Love thy Terrorist! 31

6/26/2009 11:09:38 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
fzappa Oklahoma City, OK age: 52	Quote from poet756: Whyn is it that other than other terrorists no one likes terrorists except liberal democrats. They make lobo hot. He'd like to trade spit with them. He feels a tingle run down his leg. And liberal would love to bear their children. What are you? A shill? Can't believe how delusional you are...the GOP pay people to troll the blogsites, revise history, spew ignorances...they should fire you because you are so obvious...or could it be you REALLY believe this tripe to post? [Edited 6/26/2009 11:11:49 AM PST]
6/26/2009 11:09:58 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from poet756: lobo You are a numbnuts. Gitmo was for active combatants and high value targets. Terrorists picked up off the street went to foreign prisons a practice that Obama continues to this day. Get your facts right at least. Completely, obviously and embarassingly wrong. Again, PLEASE look in the mirror before you attack others on their facts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/19/terror/main4877395.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4877395 Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday. "There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years." Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence. "It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified." Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to discriminate "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation." Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on Wilkerson's specific allegations but noted that the military has consistently said that dealing with foreign fighters from a wide variety of countries in a wartime setting was a complex process. The military has insisted that those held at Guantanamo were enemy combatants and posed a threat to the United States. In his posting for The Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released." Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dck Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership." Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head." Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists*, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006. "We need to put those people in a high-security prison like the one in Colorado, forget them and throw away the key," Wilkerson said. "We can't try them because we tortured them and didn't keep an evidence trail." But the rest of the detainees need to be released, he said. Wilkerson, who flew combat missions as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and left the government in January 2005, said he did not speak out while in government because some of the information was classified. He said he feels compelled to do so now because Cheney has claimed in recent press interviews that President Barack Obama is making the U.S. less safe by reversing Bush administration policies toward terror suspects, including ordering Guantanamo closed. The administration is now evaluating what to do with the prisoners who remain at the U.S. military base in Cuba. "I'm very concerned about the kinds of things Cheney is saying to make it seem Obama is a danger to this republic," Wilkerson said. "To have a former vice president fearmongering like this is really, really dangerous."
6/26/2009 11:15:17 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
poet756 The Plains, OH age: 53	fzappa It's better than that antiAmerican venom you spew. I have read many of your posts and have yet to find one with an intelligle thought moron. Lobo You idiot. Once you put them on us territory you either have to try them in a civilian court or let them go. Come to think of it I'm sure it's your goal I think fzappa should be fired. i don't the way he rolls his r's when he says "Attention KMart shoppers!!" You know 2 or 3 years of night school and you might become intelligent enough to get a job greeting customers at the door. [Edited 6/26/2009 11:26:16 AM PST]
6/26/2009 11:26:06 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
fzappa Oklahoma City, OK age: 52	Quote from poet756: fzappa It's better than that antiAmerican venom you spew. I have read many of your posts and have yet to find one with an intelligle thought moron. LOL, I joined and served 4 years in the Marines in wartime, I run an anti-teen drinking org, I own a small business, I was in involved in the Obama transition team, still working on bringing HC to Oklahoma, I have met the gov and several state senators over issues to improve my community, I am being considered for a local political show because they noticed my local blogs, I have been printed several times in various newspapers and continue to promote a RATIONAL approach to the issues that affect us. Dude, you know it's never too late to take a course in developing comprehensional skills...er, unless you really are just a lousy shill. [Edited 6/26/2009 11:26:48 AM PST]
6/26/2009 11:36:25 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from poet756: Lobo You idiot. Once you put them on us territory you either have to try them in a civilian court or let them go. Come to think of it I'm sure it's your goal OBVIOUSLY that's my goal. EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WITH THEIR ACCUSOR. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (See # 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) It couldn't be any more obvious that you are completely in the wrong. Are you honestly this stupid, or are you just playacting? Your incredible ignorance makes me wonder if you are some sort of Democrat plant, actively trying to make Republicans and Conservatives look bad. If so, nice job!
6/26/2009 8:41:23 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
tumblwd Knoxville, TN age: 62	Its almost as bad as the US and Bush silently backing the Chechniyan terrorists who held the school for ranson. Then we found out the same group operating in Chechnya were Osama's allies. Its a good thing we have governments like that of the Russian Federation who truly know how to deal with terrorism. They took out the Chechnya big dog and supposedly Osama is still out there in a cave living under the protection of one of the US's client states.
6/27/2009 12:44:28 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from lobo_corazons earlier post: Begin referring to "my" political ideology as Nazism? The first thing that struck me funny about your post is that you claim Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 which makes as much sense as declaring Saul Alinsky had nothing to do with the Apollo 13 disaster. And I know you've heard this before so if you going to comment on any of this, I would like to you to respond to this issue specifically. Saddam ejects United Nations weapons inspectors and violates 18 articles of the terms of surrender that he himself had agreed to with the coalition in the first Gulf War to cease hostilities. Since I can't be certain that you will understand this let me break it down for you. The terms of surrender are comparable to a contract. If you violate a contract and do not live up to your expectations, you have broken the contract and a null the former agreement to cease fighting. Saddam had broken the terms of surrender and gambled that the United States and other coalition members would not go as far as to invade his country again. Furthermore actions taken by the United States in the United Nations was hampered by the fact that France, one of the five original members that had the power to veto any resolution had been receiving oil at reduced market values by Saddam to buy the veto powers of the French. Another United Nations member, Germany had sold uranium ore to Saddam violating the resolution prohibiting Saddam from purchasing anything other than food and medical equipment. The Russian Federation was selling military equipment to Iraq, which also violated United Nations resolutions that included GPS jamming equipment. Russia is also one of the five original members of the United Nations, however they did not veto the resolution to use force against Iraq, preferring to keep the door open on their Chechnya problem. So you see it was justified to reenter Iraq to force them to abide by the original terms of the surrender agreement in which the United States warned military intervention for noncompliance. Creating a United Nations peacekeeping force was an impossibility due to the fact that the French planned on vetoing any such action. In addition to all this there were training camps in Iraq being used by Al Qaeda that conveniently was not extensively reported by the mainstream media. So for the last time the war was justified. Would you like to also discuss Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? I’m ready. In an earlier post, Born American made a quote and you responded with this answer; “Don't be such a sucker for your puppetmasters. How will you identify these so-called terrorists you are going to appoint yourself executioner for? Anyone who doesn't look like you, right? Frigging rabid animals. And you wonder why they hate you back?” I responded to your post by stating that I didn't care whether or not terrorists hated us and I certainly don't recall anyone from the left coddling the Oklahoma City bomber but instead remember the left tearing into talk radio and right wing extremism in an attempt to assign blame. So if my question; “when would the terrorists ever are friends?” is now been regarded by you is a silly question I can tell you the reason why I spend all this time debating this issue with you began with your asinine statement you made about wondering why they hate us back. Newsflash…they have never liked us.
6/27/2009 12:44:44 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	It is you sir, with your definition of conservatism that is twisted here. And I would really like to see a right wing or nonbiased political site that defines conservatism as “not caring if someone else changes as long as he/she doesn't have to”. As a conservative I do care if someone else changes even though it doesn't directly affect me, as an example I give you same-sex marriages. Google it and you will find a conservative believes in limited government, that the basic units of society are individuals and families, they strongly support traditions that includes religion, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, conservatism also encourages advancement based on ability and achievement just to name a few. I'm sorry did I hear you suggest 9/11 was an inside job? Since I don't deal in conspiracies, especially one as foolish as this will have to skip this one. What I can tell you is Hamas is the enemy of all Israel and since Hamas targets old ladies and children I think I'll stick with a judgment call that anyone trying to advance your political ideology by blowing out defenseless children and old ladies qualifies in my book is a coward. It was true for Timothy McVeigh then and it is true for Muslim extremists today. If you are offended at being called a Nazi I would ask you to look back and review the comparison you made between conservatism and Middle Eastern terrorists. I was not simply slinging mud, but the fact is Nazi’s believed in nationalism. Just as your president today is attempting to nationalize the banks, the automotive industry and healthcare so too did the National Socialists. Furthermore socialism is politically left of center of most other political ideologies. Just as liberalism and progressivism is left of center, I therefore believe the term Nazi is more in qualifying as a description of your ideology than Middle Eastern terrorist can be likened to conservatism. Pardon me for saying so but I do not believe that you possess the intellect to school me on how to process political information. I do not need your counsel on how to consider all sides of an issue and then come to my own conclusion as I have been doing that very thing for quite a while. I would dare guess I've been doing this a little longer than you have and even though we disagree, your just can have the trust me on this. So if I choose to listen to talk radio I will make my own assessment as I always have on the basis of fact, probability of likeliness and intuition. If rounding people up off the street and imprisoning them is an example of totalitarianism would you mind telling me what party the president of the United States was who rounded up and interned Japanese American citizens against their will? What was their crime again? (And they weren't captured in a combat zone!) These people at Guantanamo Bay were captured in a combat area, questioned and then detained not as prisoners of war because they wear no uniform and because their citizenship is outside of Iraq. I realize it is beyond the realm of possibility for you to consider that a judgment call was made when these people were captured and suspected only moments before shooting at the sons and daughters of the United States making them terrorists. Oh, one more thing to consider to your silly little post, when do basic human rights include those who are not willing to fight for them? And if we include them to all people why were we not supplying weapons to those who had none in the Bosnian Civil War so they could defend themselves from ethnic cleansing? When did the left ever consider extending the right of life to the unborn? When did freedom of expression ever get the stamp of approval to a government employee who was deeply religious? When did the right to bare arms ever become the one amendment that told government what it could do while all the others inform the government what it can’t do? The list goes on and on my friend. How much time do you really have?
6/27/2009 3:08:08 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
dochollomon Atlanta, GA age: 46	Quote from fzappa: What are you? A shill? Can't believe how delusional you are...the GOP pay people to troll the blogsites, revise history, spew ignorances...they should fire you because you are so obvious...or could it be you REALLY believe this tripe to post? WELL HOT FKING DAMN Pot Calling the kettle Black. Bloggers aren't breaking laws. Lets talk about Acorn for a Second or 2. Watch As the Dem. Population Dbl's with the Next Census. Obummer has put his Acorn Storm Troopers in charge of the Census. you can bet your sweet a they'll cooking the number in the Dem. Districts to get more Rep's in Washington. In my 45 years I've seen less corruption in 3rd world countries. I just like to hear 1 time one of you Died in the Wool Dem's admit your party stuff ballot boxes, dbl and triple voters.
6/27/2009 7:28:02 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Wow - So much compiled ignorance, you had to break it in to two posts eh? I'll respond to a few of your sillier points: The first thing that struck me funny about your post is that you claim Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 which makes as much sense as declaring Saul Alinsky had nothing to do with the Apollo 13 disaster. And then you go on and on and on... Justifying invading Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy, without saying anything about them being complicit in 9/11. The terms of surrender are comparable to a contract. If you violate a contract and do not live up to your expectations, you have broken the contract and a null the former agreement to cease fighting ... So you see it was justified to reenter Iraq to force them to abide by the original terms of the surrender agreement in which the United States warned military intervention for noncompliance. Creating a United Nations peacekeeping force was an impossibility due to the fact that the French planned on vetoing any such action. Heh - OK, kudos to you for doing a bit better than most Bush/Cheney appologists! The usual line is more silly - "Iraq violated the UN resolution about weapons inspectors, therefore clearly the UN supported the 2003 invasion" So your argument is they broke a contract and the penalty was invasion. The problem is, that penalty was not part of the resolution. So no sale, sorry! (If you have any questions about how contracts work I can certainly help you there though.) And no, breaking the terms of surrender doesn't automatically justify starting a new war. (lol - I wonder how many terms of the WW1 surrender Germany would be in violation of now? Maybe you should invade them!) In the end - It wasn't your call. You needed to work with the UN to maintain the moral high ground in the affair. Some right-wing Americans don't like the politics of the UN because their agenda is to promote human rights everywhere which would have the effect of levelling the playing field for other countries. This whole "might is right" attitude is all fine and dandy for you I suppose (as long as you can maintain the might part with your economy in a shambles)... But again - Do you really wonder why they hate you, and become less cooperative? In addition to all this there were training camps in Iraq being used by Al Qaeda that conveniently was not extensively reported by the mainstream media. If you looked more closely, you'd find that often things that aren't reported in the mainstream media are being ignored because they aren't, you know, factual. I responded to your post by stating that I didn't care whether or not terrorists hated us and I certainly don't recall anyone from the left coddling the Oklahoma City bomber but instead remember the left tearing into talk radio and right wing extremism in an attempt to assign blame. So if my question; “when would the terrorists ever are friends?” is now been regarded by you is a silly question I can tell you the reason why I spend all this time debating this issue with you began with your asinine statement you made about wondering why they hate us back. Newsflash…they have never liked us. What makes this stance so silly is that it highlights the whole problem with the OP. Nobody wants to "coddle terrorists". Obviously terrorists have a bone to pick with their targets, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing you up, right? The bigger problem here is imprisoning innocent people for years, without trial. (I can't believe I actually have to explain this stuff to you - lol) Did you even read the CBS article I posted that stated only about 5% of the detainees in Gitmo are probably actual terrorists? Did you see the video clip on the boards a while back with the guy who was recently released after being held for 7.5 years for an embassy bombing that everyone knew he wasn't involved with, simply because they didn't have any guilty parties in custody and the administration wanted to be able to claim that they did? That's one of the worst parts of this whole deal - Bush appologists are always spouting "look what a good job he did rounding up the terrorists and protecting us"... When most of those people are apparently innocent! Although I'm sure after a few years wrongfully incarcerated, I suppose many of them had plenty of time to ponder whether the corrupt administration who had violated their rights for political gain were in fact worth fighting against. You hear American right-wingers all the time talking about taking up arms against the government if it becomes too corrupt and tries to take away their rights, so they shouldn't be surprised when people around the world take the same stance right?
6/27/2009 7:48:44 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from rem762700: It is you sir, with your definition of conservatism that is twisted here. And I would really like to see a right wing or nonbiased political site that defines conservatism as “not caring if someone else changes as long as he/she doesn't have to”. As a conservative I do care if someone else changes even though it doesn't directly affect me, as an example I give you same-sex marriages. You are confused. I didn't "define" conservatism - I commented on the attitude of conservatives. So you are a conservative and also a totalitarian, fine - That doesn't make them mean the same thing. I'm sorry did I hear you suggest 9/11 was an inside job? No, of course you didn't. If you are offended at being called a Nazi I would ask you to look back and review the comparison you made between conservatism and Middle Eastern terrorists. I was not simply slinging mud, but the fact is Nazi’s believed in nationalism. Now you are confusing Nationalism with Socialism. Nationalising banks isn't Nationalism (although it may be promoted with Nationalism, ex "we need to do this to keep our country strong!") Nationalism is about selling the public a notion that your country is superior to all others, and that because you are superior you would be doing other countries a favor if you invaded and subjugated them. "Might is right" is a Nationalist ideal. Sounding familiar? Just as your president today is attempting to nationalize the banks, the automotive industry and healthcare so too did the National Socialists. Furthermore socialism is politically left of center of most other political ideologies. Just as liberalism and progressivism is left of center, I therefore believe the term Nazi is more in qualifying as a description of your ideology than Middle Eastern terrorist can be likened to conservatism. You are entitled to your beliefs, just as wiser people are entitled to keep telling you you're wrong. Pardon me for saying so but I do not believe that you possess the intellect to school me on how to process political information. I do not need your counsel on how to consider all sides of an issue and then come to my own conclusion as I have been doing that very thing for quite a while. I would dare guess I've been doing this a little longer than you have and even though we disagree, your just can have the trust me on this. So if I choose to listen to talk radio I will make my own assessment as I always have on the basis of fact, probability of likeliness and intuition. Your underestimation of my intellect just further discredits your position, sorry! Just to make things super-simple for you - Anyone who finds themselves agreeing with pretty much everything someone else (let's say Rush Limbaugh) says, by definition isn't thinking independantly. If rounding people up off the street and imprisoning them is an example of totalitarianism would you mind telling me what party the president of the United States was who rounded up and interned Japanese American citizens against their will? What was their crime again? (And they weren't captured in a combat zone!) What on earth gave you the idea that I would be in favor of WWII Japanese-American internment camps? That's nuts! It was totalitarianism then just as it is now. You are the one arguing in favor of continuing that sort of practice with Gitmo... How confused can you get? These people at Guantanamo Bay were captured in a combat area, questioned and then detained not as prisoners of war because they wear no uniform and because their citizenship is outside of Iraq. I realize it is beyond the realm of possibility for you to consider that a judgment call was made when these people were captured and suspected only moments before shooting at the sons and daughters of the United States making them terrorists. Now you're descending into complete incoherence. So if a soldier has an inkling that some passing foreigner might be a terrorist, that's all it takes to justify tossing them in Gitmo for a few years? Wow... That's too crazy for words. Perhaps more along the lines of Stalin than Hitler, eh? Oh, one more thing to consider to your silly little post, when do basic human rights include those who are not willing to fight for them? It really couldn't be more simple. Basic human rights extend to everyone, period. All humans, pacifists (and yes, even criminals) included. Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ) carefully. It's pretty clear - Nowhere does it say you have to let a convicted criminal free, that would be silly. It says you have to actually convict them fairly before you persecute them. Really simple concept...isn't it?
6/27/2009 8:20:22 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
poet756 The Plains, OH age: 53	The first thing that struck me funny about your post is that you claim Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 which makes as much sense as declaring Saul Alinsky had nothing to do with the Apollo 13 disaster. And then you go on and on and on... Justifying invading Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy, without saying anything about them being complicit in 9/11. Lobo is in dire need of a reading comprehension course. but that's true with most liberals who fool themselves into believing they are intellectuals. In the first part of the post he acknowledges that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Then he explained why we invaded Iraq. Lobo's ignorance of English comprehension should not reflect on the voracity of the statement. Lobo is not a Nazi....he's a socialist. The two should not be confused. A nazi would execute a terrorist and Lobo wants to give them a gug and milk and cookies. [Edited 6/27/2009 8:22:29 AM PST]
6/27/2009 9:30:23 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	I think what I offer is a pretty fair example of independent thinking myself. I never said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction although he did possess the capability and did possess them at least at one point but no one knew for sure if he was then currently in possession or not. Let me ask you; since when is it a prerequisite to attain permission of the United Nations before mobilizing our military? Personal opinion speaking here but screw the UN. Hundreds of audits and investigations would eventually reveal that much of the “food” in the “food for oil program” meant for Iraq’s starving citizens was “unfit for human consumption”. So much for the United Nations humanitarian role. Benon Sevan of Cyprus, who headed the program would later be found to have been given 150, 000 dollars in bribes was only one of several scandals uncovered “after” the US invasion of Iraq. Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan and his son were thought to be involved in one of tens of scandals. Furthermore member nations like Germany, China, France and Russia were all involved in activities it had previously voted to prohibit. Over 10 billion dollars was siphoned away from the citizens of Iraq so if you don’t mind me being a bit blunt here; piss on the U.N. as I have no faith or need in them. To the best of my knowledge the only thing that matters is the authorization of Congress which members of your own party helped to authorize, not just once but twice! Omissions of the truth can in many cases be every bit as good as a lie therefore I take information gathered through CBS with a grain of salt. And as we all know CBS would never skew the story to say…you know, favor one political ideology over another. Ya, never….what am I thinking? Allowing people who have been captured to walk away especially when the intelligence community has data supporting their capture, when they, shoot at American troops as they approach and being a foreign national in a war stricken country, you gotta admit is mildly suspicious. When an independent group publicly states that these people had nothing to do with any crimes, i’ll help pay for their first class accommodations home. Whatever their fate it’s fair to mention their heads are still attached and unlike those in the 9/11 attacks they will eventually go home. The fact is neither of us possess the information required to convince the other but I think I can add one point that you can’t dispute, if these people are all innocent and those are truly the facts, why hasn’t your president set them all free? They call them “national” socialists for a reason. I’ll help you out here with this little tidbit to get you started; when you begin rejecting capitalism, capping earnings, politically ally yourself with the major corperations allowing them to write government policy while inadvertently creating monopolies, reduce consumer choice and impose ideological policies…your either Nationalizing them or something very similar. You don’t care for the term Nazi? Perhaps you might prefer the term fascist instead. Mussolini allied himself with the major businesses in his country as well while coercing the image of the government through Italy’s major corporations. Not mud slinging, fact. Don’t get me wrong here but your more entertainment than a newspaper full of comic stripes. The evidence concerning your intellect is quite clear in your posts but keep talking because I’m going to keep reading. Ill listen till the hole your digging for yourself makes hearing you too difficult. You’ve made a statement accusing me of being a supporter of the detention camps in Cuba and I don’t know where you got this from as I have not made one statement of being in favor of the Guantonimo Bay facility. Where is your proclaimed intellect now? I follow the Bill of rights and while it troubles me that they cannot extend to everyone on the face of the globe, it makes no sense to extend them to people who are attempting to craft our destruction. It would be suicidal and allow the opportunity for them to destroy us under the protection of our own rules. When the founders created the Bill of Rights I don’t envision them asking themselves how “our” Bill of Rights would apply to the people living in Panama, Uzbekistan or the Congo and I won’t be convinced without verifiable proof that rules protecting citizens from the United States government was ever intended to apply to everyone. I wouldn’t be opposed to the adoption of a basic bill of rights for those who don’t live here as long as it doesn’t compromise the security of those who do live here. [Edited 6/27/2009 9:33:50 PM PST]
6/28/2009 4:16:50 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from rem762700: Let me ask you; since when is it a prerequisite to attain permission of the United Nations before mobilizing our military? Personal opinion speaking here but screw the UN. Since international law was developed, and the US signed on to the UN charter, agreeing to work with the rest of the world to promote peace. Remember your bit about "breaking contracts"? So what would you say the appropriate punishment for the US would be, for breaking that one and unilaterally invading a fellow UN member? Your attitude is typical of your fellow Nationalists. And as you know, it was the Nationalist part of National Socialists (Nazis) that made them so dangerous to the rest of the world. To the best of my knowledge the only thing that matters is the authorization of Congress which members of your own party helped to authorize, not just once but twice! No, "my party" and my country most definitely didn not sign on to the invasion of Iraq - Dream on! "Mobilize your armed forces" as much as you like - Just don't be running around starting wars of agression with our fellow UN member nations. Allowing people who have been captured to walk away especially when the intelligence community has data supporting their capture, when they, shoot at American troops as they approach and being a foreign national in a war stricken country, you gotta admit is mildly suspicious. Yes, if they were shooting at American troops as they approach, you might suspect they were a hostile foreign national (or a Texas homeowner!) So what? Do you have some silly idea that everyone in Gitmo was apprehended while shooting at your troops? Dream on! Court orders release of 17 Innocent Guantanamo detainees into US: http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/court-orders-release-17-innocent-guantanamo-detainees-u.s. Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo: http://www.amazon.com/Five-Years-My-Life-Guantanamo/dp/0230603742 Guantánamo: The Stories of Three Innocent Jordanians and an Afghan, Just Released: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2007/11/06/guantanamo-the-stories-of-three-innocent-jordanians-and-an-afghan-just-released/ "A tribal leader, in Paktika province, in south eastern Afghanistan, Nasrat supervised the collection of weapons from his people, as requested by the Americans and the government of Hamid Karzai, and was responsible for guarding them in a compound. Betrayed by a rival, who told a false story about him to the US forces, he was then arrested and sent to Guantánamo, along with his father, Haji Nasrat Khan. The tribal leader until illness left him virtually housebound, Khan was seized after asking what had happened to his son, and was released in August 2006, when he was 72 years old." When an independent group publicly states that these people had nothing to do with any crimes, i’ll help pay for their first class accommodations home. Whatever their fate it’s fair to mention their heads are still attached and unlike those in the 9/11 attacks they will eventually go home. You mean like Amnesty International? Do I need to post a link for you, or can you google it? Wow. And if you're rounded up someday soon and tossed in an internment camp for some trumped up reason or other in the name of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, I'm sure you'll view that with the same ho-hum attitude, right? Total lack of empathy for human rights. And you fling terms like Nazi and Fascist around at other people? What a joke. The fact is neither of us possess the information required to convince the other but I think I can add one point that you can’t dispute, if these people are all innocent and those are truly the facts, why hasn’t your president set them all free? It turns out the country that shares the longest undefended border in the world with you, your largest trading partner and long-time ally... Doesn't have a President. Never has. Our leader is the Prime Minister. You don't seem to know the first thing about foreign affairs, so it might be best to keep your ignorance to yourself to avoid further embarassment. I follow the Bill of rights and while it troubles me that they cannot extend to everyone on the face of the globe, it makes no sense to extend them to people who are attempting to craft our destruction. It would be suicidal and allow the opportunity for them to destroy us under the protection of our own rules. When the founders created the Bill of Rights I don’t envision them asking themselves how “our” Bill of Rights would apply to the people living in Panama, Uzbekistan or the Congo and I won’t be convinced without verifiable proof that rules protecting citizens from the United States government was ever intended to apply to everyone. I wouldn’t be opposed to the adoption of a basic bill of rights for those who don’t live here as long as it doesn’t compromise the security of those who do live here. How on earth can anyone believe that a person only deserves basic human rights if they happened to be born in the US (or Panama, or certain international military bases of course!)? All other people are automatically subhuman? Frigging Nationalists. [Edited 6/28/2009 4:45:32 PM PST]
6/28/2009 4:52:15 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Also for Rem: Of course, the obvious question is: If the 800 detainees in Gitmo at its peak were such dangerous terrorists... Why did "your president" (meaning Bush) already release more than 2/3 of them?
6/28/2009 7:44:32 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
eightinchbend Gadsden, AL age: 45	Quote from born_american: Did you know that Obama's net worth is now $1.2 billion. He was worth a few hundred thousand when he announced his candidacy. Is he being transparent? I think not!! Your tax dollars at work! So what? Anyone who becomes President increases net worth the moment the Oath Of Office is taken. Bush, on his own two feet, was worth 8 million on his first day in office. On January 20, 2009 his net worth tipped 21 million. [Edited 6/28/2009 7:45:25 PM PST]
6/28/2009 9:38:08 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
fzappa Oklahoma City, OK age: 52	I think she meant Millions...last year (August)Obama reported $799,000...Mccain had $36 Million....but the point is they will attack anything...lie, exaggerate, spin. Seems like McCain did not use all his personal assets to run...another clue I think he wanted to lose...really. Thanks John!
6/28/2009 9:39:51 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
layla22 Peoria, IL age: 55	mccain's assets were not all his. many were entwined with those of his wife, a billionaire brewery heiress.....
6/28/2009 10:01:55 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
fzappa Oklahoma City, OK age: 52	Oh yeah forgot Cindy was a drug dealer....my bad.
6/28/2009 10:51:26 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Oh, I see, so when the United States is attacked and 3000 American citizens lose their lives, an American Icon is destroyed and the hub of the Armed Forces is wounded, the advice from the Canadian is don't fight back? Blow it out your ear. I know for a fact the Constitution of the United States was not created to be subservient to the wishes of the corrupt United Nations or don't they teach that in Canada? People serving the Federal government do not take an oath to defend the United Nations. Let the leftist bureaucrats have there moment but when the democrats feel the heat of true totalitarianism United Nations style, they will join the ranks of conservatives who attempted to "work" with the UN before the invasion. If Canada chooses to deal with the low life that makes up the UN, all the power to you. They were on the take! Taking bribes, sending food no one could eat, selling military equipment to Saddam, money for oil despite the UN's own resolutions! Where is all your self professed humanity now? Or is your intellectual dishonesty only able to condemn American conservatism? People were starving and the UN wasn't feeding them. For 18 months the United States under GW Bush tried to get them to act. Respond to this. "Not only does the Charter Organization (United Nations) not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us (the United States) the power to declare them to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting." - J. Ruben Clark, Jr., former Under-Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, who was widely recognized as one of our nation's foremost international lawyers, stated on page 27 of the book entitled "The United Nations Today". This is unacceptable and we could very well find ourselves in a situation we cannot support. Does anyone in the Great White North have enough common sense to envision that possibility or are all of you so dependent on foreign military establishments for your own defense that the technological achievements of others allows Canadians more time to construct Buckyballs and Tin soldiers? It's cute how you enter into a debate involving American politics and then declare the status of casual observer when your called on an ideological position but it won't work here. Politics in Canada is essentially the same as the US. You are a member of the left, a socialist which places you on the communist side of the circle so you can drop the fairy tale because your not fooling anyone. Your enlightened ideology is anti-capitalist and that's all I need to hear. You don't need to be hating American conservatives just because your government is run by a conservative. If Canada is your Utopia you should have no problem converting the 30 some odd million to join hands, chant "cum by ya" finish abolishing weapon ownership, allow Quebec to succeed and create the perfect peoples party with all the draft dodging run-away's we sent up your way in the late 60's. In the mean time others like myself, the real humanitarians, will address comments like this one; "Food is Power! We use it to control behavior. Some may call it bribery. We do not apologize." - Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, speaking at the UN World Food Summit, Nov 1996. This is what your beloved UN stands for so you get to work on converting Canada, we have enough people here in the States arguing against racism while nominating Hispanic female judges to the Supreme Court. Racism is no more obvious when a successful African American achieves a position without the help of government and racial quotas making him/her a target of minority leadership. Justice Thomas, Dr Condalisa Rice and Colin Powell just to name a few. (Not so surprisingly, after Powell started agreeing with the left, he became a media poster child. Big surprise.) We have enough stereotypical A-holes defining all conservatives as racist while rewriting the voting record of the 1964 civil rights vote. We have enough people proposing to defend woman’s rights who remained silent when the names; Catherine Wiley, Juanita Broadrick, Katherine Harris, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Linda Tripp, not to mention their silence when the uncovered Iraqi rape rooms surfaced. We have all the people we need who stand on a podium shoving their sexual preferences in our faces but condemn a woman for expressing her honest position on the subject. My honest opinion; I need to be discussing this with an American unless the UN recently changed our election laws giving you the right to vote in an American election. Quote from lobo_corazon: Also for Rem: Of course, the obvious question is: If the 800 detainees in Gitmo at its peak were such dangerous terrorists... Why did "your president" (meaning Bush) already release more than 2/3 of them? Could it had been discovered that they had no useful information? What if they had information and it took a while to get it from them? What do they do in Canada when a "prisoner" has served his time? I'm sure they don't keep the guilty in jail forever. [Edited 6/28/2009 10:55:24 PM PST]
6/29/2009 7:24:50 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from rem762700: Oh, I see, so when the United States is attacked and 3000 American citizens lose their lives, an American Icon is destroyed and the hub of the Armed Forces is wounded, the advice from the Canadian is don't fight back? Blow it out your ear. If you still believe Iraq II was about 9/11, you may be hopeless. Cheney et.al. used 9/11 as a propaganda tool to manipulate you into doing his evil bidding. Out of billions of people in the world with access to information, there are probably only a couple of million (Americans) who still don't get it. Some kind of mental block I guess. Could it had been discovered that they had no useful information? What if they had information and it took a while to get it from them? What do they do in Canada when a "prisoner" has served his time? I'm sure they don't keep the guilty in jail forever. Terrible comparison. Released after seven years... For acts of terrorism? You are really grasping. They were released BECAUSE THEY WERE INNOCENT. Let's hope you never find yourself in a position where the CIA believes you have "useful information", say about the names of neighbors who might own guns, or might support the political opposition. While I have very little respect for your ability to process information, I still wouldn't wish being locked away in an internment camp without cause for years on anyone. --- The rest of your ignorant blither I just skimmed, and it honestly isn't worthy of a response. You have no idea how deeply mired in a rut you are or about the way the world works. In Canada (or most of the developed world) I'm a staunch conservative - It's only to someone as skewed as you that I could seem like a lefty. In your mind it's OK to hold innocent people in Gitmo for years without trial... As long as you believe they might have some useful information? An innocent Jordanian or Belgian who happened to be in the wrong place when a "sweep" was going through, woudl deserve less consideration under the law than a lifetime gang-banger who apparently killed a bunch of cops... Because the latter happened to be born in the US? Wow. Just wow. [Edited 6/29/2009 7:39:15 AM PST]
6/29/2009 10:31:44 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	It seems obvious that anything over a few sentences really confuses you but try anyway. Just where did you read my claim that Iraq was about 9/11? You really are a wasted sperm aren’t you? I already stated why we entered Iraq and I, an American citizen supported sending American troops into Iraq for the reasons given. You, a Canadian have taken a position that with no targets in Canada having been attacked that you do not. Knowing that Canada’s security is heavily reliant on the stability of the United States, sit back, relax, greater men that you will continue to provide the blanket of security you sleep under for another few nights. There are two schools of thought here; Take the fight to the enemy which was Using Afghanistan as a base of operations and severely limit their ability to conduct terrorist operations or Consolidate our abilities within our own boarders and defend from there. Negotiations with terrorists only empower them politically when the idea is for governments to deal with other governments and not every band of pipe bombers who has some outrageous demand. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue may have an affect inside ones own boarders but when you begin recruiting the legal intelligences of countries who support terrorists, the country that follows that as the only recourse places itself in a precarious position. Do not forget that Canada currently has within it's own boarder several terrorist groups who find Canada’s soft approach on this issue an inviting domicile. Irrefutable interference with their objectives will almost certainly invite a response by hitting Canadian targets and then you will deny your socialist tendencies to save your own skin. So you might be asking yourself, why hasn't Canada been attacked already? Canada has been assisting in the global fight on terrorism so why have they not already attacked Canadian targets? Two reasons; Canada is not a superpower. It doesn't possess by itself a threat that alone stand as enough of an adversary to severely curtail the objectives of the terrorists. Intelligence, sciences in weapons making ect. while the United States does. Hitting the people of the United States through terrorist attacks might convince them that we cannot win in this conflict and force a negotiation to sue for a position that would assure their survival while striking targets in Canada might change the current view of Canadian citizens to take a more strong armed approach and interfere with their ultimate objectives of reaching the United States. The reality is Canada is every bit a valid target as Spain, the UK and Indonesia except you and those like you have not made it uncomfortable enough for them to leave. So if you pull your "conservative" (coughf..BS!) head out of the sand, clear those ears and listen as much as you speak, you might find that "suing terrorists" is as countrymen would agree, ineffectual. 9/11 is, and always was about the threat in the Middle East. If we were going to send forces into Afghanistan (a lesser threat) to curtail terrorism than we should certainly deal with the greater threat in the region who was defeated, surrendered and had the capability to create and export weapons of mass destitution and was continuing down that road by constantly ejecting weapons inspectors. Denying that Iraq was a threat does not make it so. Your reference to the "billion" people who have seen this alleged "information" and now "get it" demonstrates how ignorant you really are when you post that Cheney is a tool of propaganda but I'm supposed to believe that asinine statement is not. The only mental block I'm aware of is the one above your shoulders. Your constantly flooding your post with biased sources to make your point....THEIR BIASED! Does this make you an independent thinker? Go back to your conspiracy theories at least they contain some small measure of creativity!
6/29/2009 11:50:25 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Bye Rem. Another irredeemable forum troll for the ol' ignore list. Hopefully you will be a happier person for not getting called on your ignorance! Hopefully nobody else found his hate-filled grade-4-writing-level rants remotely convincing. Sheesh! [Edited 6/29/2009 11:53:16 AM PST]
6/29/2009 12:27:16 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	Quote from rem762700: Conservatism comes in a mass variety of shapes and sizes that can label one conservative without standing in the same room as the way we think of conservatism in the west. An accuract statement here to my mind. So too can this statement be applied to liberalism. There are all shapes and sizes and degrees of liberals. What I find most interesting is the lack of tolerance that conservatives here show towards liberals and equally, the same lack of tolerance that liberals show conservatives....lol. It's a big shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite. Who cares what side of the sandwich you are chewing from? The issue is to get the sandwich out of our mouths. When all you focus on is blame, you do nothing to solve the problem. You have two choices. Get rid of those in powere regardless of party or "ism" they follow and replace them with responsible new faces or rise up in anarchy and overthrow the entire government and our Constitution. I tend to think the better answer is the first one and I will make that clear every time I cast a ballot. But all of you just go on and keep calling each other names and blaming each other's beliefs for the problems we have in our country. Just keep believing that it is all the other's guys fault and your guys are the good guys. Here's one point I do share with Bubba. The people in power know how to manipulate us to remain in power. They seek only to perptuate their status at our expense. Replace them. Or continue to enjoy your shit sandwich. Would you like some ketchup with that?
6/29/2009 12:45:18 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	Quote from lobo_corazon: Bye Rem. Another irredeemable forum troll for the ol' ignore list. Hopefully you will be a happier person for not getting called on your ignorance! Hopefully nobody else found his hate-filled grade-4-writing-level rants remotely convincing. Sheesh! If you blocked him from contributing here, then you have put yourself in some pretty weak company. I may not like his opinions, but they have every right to be heard as much as yours do. I'm hoping you didn't do this, becuase you'll lose a lot of my respect. Not that my respect matters to anyone here anyways.....lol.
6/29/2009 12:50:38 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	It's not my thread, so all I did was block him from filling my screen with walls of childish insults and venomous ignorance. I gave him plenty of opportunities to discuss in a mature manner, and he appears incapable. I'm not interested in having that kind of person in my life, even in this limited a way. That is, after all, what the ignore feature is there for. Troll repellant! [Edited 6/29/2009 12:51:41 PM PST]
6/29/2009 2:00:56 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from monty_python: If you blocked him from contributing here, then you have put yourself in some pretty weak company. I may not like his opinions, but they have every right to be heard as much as yours do. I'm hoping you didn't do this, becuase you'll lose a lot of my respect. Not that my respect matters to anyone here anyways.....lol. I'm not sure who you're speaking of but if there was someone blocking anyone I am not the source of it. I'd like to keep this going. Clearly we disagree, I was getting ready to ask what we could agree on. BRING 'EM BACK!
6/29/2009 4:51:03 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	I think Lobo put you on his ignore list. I hate when anyone does that. I've never done it and I never will.
6/29/2009 5:54:14 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from monty_python: I think Lobo put you on his ignore list. I hate when anyone does that. I've never done it and I never will. Hmmm....Despite his leaning ideology I can't help imagine his debate was teetering. I suppose he was running out of adjectives in which to call me. You seem like you might have some skills in a debate. Care to pick up Lobo’s torch in his absence? Just informative civil debate. What do you say, care to find some consensus? There isn’t any situation I can think of that would warrant putting someone on an ignore list. If you got me, you got me. I think it shows a bit more character to admit when you wasn’t aware of a specific fact which Lobo was about to hear from me in my next post asking if he was ready to really debate. I had some serious questions as well. Maybe it caught him off guard that I answered all his rants. Anyway, I appreciate you calling him out on his position. (Or his absence)
6/29/2009 6:10:28 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	There's really no debate here. You contend that conservativism comes in all shapes and sizes. I agree. I contend the same is true of liberalism. All sorts of shapes and sizes in being a liberal. If you can't accept that posture, then you really can't defend your own. No debate here.
6/29/2009 6:59:05 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from monty_python: There's really no debate here. You contend that conservativism comes in all shapes and sizes. I agree. I contend the same is true of liberalism. All sorts of shapes and sizes in being a liberal. If you can't accept that posture, then you really can't defend your own. No debate here. Your right but I guess I was more referring to his terrorist position……..if you disagree of course with my position.
6/29/2009 11:48:05 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	Well, I don't believe there is any direct relationship between the creation of Guantanamo and there not being any terrorist attacks on us as poet suggested. I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Terrorists by nature understand the risk of what they are doing and because of their fanaticism are quite unlikely to worry about being put into a jail cell due to their acts. In fact, I find that kind of ludicrous. I also don't believe it right for us to simply put these people away for years without any real intent to charge them with anything and put them through some form of judicial process. I find it morally dubious, unethical and definitely not the actions of what I think America is supposed to stand for to its citizens and to the world. You can make all the arguments you want about this and denegrate my opinion if you like, but I have some pretty unshakeable beliefs of what being an American is supposed to be about and I'm truly sorry to say that for a long time now, our leadership has not done much to live up to those ideals.
6/30/2009 12:03:17 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from monty_python: Well, I don't believe there is any direct relationship between the creation of Guantanamo and there not being any terrorist attacks on us as poet suggested. I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Terrorists by nature understand the risk of what they are doing and because of their fanaticism are quite unlikely to worry about being put into a jail cell due to their acts. In fact, I find that kind of ludicrous. I also don't believe it right for us to simply put these people away for years without any real intent to charge them with anything and put them through some form of judicial process. I find it morally dubious, unethical and definitely not the actions of what I think America is supposed to stand for to its citizens and to the world. You can make all the arguments you want about this and denegrate my opinion if you like, but I have some pretty unshakeable beliefs of what being an American is supposed to be about and I'm truly sorry to say that for a long time now, our leadership has not done much to live up to those ideals. It would be difficult to argue with such seemingly impeccable logic. I would also agree detention of foreign nationals shouldn’t be a “file and forget” process however I am concerned that the very laws that provide us with the kind of liberties we take for granted could be used against us. I wish I could be more specific at 3am but I really can’t. I may have to look elsewhere for an antagonist. What happened to all of lobo’s posts? I intended to collect them and write a few pages about them for my own personal amusement but their gone. Or are they only invisible to me?
6/30/2009 12:37:53 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	I would hope that you are not being condenscending here. I have treated you and your argument with respect, even though I may not agree with it. I expect the same in return.
6/30/2009 12:39:07 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Yes, you could say that for someone fully prepared to blow themselves up for their cause... The threat of jail time could hardly be considered a deterrent. There's another, more evil undertone in the claim of Gitmo's potency though. There's the sense from its proponents: "Hey, we know we're arresting mostly innocent people and flagrantly violating their human rights - But it's not really an arrest per se, it's a process of interning lots of people and then getting everything they know out of them. With all of that information about their neighbors and things they have seen on the street, we should be able to figure out what the real terrorists are up to and stop their nefarious plans!" And of course, because they aren't American, and we've used an "off American soil" loophole to introduce plausible deniability to the Constitutional violations... They are judged to have no human rights, and the ends justify the means. --- It sounds like you are starting to get why I decided he wasn't worth carrying on a conversation with! [Edited 6/30/2009 12:41:43 AM PST]
6/30/2009 7:58:03 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from monty_python: I would hope that you are not being condenscending here. I have treated you and your argument with respect, even though I may not agree with it. I expect the same in return. No sir I am not. I try very hard to be respectful of anyone's opinion. (Which as you can imagine is trying at times) I'm trying to tell you I don't see any argument with your position.
7/1/2009 5:22:08 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
monty_python Bridgeport, CT age: 55	Great minds think alike....lol.
7/1/2009 7:37:44 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	I would be interested in what you find "interesting" about the Democrat's stance? What does partisan politics have to do with an issue of basic human rights? If you are afraid that these people will "go back to terrorism", why are you afraid to give them a fair trial? You must believe they are guilty, so it should be a simple matter of reviewing all the evidence and saying "Yep, he's guilty alright!" Find them guilty of terrorism, and you can lock them up and throw away the key without being the totalitarian bad guy. Wouldn't it be nice to be in the right?
7/1/2009 8:31:41 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from rightway123: Enemy combatants aren't entitled to a trial. The rules of evidence are such that someone picked up on a battlefield is practically immune from prosecution. Obama knows that. He would love to free them just as he did the master mind of the USS Cole bombing. The democrats want no part of it. Smart move. How can you call it partisan politics when they are all from the same party? I agree. The only notable "change" is Obama's giving the orders now...same orders...different party.
7/1/2009 2:33:10 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from rightway123: Enemy combatants aren't entitled to a trial. The rules of evidence are such that someone picked up on a battlefield is practically immune from prosecution. Obama knows that. He would love to free them just as he did the master mind of the USS Cole bombing. The democrats want no part of it. Smart move. How can you call it partisan politics when they are all from the same party? That whole post was so tangled up in muddied logic I wonder how you managed to type it. According to Limbaugh and friends on the right wing, these detainees aren't enemy combatants. You can't call them that, because then they would be protected under the Geneva Convention, and the Right has been very careful from the outset to insist that those rules don't apply. Textbook totalitarianism - Dehumanize the people you are oppressing and trot out justification after justification to excuse stripping them of their basic human rights. Demonizing Obama and claiming that all the guilt lies with one party is just more silly partisanship. Man up and accept responsibility for the evil perpetrated on your watch (assuming you favored Bush for the previous two elections - Fair to say that's a safe assumption?) Obama is in a really sticky position with all of these skeletons he inherited from Bush and Cheney. As more and more evidence of torture and wrongful internment comes to light, he's faced with the realization that if he just opens the books and shares it all with the world, the US will face a firestorm of repercussions, lawsuits and public censure that will set you back terribly, at a time where he needs cooperation from the world. I don't envy him those decisions. [Edited 7/1/2009 2:35:11 PM PST]
7/3/2009 3:23:56 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
bluecougareyes Chelan, WA age: 65	Quote from fzappa: Oh yeah forgot Cindy was a drug dealer....my bad. That's a warped IDEA !! Get your mind strait........MAN !!!! Talk some sense first, this forum has become ALL EGOS !!! most are self centered EGOS !! Is any one a true AMERICAN HERE ?? any Americans still left in the USA ??? I don't think so Your all so left and right .....Get your self to the center of life .... that's where the peace is. Right & Left are RADICAL EXTREME thinking....... Just like Obam-ass is an RADICAL EXTREMIST Obamass ...A Neo-Marxist EXTREMIST !!! All most all USA precedents are some kind of EXTREMISTS !!!!
7/4/2009 9:33:35 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
remodel Lincolnton, NC age: 57	I was not aware that there were so many politicaly correct people in this country.In some countries,your bashing and vile comment's of the president,would get you and member's of your family tortured,and possibly killed.Isn't America great?You have freedom to speak as you want...Have a happy 4th. [Edited 7/4/2009 9:34:03 AM PST]
7/4/2009 10:36:02 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
rodneyg668 Seattle, WA age: 36	You know it makes my stomach churn to follow this thread. Illegal detainment, wrong, torturing prisoners wrong, claiming our president should act like a terrorist himself wrong. I have an Uncle who is a full bird colonel who served in the middle east, he thinks this kind of things are wrong, I have a mother who served for almost thirty years in the army. Guess what, she thinks that it's crap too. For that matter so do I, this eye for an eye crap is just going to make the whole damn world blind in the long run!
7/4/2009 11:24:44 AM	Love thy Terrorist!
fzappa Oklahoma City, OK age: 52	Quote from bluecougareyes: That's a warped IDEA !! Get your mind strait........MAN !!!! Talk some sense first, this forum has become ALL EGOS !!! most are self centered EGOS !! Is any one a true AMERICAN HERE ?? any Americans still left in the USA ??? I don't think so Your all so left and right .....Get your self to the center of life .... that's where the peace is. Right & Left are RADICAL EXTREME thinking....... Just like Obam-ass is an RADICAL EXTREMIST Obamass ...A Neo-Marxist EXTREMIST !!! All most all USA precedents are some kind of EXTREMISTS !!!! How is pointing out that alcohol IS a drug out of line? She makes money off of sales of this drug to children...IF she had a moral bone in her body she'd tell the AI to stop marketing this drug to kids....hooked on social norms sir? Ego?...wtf? If truth is "radical" then so be it... And Obama a "radical extremist? That is a radical...extreme POV...and about as wrong as you can get. He's a rationalist....IMO.
7/4/2009 2:04:00 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
poet756 The Plains, OH age: 53	rodney Tell you what. Let's put your theory to the test. We will have a boxing match. You come in with 16 once gloves and a rule book and I will use a sawed off shotgun, bowie knife and chainsaw. After the match you can tell everyone how although you were killed you won a moral victory.
7/8/2009 9:57:59 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	I think in this day and age there are some fairly crafty ways to retrieve information and given the time I prefer to see these methods as the ones being used to the ones we’re discussing here. However, for those of you who are dead set against it under any circumstance let me set a scenario and give you a moment to reflect. One of your family members (doesn’t matter who, husband, wife, teen son or daughter) has been taken by a person who has a history of sadism with his victims and his partner has been captured. Knowing that this sick SOB isn’t going to be swayed, negotiated with or coerced and knowing that time is a definite factor if your loved one is to be rescued, you find yourself alone in a locked room with the perpetrators partner. Now I want someone to tell me with all sincerity that after a few moments of pleading and failed negotiating that after enough time has passed and you can be fairly certain this very important person in your life is most likely dead that you wouldn’t have ever laid a hand upon him. It’s difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it but those people in a military unit are not just “some guy” from Peoria or Kansas City and you learn to trust them like a brother and in some instances, more so. There are instances in which time is very much a factor and if your relative survived a war and told you that something similar had happened to them and they were confident that had action (torture) not been taken they would have most certainly died, I really don’t believe one of you would raise your voice in protest but would just be grateful that they survived. I’d be willing to bet this “torture” issue has been blown way out of all proportion and to listen to some of you would guess your vision is that hundreds of thousands of prisoners are captured and beaten to within inches of their lives just to see if they know something. I don’t think that is the case. Furthermore, blaming Bush or Rumsfeld for doing exactly what their predecessors either did or were authorized to do makes this entire argument seem more like a partisan witch hunt. Members of the government who were authorized to use these procedures followed practices that were carefully discussed, criticized and implemented long before Bush 43 was Governor. Just my take on this.
7/8/2009 10:03:35 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
walter555 Albuquerque, NM age: 52	Did Sean Hannity ever get waterboarded. He agreed to do it on national TV and all proceeds will go to charity. By chance, did it get televised?
7/8/2009 10:12:27 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
lobo_corazon Kingston, ON age: 40	Quote from poet756: rodney Tell you what. Let's put your theory to the test. We will have a boxing match. You come in with 16 once gloves and a rule book and I will use a sawed off shotgun, bowie knife and chainsaw. After the match you can tell everyone how although you were killed you won a moral victory. The problem with your analogy is that when you attack an innocent, unarmed man on the street with your weapons, it isn't about his moral victory. It's all about your criminal actions.
7/8/2009 11:08:50 PM	Love thy Terrorist!
rem762700 Martinsburg, WV age: 90	Quote from walter555: Did Sean Hannity ever get waterboarded. He agreed to do it on national TV and all proceeds will go to charity. By chance, did it get televised? Still no independent thought eh walter? You may never amount to anything more than a democrate drone.