole.

But I don’t think that’s what this forum is about. If his problem really is my lack of evidence he should say that instead of spewing obscenities.

> Then it’s fine, be angry, show that emotion. Feats of strength are next. Someone can bring out the festivus pole.

?