Jump to content



Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Mos Def being force fed like Gitmo detainees


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#31 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:10 PM

Example 1

White male from Kentucky ( great right wing conservative state )

http://www.dailymail...her-family.html

 

Example 2

White male

http://www.guardian....s-pleads-guilty

 

Example 3

White male ( puppy thrower )

http://knowyourmeme....ppy-off-a-cliff

 

First dude is from Texas, still a red state but it shows your lack of reading.  This is by no means conclusive in any way.  It's just a few examples.  I expected something concrete to back up your sweeping statement.  And the state they are from, has little to do with it, people can vote either way in spite of being a red or blue state.  After all I am a Republican in a blue state.  It makes as much sense as me saying that since many of the 9/11 hijackers live in NY/NJ and the marathon bombers were from Boston (all blue states) that most terrorists are democrats and Middle Eastern.  


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#32 Jodou

Jodou

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:34 PM

You know, there's easier ways to become relevant again. . .

 

I miss his hip-hop grooves. :(



#33 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:22 PM

Here we go, what are my racist wars?  I didn't work for Bush or Obama, I had no say in us going to war, nor do I meet with generals and tell them which "brown" people to kill. I have nothing to do with drone strikes or collateral damage, take it up with your administration run by a not white guy, it sounds more like a not white guy is killing other non white guys.  It sound more like Obama didn't keep his promises with Gitmo or pulling out of the wars with any urgency.  I think you'd better have equal blame because my guys haven't been making the big boy decisions the last 5 years, so hold liberals accountable once in awhile.  I suppose you also had a problem with us killing Germans during WW2, or was that ok because they were white people or do you just ignore the reasons for war and look at the race of the people involved?

 

 

 

You said in your previous post:

"Now that he experienced how we take care of our prisoners, maybe he can experience how they treat us.  Maybe he can do something like Daniel Pearl, and have his head cut off while conscious and then give his honest assessment of whether he liked being decapitated or fed.  That's the fair way to do it."  

 

 

What does Daniel Pearl have to do with prisoner abuse at Guantanamo? How are the 2 connected? Within your answer lies your racist underpinnings. To you all "brownies" are all the same people responsible for anything the other does. This is classic conservative racism. And then you lend support to such racially based wars. "Of course the sandniggers have WMDs. All darkies are evil and trying to constantly kill us." So tell us how 2 disparate events are connected.


Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#34 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:40 PM

You said in your previous post:

 

What does Daniel Pearl have to do with prisoner abuse at Guantanamo? How are the 2 connected? Within your answer lies your racist underpinnings. To you all "brownies" are all the same people responsible for anything the other does. This is classic conservative racism. And then you lend support to such racially based wars. "Of course the sandniggers have WMDs. All darkies are evil and trying to constantly kill us." So tell us how 2 disparate events are connected.

 

Let's start off by making sure this quote that you said in quotes like it was me who said it... "Of course the sandniggers have WMDs. All darkies are evil and trying to constantly kill us." was never said by me nor is there anything that I've said that hinted or implied that view. In fact, it sounds like that is your view of how I or other conservatives or whites think.  I'll dismiss the stupidity because I know the decision to go to war was voted on by an elected congress with I assume actionable intelligence and the reason to go to war had something to do with 9/11, terrorism, and possible WMD's and was not just somebody waking up one day and deciding to kill "darkies".  I also made it pretty clear that I was never for any of these wars or GITMO and being only a teenager at the time who couldn't even vote in the 2000 election, don't see how I'm being lumped in with all conservatives or that I got off on us declaring war on "brown people".  Believe it or not, conservatives can think for themselves and we are not a hive mind who all think one way, but thanks for generalizing, you are even less credible than you were if that is possible.  Actually you must know or be Finger Shocker because I couldn't believe there could be more than one person on this site who could assume and lump millions of people together quite like he could.  

 

You quote me twice in your post and it doesn't seem to catch me contradicting myself.  What I said about Pearl was obviously a sarcastic response to a video which simplifys things and doesn't take into account what the prisoners did to get there.  Do you know what they are being accused of or where they were caught because it sounds like you don't believe they did anything wrong so do tell.  The two are connected in that they were both taken prisoner but one was killed for being a Jewish American (not even a soldier) while others are intentionally undertaking a hunger strike.  Is that so hard to distinguish?  Now why don't you explain how that reveals my "racist underpinnings" because the races are irrelevant if one side abuses and kills its prisoners and the other has to decide whether to force feed or let their prisoners die.  Tell me where race even begins to play into this (and I ignored him being Jewish the first time).  I also know that Obama can do something about Gitmo and has sat on his hands, so tell me how or where I'm a racist based on my original post.  If anything, it seems like you are race baiting me and labeling me a racist based on your own racist views of conservatives or whites.  And tell me how Democrats who have continued these wars since Obama took office are not racist for continuing these conflicts and not rectifying or undoing what those darn racist conservatives did.  Sound like according to what you say, they are just as guilty?


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#35 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:56 PM

Jputahraptor, your post isn't showing up correctly under the dark theme. Just a head's up.


PaulManda.png


#36 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:01 PM

Thank you Willard for pointing that out to me.  My crappy laptop has the white background for some reason.  I'll repost my reply to JOEBOOSAUCE here (original post #34) and hope that shows up, I don't know if quoting was the problem, send me a PM or reply to let me know, thanks again.

 

Let's start off by making sure this quote that you said in quotes like it was me who said it... "Of course the sandniggers have WMDs. All darkies are evil and trying to constantly kill us." was never said by me nor is there anything that I've said that hinted or implied that view. In fact, it sounds like that is your view of how I or other conservatives or whites think.  I'll dismiss the stupidity because I know the decision to go to war was voted on by an elected congress with I assume actionable intelligence and the reason to go to war had something to do with 9/11, terrorism, and possible WMD's and was not just somebody waking up one day and deciding to kill "darkies".  I also made it pretty clear that I was never for any of these wars or GITMO and being only a teenager at the time who couldn't even vote in the 2000 election, don't see how I'm being lumped in with all conservatives or that I got off on us declaring war on "brown people".  Believe it or not, conservatives can think for themselves and we are not a hive mind who all think one way, but thanks for generalizing, you are even less credible than you were if that is possible.  Actually you must know or be Finger Shocker because I couldn't believe there could be more than one person on this site who could assume and lump millions of people together quite like he could.  

 

You quote me twice in your post and it doesn't seem to catch me contradicting myself.  What I said about Pearl was obviously a sarcastic response to a video which simplifys things and doesn't take into account what the prisoners did to get there.  Do you know what they are being accused of or where they were caught because it sounds like you don't believe they did anything wrong so do tell.  The two are connected in that they were both taken prisoner but one was killed for being a Jewish American (not even a soldier) while others are intentionally undertaking a hunger strike.  Is that so hard to distinguish?  Now why don't you explain how that reveals my "racist underpinnings" because the races are irrelevant if one side abuses and kills its prisoners and the other has to decide whether to force feed or let their prisoners die.  Tell me where race even begins to play into this (and I ignored him being Jewish the first time).  I also know that Obama can do something about Gitmo and has sat on his hands, so tell me how or where I'm a racist based on my original post.  If anything, it seems like you are race baiting me and labeling me a racist based on your own racist views of conservatives or whites.  And tell me how Democrats who have continued these wars since Obama took office are not racist for continuing these conflicts and not rectifying or undoing what those darn racist conservatives did.  Sound like according to what you say, they are just as guilty?


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#37 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:36 PM

That's the point about the Gitmo detainees. We don't know if they're innocent or guilty of anything. Instead, they've been there for over a decade by way of semantics, and we're told that they were "enemy combatants". According to who? The same people who allege their guilt. No third party has ever been able to evaluate that and charge or release them accordingly.

 

This "sarcastic point" that you keep trying to defend is what brought the attention to you in the first place. They are entirely unrelated. Daniel Pearl was a journalist, who happened to be Jewish, and wanted to interview some of the most dangerous people in Pakistan. He wasn't detained by Pakistani authorities, it was at the hands of a band of terrorists. He wasn't held there for decades. No hope of being released or forever detained. Of course your natural rebuttal is that he's dead so he didn't have the option, but his circumstances are quite different on multiple levels, and you know that (band of terrorists vs. world's most powerful nation, trying to meet dangerous terrorists in a foreign land vs. fighting against a country's military in their homeland).

 

The fact that there have been several suicides, several who are trying to commit suicide, shows that for some of the prisoners, death is preferred over detention. That's a powerful statement.

 

So "sarcastically" keep brining up the death of one guy vs the death, torture and detention of hundreds of uncharged people, but don't get bent when we call you on the stupidity, sarcastic or not, of the statement.



#38 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:17 PM

That's the point about the Gitmo detainees. We don't know if they're innocent or guilty of anything. Instead, they've been there for over a decade by way of semantics, and we're told that they were "enemy combatants". According to who? The same people who allege their guilt. No third party has ever been able to evaluate that and charge or release them accordingly.

 

This "sarcastic point" that you keep trying to defend is what brought the attention to you in the first place. They are entirely unrelated. Daniel Pearl was a journalist, who happened to be Jewish, and wanted to interview some of the most dangerous people in Pakistan. He wasn't detained by Pakistani authorities, it was at the hands of a band of terrorists. He wasn't held there for decades. No hope of being released or forever detained. Of course your natural rebuttal is that he's dead so he didn't have the option, but his circumstances are quite different on multiple levels, and you know that (band of terrorists vs. world's most powerful nation, trying to meet dangerous terrorists in a foreign land vs. fighting against a country's military in their homeland).

 

The fact that there have been several suicides, several who are trying to commit suicide, shows that for some of the prisoners, death is preferred over detention. That's a powerful statement.

 

So "sarcastically" keep brining up the death of one guy vs the death, torture and detention of hundreds of uncharged people, but don't get bent when we call you on the stupidity, sarcastic or not, of the statement.

 

I'm more interested in what Joeboo has to say than you.  He brought up my comments I don't need to go through this again with you.  But to keep it short, it's not 1 person vs. hundreds, it's naive to think that terrorists don't take US soldiers hostage, torture and kill them.  They have taken American contractors hostage and killed them as well.  Not even soldiers.  Not to mention the ones that keep capturing ships and holding the hostages demand ransom and have already killed those aboard.  Are you saying we are worse then them?  Would you rather be a hostage of the US or the terrorists?  I don't doubt we've done horrible things but do you have any evidence of US outright killing hostages without some sort trial on war crimes.  While there have been innocents raped and murdered don't we have some history of making those people accountable.  Do you think terrorists hold other terrorists accountable for violating the Geneva convenctions?  Come on!

 

And I just said in that post that you quoted and probably only half read that this administration is just as lax and unwilling to move along the process of dealing with those at GITMO, didn't Obama campaign on closing it and due process?  You claim the circumstances are different because the terrorists don't belong to a country, so what!  It's acceptable to behead a civilian (an American and Jewish which they apparently have a history with) but those captured who are being fed have it worse off.  Let me make it clear that I AM ALL FOR DUE PROCESS that's up to this adminstration to tackle.  They've been there under Obama almost as long as under Bush, so the politics that JOE was playing don't hold up to blaming solely conservatives.  

 

I hate to cite wikipedia, but I'm sure in this case these names can be verified.  This is just in Iraq alone, and is over 60 hostages killed and over 200 captured, I'm sure that's not a complete list but it pales in comparsion to GITMO, where none were murdered.  I think it's also safe to say that those captured by them were far worse off and were not provided with 3 square meals a day, freedom to practice their faith, etc.  Nevertheless being a prisoner is never a picnic, just ask John McCain.  

 

http://en.wikipedia....ostages_in_Iraq


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#39 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:23 PM

I'm more interested in what Joeboo has to say than you.  He brought up my comments I don't need to go through this again with you.  But to keep it short, it's not 1 person vs. hundreds, it's naive to think that terrorists don't take US soldiers hostage, torture and kill them.  They have taken American contractors hostage and killed them as well.  Not even soldiers.  Not to mention the ones that keep capturing ships and holding the hostages demand ransom and have already killed those aboard.  Are you saying we are worse then them?  Would you rather be a hostage of the US or the terrorists?  I don't doubt we've done horrible things but do you have any evidence of US outright killing hostages without some sort trial on war crimes.  While there have been innocents raped and murdered don't we have some history of making those people accountable.  Do you think terrorists hold other terrorists accountable for violating the Geneva convenctions?  Come on!

 

And I just said in that post that you quoted and probably only half read that this administration is just as lax and unwilling to move along the process of dealing with those at GITMO, didn't Obama campaign on closing it and due process?  You claim the circumstances are different because the terrorists don't belong to a country, so what!  It's acceptable to behead a civilian (an American and Jewish which they apparently have a history with) but those captured who are being fed have it worse off.  Let me make it clear that I AM ALL FOR DUE PROCESS that's up to this adminstration to tackle.  They've been there under Obama almost as long as under Bush, so the politics that JOE was playing don't hold up to blaming solely conservatives.  

 

I hate to cite wikipedia, but I'm sure in this case these names can be verified.  This is just in Iraq alone, and is over 60 hostages killed and over 200 captured, I'm sure that's not a complete list but it pales in comparsion to GITMO, where none were murdered.  I think it's also safe to say that those captured by them were far worse off and were not provided with 3 square meals a day, freedom to practice their faith, etc.  Nevertheless being a prisoner is never a picnic, just ask John McCain.  

 

http://en.wikipedia....ostages_in_Iraq

 

Well when we get invaded and another country send their "contractors" out to fix our country, let us know if you going to freely welcome them



#40 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:28 PM

Well when we get invaded and another country send their "contractors" out to fix our country, let us know if you going to freely welcome them

 

If you deem the deaths of unarmed men who aren't a threat to anyone justified than why do you have a problem with Trayvon being killed?  Could it be your hangup with race, oh unbiased one?


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#41 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:31 PM

I'm more interested in what Joeboo has to say than you.  He brought up my comments I don't need to go through this again with you.  But to keep it short, it's not 1 person vs. hundreds, it's naive to think that terrorists don't take US soldiers hostage, torture and kill them.  They have taken American contractors hostage and killed them as well.  Not even soldiers.  Not to mention the ones that keep capturing ships and holding the hostages demand ransom and have already killed those aboard.  Are you saying we are worse then them?  Would you rather be a hostage of the US or the terrorists?  I don't doubt we've done horrible things but do you have any evidence of US outright killing hostages without some sort trial on war crimes.  While there have been innocents raped and murdered don't we have some history of making those people accountable.  Do you think terrorists hold other terrorists accountable for violating the Geneva convenctions?  Come on!

 

And I just said in that post that you quoted and probably only half read that this administration is just as lax and unwilling to move along the process of dealing with those at GITMO, didn't Obama campaign on closing it and due process?  You claim the circumstances are different because the terrorists don't belong to a country, so what!  It's acceptable to behead a civilian (an American and Jewish which they apparently have a history with) but those captured who are being fed have it worse off.  Let me make it clear that I AM ALL FOR DUE PROCESS that's up to this adminstration to tackle.  They've been there under Obama almost as long as under Bush, so the politics that JOE was playing don't hold up to blaming solely conservatives.  

 

I hate to cite wikipedia, but I'm sure in this case these names can be verified.  This is just in Iraq alone, and is over 60 hostages killed and over 200 captured, I'm sure that's not a complete list but it pales in comparsion to GITMO, where none were murdered.  I think it's also safe to say that those captured by them were far worse off and were not provided with 3 square meals a day, freedom to practice their faith, etc.  Nevertheless being a prisoner is never a picnic, just ask John McCain.  

 

http://en.wikipedia....ostages_in_Iraq

You still don't get it with the false equivalencies. Now you're on to Somali pirates who are taking hostages for money? But why would you leap from terrorists in the middle east, to pirates? Oh yah, because they're still assumed Muslim.

 

Comparing a disorganized band of terrorists and their actions, to the United States of America and their actions, absolutely should be weighed differently. Both from a legal and rational perspective. Those Somali pirates are equivalent to a sovereign nation's Navy?

 

But additionally, where are these hostages being picked up from? THEIR HOMELAND! If somebody came to my neighborhood and started capturing people, you can be damn sure I'd go down swinging.

 

So do I think the actions by the most powerful country in the world, MY country are worse than scattered terrorist attacks? Yes, I do. We have the power and means to oppress and kill people, and we use it. I expect more from the organized efforts of the United States, than I do of communities of terrorists. I don't think that's a unique opinion at all.

 

Our history dealing with innocents isn't that great bro-ski. A few of our highlights? Genocide of Native Americans. Slavery. Internment camps for Japanese. Nation building by death and meddling in international affairs.

 

Edit: and regarding "unarmed" contractors and others meddling in the country so they can exploit the situation and make a buck, then what about the good folks at Blackwater? You know...these contractors: http://en.wikipedia....nd_legal_issues

 

Like I said earlier, you don't have enough knowledge of history to have an educated opinion, so you compare apples to oranges, then make some comment about how all bananas are savages. The US by way of politics and military pressures have killed millions more than nebulous groups of terrorists. If you don't understand that, then I don't know how to educate you, when the educational system has already tried and failed.



#42 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:39 PM

You still don't get it with the false equivalencies. Now you're on to Somali pirates who are taking hostages for money? But why would you leap from terrorists in the middle east, to pirates? Oh yah, because they're still assumed Muslim.

 

Comparing a disorganized band of terrorists and their actions, to the United States of America and their actions, absolutely should be weighed differently. Both from a legal and rational perspective. Those Somali pirates are equivalent to a sovereign nation's Navy?

 

But additionally, where are these hostages being picked up from? THEIR HOMELAND! If somebody came to my neighborhood and started capturing people, you can be damn sure I'd go down swinging.

 

So do I think the actions by the most powerful country in the world, MY country are worse than scattered terrorist attacks? Yes, I do. We have the power and means to oppress and kill people, and we use it. I expect more from the organized efforts of the United States, than I do of communities of terrorists. I don't think that's a unique opinion at all.

 

Our history dealing with innocents isn't that great bro-ski. A few of our highlights? Genocide of Native Americans. Slavery. Internment camps for Japanese. Nation building by death and meddling in international affairs.

 

Like I said earlier, you don't have enough knowledge of history to have an educated opinion, so you compare apples to oranges, then make some comment about how all bananas are savages. The US by way of politics and military pressures have killed millions more than nebulous groups of terrorists. If you don't understand that, then I don't know how to educate you, when the educational system has already tried and failed.

Wholeheartedly agree with your overall message, but every major western nation over the last 2 millennia has gained or maintained power by abusing the weak, disenfranchised and the poor. So our history is no different then most other nations who for better or worse have ruled this planet with an iron fist.


Xecutioner
CML

#43 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:47 PM

Wholeheartedly agree with your overall message, but every major western nation over the last 2 millennia has gained or maintained power by abusing the weak, disenfranchised and the poor. So our history is no different then most other nations who for better or worse have ruled this planet with an iron fist.

Oh for sure, I agree with you. But that's what's chapping my ass with this guy. He's trying to compare the standards that the United States should be held to, to those that a disorganized band of terrorists should. It's lunacy.

 

I personally believe that about 3/4s of the problems we have on a global scale today can claim roots in British (mainly), French, and Spanish Imperialism.



#44 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:54 PM

Oh for sure, I agree with you. But that's what's chapping my ass with this guy. He's trying to compare the standards that the United States should be held to, to those that a disorganized band of terrorists should. It's lunacy.

 

I personally believe that about 3/4s of the problems we have on a global scale today can claim roots in British (mainly), French, and Spanish Imperialism.

Agreed.


Xecutioner
CML

#45 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:12 AM

You still don't get it with the false equivalencies. Now you're on to Somali pirates who are taking hostages for money? But why would you leap from terrorists in the middle east, to pirates? Oh yah, because they're still assumed Muslim.

 

Comparing a disorganized band of terrorists and their actions, to the United States of America and their actions, absolutely should be weighed differently. Both from a legal and rational perspective. Those Somali pirates are equivalent to a sovereign nation's Navy?

 

But additionally, where are these hostages being picked up from? THEIR HOMELAND! If somebody came to my neighborhood and started capturing people, you can be damn sure I'd go down swinging.

 

So do I think the actions by the most powerful country in the world, MY country are worse than scattered terrorist attacks? Yes, I do. We have the power and means to oppress and kill people, and we use it. I expect more from the organized efforts of the United States, than I do of communities of terrorists. I don't think that's a unique opinion at all.

 

Our history dealing with innocents isn't that great bro-ski. A few of our highlights? Genocide of Native Americans. Slavery. Internment camps for Japanese. Nation building by death and meddling in international affairs.

 

Like I said earlier, you don't have enough knowledge of history to have an educated opinion, so you compare apples to oranges, then make some comment about how all bananas are savages. The US by way of politics and military pressures have killed millions more than nebulous groups of terrorists. If you don't understand that, then I don't know how to educate you, when the educational system has already tried and failed.

 

Oh I didn't know I could only limit the terrorists I could use in an example but you were free to bring up our whole past history.  Thanks for implying though that I'm anti-Muslim, classy.  Why not focus on present day?  Why not look at the history of terrorism than, since you are free to bring up everything we've ever done regardless of whether it fits the context of war or POW's.  Do you sympathize with them on 9/11, did crashing planes and killing 3,000 seem justifiable to you?  Al-Queda defined the conflict that day and by being free of a countries military.  You ignore the Geneva conventions which the terrorists don't subscribe to.  They've done horrific things.  Do you also ignore all other countries attrocities?  Communism, Chairman Mao, World Wars, genocide, holocaust, conquerors, do you think modern countries just fell that way, the whole history of mankind has been wars and conflicts, for land, power, resources etc.  It's not unique since 1776.  And I am in no way justifying any of those actions with that statement, just pointing it out  

 

Also do you want to just compare Al-Queda, a 20 year militant organization to a country that's been around for over 230 years?  China's been around a couple thousand years, want me to pull up some dark spots on their history to make you feel better? Do you think Al-Queda in power would be a better world power, a more ethical one?  I'm not arguing US history, I am aware and sadden by what's happened, do you believe going after Bin Laden or doing anything after 9/11 was justified, if another 9/11 happened by Al-Queda tomorrow and you were the commander in chief, would you not retaliate.  

 

The point is that a ragtag group of militants killed thousands of civilians on 9/11 and have tried over and over since then.  Those captured are either soldiers of Al-Queda or are working with them and have intelligence.  Back to the topic of POW's, those who were caught SHOULD have been captured fighters or people aiding them.  I am all for rights and trials, you couldn't give a good answer to my question of what you would do in a response to a hunger strike, whether to let them starve or feed them.  It's political as far due process which I think we are both in favor of.  I don't believe in human suffering, I think the best response would be to give them trials, my second option would be to feed them as humanly as possible, it's that or let them starve.  

 

You can't excuse what one side does to their hostages because of the age, organizational structure, philosophy or some other reasoning.  A hostage is a captured soldier, an enemy but not someone morally or ethically to be executed for any reason.  But again history says otherwise.  You're saying since the US has a history of abuses in the past, that they are more accountable for prisoner treatment even though the US isn't actively engaged in what can be called terrorism, and is working with the governments of these countries in order to eliminate the threat.  Meanwhile, Al-Queda provokes other countries, 9/11, Madrid bombing, London attacks, causing the death of thousand of non-military personnel.  Do I really need to remind you of what they do?  Their proud history.    


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#46 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:27 AM

And I hope you don't think Al-Queda are freedom fighters.  They may consider themselves that now because they have the home turf and the "big evil country" is PO'ed but they provoke, it's not just the US that has been on the receiving end of them and it's not the only country to fight back against them.  They are not a Red Dawn group to be romanticized.


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#47 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:49 AM

Oh I didn't know I could only limit the terrorists I could use in an example but you were free to bring up our whole past history.  Thanks for implying though that I'm anti-Muslim, classy. Why not focus on present day?

 

 

Well, if the burka fits...

 

Haven't I focused on present day? I started with drone strikes, went to rape and murder by US soldiers.

 

 

Why not look at the history of terrorism... Do you sympathize with them on 9/11, did crashing planes and killing 3,000 seem justifiable to you?

 

Sure, where do you want to start? What defines something as terrorism, vs. an organized act of violence to cause fear. I think I can safely assume the meaning behind your interpretation of terrorism.

 

Sweet, asking if senseless killing of a bunch of Americans drew my sympathy. Talk about classy. No. Wasn't a big fan of people flying planes into a civilian target. I think that was rather unnecessary.

 

This imaginary Steve Emerson world where interconnected cells of terrorists operated in unison to take down the United States is fanciful. Bin Laden's "freedom fighters" (wait for it) were financed by the United States when they were in Afghanistan fighting Russians. Afterwards, his rants were over the presence of American bases throughout his home country of Saudi, post Gulf War. Al-Qaeda's declarations would be about as meaningful as Rush Limbaugh telling the UK how to adjust foreign policy.  

 

 

You ignore the Geneva conventions which the terrorists don't subscribe to.

 

Prepare to be educated: "The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations"

-http://www.pbs.org/w...ions-apply/615/

 

 

 

Also do you want to just compare Al-Queda, a 20 year militant organization to a country that's been around for over 230 years?  China's been around a couple thousand years, want me to pull up some dark spots on their history to make you feel better? Do you think Al-Queda in power would be a better world power, a more ethical one?  I'm not arguing US history, I am aware and sadden by what's happened, do you believe going after Bin Laden or doing anything after 9/11 was justified, if another 9/11 happened by Al-Queda tomorrow and you were the commander in chief, would you not retaliate.

 

No, I don't think a band of terrorists would make good rulers. For one, they have no experience. This 20 year "militant organization" is a band of disorganized terrorists. They would govern about as well as the State of Texas, given independence.

 

 

The point is that a ragtag group of militants killed thousands of civilians on 9/11 and have tried over and over since then.

 

OK, get ready for MIND:BLOWN...maybe we should try to figure out why they hate us and want to kill us? Maybe they're not fond of our foreign policy which oppresses many third world, specifically Muslim and Arab countries. Maybe it's the undying support for Israel, who has a worse human rights record than nearly any other country of the past 50 years. Maybe they don't care for their countries to be invaded by external powers, so their natural resources can be exported. It could be a lot of things. One thing it is not...they don't hate us for our freedoms. If any of your news sources tell you that, turn them off and read a book instead, because that specific channel is filled with morons.  

 

 

Those captured are either soldiers of Al-Queda or are working with them and have intelligence. You can't excuse what one side does to their hostages because of the age, organizational structure, philosophy or some other reasoning

 

Do tell...what's a "soldier" of al Qaeda. What does their uniform look like? What gets issued? Who's their chain of command? What international organizations do they belong to.

 

 

Of course you can hold to a different standard what one side does. That's what the Geneva Convention is all about. You should expect better from organized world superpowers than you do from...Belize. I expect better global actions from American, than I do Belize. We have the power, the resources, and the ability to harm the world far greater than Belize. If that's true with respect to Belize, then what if we start comparing to a band of terrorists who live in various regions around the world, inside of other countries?

 

even though the US isn't actively engaged in what can be called terrorism, and is working with the governments of these countries in order to eliminate the threat.

 

That's open for ENORMOUS debate, and one that frankly, I don't think you have the background to be able to intelligently go in to. I would suggest that flying drones over neighborhoods in Yemen and killing civilians as collateral damage is outright terrorism. I would suggest that invading countries on falsified charges (WMDs) is terrorism.  Remind me when and where I said God Bless Al Qaeda? I simply said that I expect less from them, than I do the US.  

 



#48 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:17 AM

Funny how this guy also believes in limited govt.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#49 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:30 AM

Funny how this guy also believes in limited govt.

He doesn't. He just feels that government shouldn't be limiting on him and those like him; everyone else is just fine.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#50 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:40 AM

ou ignore the Geneva conventions which the terrorists don't subscribe to.

 

Prepare to be educated: "The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations"

-http://www.pbs.org/w...ions-apply/615/

 

Thank you teacher, the point is a set of guidelines exists to follow for human rights in war.  So America is the big bad but follows them.  Terrorists use violence on anyone, enemy or civilian, and because they are not a country they do not follow these guidelines.  These are good guidelines after all, right?

 

 

The point is that a ragtag group of militants killed thousands of civilians on 9/11 and have tried over and over since then.

 

OK, get ready for MIND:BLOWN...maybe we should try to figure out why they hate us and want to kill us? Maybe they're not fond of our foreign policy which oppresses many third world, specifically Muslim and Arab countries. Maybe it's the undying support for Israel, who has a worse human rights record than nearly any other country of the past 50 years. Maybe they don't care for their countries to be invaded by external powers, so their natural resources can be exported. It could be a lot of things. One thing it is not...they don't hate us for our freedoms. If any of your news sources tell you that, turn them off and read a book instead, because that specific channel is filled with morons.  

 

I heard that same logic about the Bostom bombers, that they felt out of place and unloved.  Who is they?  This isn't a country remember, we established that these terrorists are independent.  These are a small group that are opposing us.  So did they organize and try to work something out?  I am all for talking, compromises, did they try that.  Because there have been disagreements between countries and sometimes things are handled in a civil way.  But if they decided they needed to get our attention through violent means than their "demands" are kinda going on the back burner.  Violence is usually a last resort, I must have missed Al-Queda at the UN meetings, I guess since they are a splinter group they didn't get a desk.  While I get that we have done some bad things, I think the response was no different than a country attacking us, lobbing a few missles at us.  We responded with force, there was no peaceful attempt, they don't like us working with Israel, to bad.  I don't recall leading up to 9/11, the US being called out by the UN or any country for breaking any laws, yet I do recall us working with the UN after 9/11.    

 

I guess they also don't like Spain or the UK, or Istanbul, or any of the other countries they attack.  They are in Pakistan, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, damn a lot of countries must be bastards like us and they, hate HATE Israel, Well I guess other countries fucked up to, either they are just as bad as us, or we are dealing with an irrational threat that kills out of hate, or maybe they don't like whites, who know, who cares.  Have they ever wanted to make demands, to have us leave in exchange for peace? 

 

Those captured are either soldiers of Al-Queda or are working with them and have intelligence. You can't excuse what one side does to their hostages because of the age, organizational structure, philosophy or some other reasoning

 

Do tell...what's a "soldier" of al Qaeda. What does their uniform look like? What gets issued? Who's their chain of command? What international organizations do they belong to.

 

Let me respond with a question, What did the Confederate Army of the South's uniform look like, were they issued or was their no standard?   Guess they weren't soldiers, they were what then?  

 

Of course you can hold to a different standard what one side does. That's what the Geneva Convention is all about. You should expect better from organized world superpowers than you do from...Belize. I expect better global actions from American, than I do Belize. We have the power, the resources, and the ability to harm the world far greater than Belize. If that's true with respect to Belize, then what if we start comparing to a band of terrorists who live in various regions around the world, inside of other countries?

 

There's a difference between what you can expect of a country in terms of power, resources etc, and treatment of prisoners, which is all my original post was about.  You are taking this in a completely different direction.  Excusing a side because of it's social or economic status in regards to treatment of POW"S is foolish.  You are basically giving them a pass to take a soldier or civilian hostage and executing them for no logical reason as acceptable.  You are advocating murder as acceptable because of a countries status as a world power.  That speaks volumes of your "intelligence" you seem so proud of.  You treat them like children who don't know any better than adults who are serial killers.  

 

even though the US isn't actively engaged in what can be called terrorism, and is working with the governments of these countries in order to eliminate the threat.

 

That's open for ENORMOUS debate, and one that frankly, I don't think you have the background to be able to intelligently go in to. I would suggest that flying drones over neighborhoods in Yemen and killing civilians as collateral damage is outright terrorism. I would suggest that invading countries on falsified charges (WMDs) is terrorism.  Remind me when and where I said God Bless Al Qaeda? I simply said that I expect less from them, than I do the US.  

 

The US as terrorists belongs in its own thread.  I am aware of what we do, I've said numerous times I am against drone strikes, something this administration continues to this day.  Everything you bring up in that statement is valid, still your "intelligent" argument fails to reason how "I expect less from them" means you excuse them for the human rights violations they've done to hostages  And going back to the video in the OP, how you seem more outraged at our response to dying prisoners vs. your casual attitude and accountability to nations or groups that murder civilians.  


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#51 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:30 PM

The quotes in this thread are all messed up. Damned new site.


PaulManda.png


#52 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 05:47 PM

Willard-indeed. I despise it. I also found that there is a limit on how many quotes you can insert in a post. Bleh. Makes replying a chore.

 

-Jpuh-

Initially you were all bent that "al Qaeda" as though they were some multinational, organized group, rather than a collection of terrorists who likely don't even communicate with one another, wasn't following the Geneva Convention. When I pointed out to you that they are not a signatory to it, and therefore that point is relevant you basically reply with a "yah...umm...but."

 

The "Confederacah" overwhelmingly did have localized uniforms based on the materials that were at their disposal, but they were also trying to secede from the United States. Again with the false equivalencies my man.

 

You bringing up the Boston guys is exactly my point. That's what the "enemy" overwhelmingly is. Scattered groups (or individuals) of a handful of dudes that want to do harm. Why can't we charge these people with a crime or release them?

 

When you mention reasons why the US may be disliked, and the UN together in the same sentence, allow me to offer a possible reason why the International community might be a little annoyed by double standards. RE: United Nations Security Council:

 

"United States has used the veto on 82 occasions between 1946 and 2007; and since 1972, it has used its veto power more than any other permanent member"

 

"Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticizing Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements."

 

http://en.wikipedia....ncil_veto_power

 

So apparently UN resolutions are good, as long as the US doesn't issue the lone veto. Are you getting any hints on why the rest of the world considers us hypocrites?

 

You wrote: "we are dealing with an irrational threat that kills out of hate, or maybe they don't like whites, who know, who cares"

-And this is why you don't have an intelligent opinion on the topic. If you're constantly getting sick, would you prefer the doctor just give you whatever medicine for that illness, or would you prefer he look at root causes to improve your overall health? Finding out WHY people hate us so much, and WHY they are willing to kill us, kill themselves, and take other extreme actions is precisely how you resolve a conflict. Do you honestly mean it when you say "who know, who cares"? That couldn't be a less intelligent response. I want to know, and I do care. It allows us to be real in looking at our policies and figure out why over the past 20-30 years have we been so despised by such a large number of countries and groups.

 

Since you can't get your brain wrapped around why we should expect less of a group of scattered terrorists, compared to a country, a super-power at that, maybe I can try an analogy. It's not a complicated concept, but maybe this will work.

 

Let's say you put together a pretty good team of pickup basketball players. All of them are solid, maybe a couple played D1 ball in college at various schools. You decide to play against an NBA team. I expect them to be crushed, so if they only lose by 20 instead of 80, that's considered a bit of a moral victory. Nobody thought you'd win, but you kept it closer than expected.

 

I expect the organized team to perform better, behave better than the pickup squad, and show us all the right way to play the game. Who wouldn't compared to a bunch of weekend warriors playing pickup ball? Well, who wouldn't besides you?



#53 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

Thank you Willard for pointing that out to me.  My crappy laptop has the white background for some reason.  I'll repost my reply to JOEBOOSAUCE here (original post #34) and hope that shows up, I don't know if quoting was the problem, send me a PM or reply to let me know, thanks again.

 

Let's start off by making sure this quote that you said in quotes like it was me who said it... "Of course the sandniggers have WMDs. All darkies are evil and trying to constantly kill us." was never said by me nor is there anything that I've said that hinted or implied that view. In fact, it sounds like that is your view of how I or other conservatives or whites think.  I'll dismiss the stupidity because I know the decision to go to war was voted on by an elected congress with I assume actionable intelligence and the reason to go to war had something to do with 9/11, terrorism, and possible WMD's and was not just somebody waking up one day and deciding to kill "darkies".  I also made it pretty clear that I was never for any of these wars or GITMO and being only a teenager at the time who couldn't even vote in the 2000 election, don't see how I'm being lumped in with all conservatives or that I got off on us declaring war on "brown people".  Believe it or not, conservatives can think for themselves and we are not a hive mind who all think one way, but thanks for generalizing, you are even less credible than you were if that is possible.  Actually you must know or be Finger Shocker because I couldn't believe there could be more than one person on this site who could assume and lump millions of people together quite like he could.  

 

You quote me twice in your post and it doesn't seem to catch me contradicting myself.  What I said about Pearl was obviously a sarcastic response to a video which simplifys things and doesn't take into account what the prisoners did to get there.  Do you know what they are being accused of or where they were caught because it sounds like you don't believe they did anything wrong so do tell.  The two are connected in that they were both taken prisoner but one was killed for being a Jewish American (not even a soldier) while others are intentionally undertaking a hunger strike.  Is that so hard to distinguish?  Now why don't you explain how that reveals my "racist underpinnings" because the races are irrelevant if one side abuses and kills its prisoners and the other has to decide whether to force feed or let their prisoners die.  Tell me where race even begins to play into this (and I ignored him being Jewish the first time).  I also know that Obama can do something about Gitmo and has sat on his hands, so tell me how or where I'm a racist based on my original post.  If anything, it seems like you are race baiting me and labeling me a racist based on your own racist views of conservatives or whites.  And tell me how Democrats who have continued these wars since Obama took office are not racist for continuing these conflicts and not rectifying or undoing what those darn racist conservatives did.  Sound like according to what you say, they are just as guilty?

 

Jupraptor,

1. You obviously don't know what the hell racism is.

"I assume actionable intelligence and the reason to go to war had something to do with 9/11, terrorism, and possible WMD's and was not just somebody waking up one day and deciding to kill "darkies"."

 

You have an infantile view of it which seems like "racism only exists when people use slurs, their is no such thing as internalizing ideas and of course not racism. How can you claim such ignorance to the fact that all the reasons to invade a SOVEREIGN NATION you mention were fabrications? The fact you and your ilk just lap it up like obedient dogs demonstrates the racial hatred that lies under the surface of Americans. A sane and unbiased person would not just simply accept such outright lies to commit the greatest war crime (per this itty bitty thing called int'l law). Why do racist white so easily believe that a black man is a criminal? Why do the same believe that brown men are the greatest threat and the greatest perpetrators of terrorism (when in fact they are not even according the official US definitions of terrorism). Because the leadership knows how to appeal to their minions. 

 

2. ASS-umption central! Obama is a racist and perpetuates racist wars as you rightly point out! 

 

Try to reflect on your views so you don't at least wear your bias on your sleeve. I don't lap up this Dem/Repub bullshit dichotomy. Their leaders are all racist neoliberal imperialists. 

 

3. "I couldn't believe there could be more than one person on this site who could assume and lump millions of people together quite like he could.  "

Hey ass-pirate, YOU are the one who supports blanket war against Muslims because you believe the lies your white leadership shoves into your mouth. And you do it obediently, lapping it up so wholeheartily! Good dog! 
 
4. And as pointed out by others above, Daniel Pearl has nothing to do with Gitmo. The question really is WHY did you pick that example when there are PLENTY of other examples by NON-MUSLIMS that would be more applicable? See, it's your f-ing racist bias. You dumb ignorant religious zealot. The world pays for the ignorance of Americans such as yourself. Go learn YOUR OWN HISTORY. And its not in ancient scraps of paper about nonsense fairy tales.

Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#54 jputahraptor

jputahraptor

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:29 PM

 

Jupraptor,

1. You obviously don't know what the hell racism is.

"I assume actionable intelligence and the reason to go to war had something to do with 9/11, terrorism, and possible WMD's and was not just somebody waking up one day and deciding to kill "darkies"."

 

 

You have an infantile view of it which seems like "racism only exists when people use slurs, their is no such thing as internalizing ideas and of course not racism. How can you claim such ignorance to the fact that all the reasons to invade a SOVEREIGN NATION you mention were fabrications? The fact you and your ilk just lap it up like obedient dogs demonstrates the racial hatred that lies under the surface of Americans. A sane and unbiased person would not just simply accept such outright lies to commit the greatest war crime (per this itty bitty thing called int'l law). Why do racist white so easily believe that a black man is a criminal? Why do the same believe that brown men are the greatest threat and the greatest perpetrators of terrorism (when in fact they are not even according the official US definitions of terrorism). Because the leadership knows how to appeal to their minions. 

 

2. ASS-umption central! Obama is a racist and perpetuates racist wars as you rightly point out! 

 

Try to reflect on your views so you don't at least wear your bias on your sleeve. I don't lap up this Dem/Repub bullshit dichotomy. Their leaders are all racist neoliberal imperialists. 

 

3. "I couldn't believe there could be more than one person on this site who could assume and lump millions of people together quite like he could.  "

Hey ass-pirate, YOU are the one who supports blanket war against Muslims because you believe the lies your white leadership shoves into your mouth. And you do it obediently, lapping it up so wholeheartily! Good dog! 
 
4. And as pointed out by others above, Daniel Pearl has nothing to do with Gitmo. The question really is WHY did you pick that example when there are PLENTY of other examples by NON-MUSLIMS that would be more applicable? See, it's your f-ing racist bias. You dumb ignorant religious zealot. The world pays for the ignorance of Americans such as yourself. Go learn YOUR OWN HISTORY. And its not in ancient scraps of paper about nonsense fairy tales.

 

 

 

1.  So this is all a race war?  A racially diverse country declared war on a country because it wasn't white?  Your post just drips with race, I think you are the racist with the racist world views.  Tell me your honest opinion of white people, by all means I'd love to hear it.  I also assume that someone will call us out for creating 9/11.  Read my post #36 again and try not to pop a vein in your forehead because you continue to bring up racial terms when this was never a racial debate.  Put aside your race baiting hate for a minute and tell me what the hell to do with GITMO and their hunger strike, because you are just a babbling idiot spouting ignorant hate speech and making even the liberals on this site keep their distance from you.

 

2.  You accuse me of assuming when I never said that Obama was a racist, only that he continues a war that he campaigned to stop and continues to keep GITMO open, find where I call him a racist, racist against whom?  You make it sound like I have some say over our foreign policy, I am 1 in 3 in regards to voting in the right president, and I was a teenager when this all started, hardly in a position to refute what I was told, but I never claimed that our gov. doesn't do shady things, just that we can see no matter who the POTUS is, that what they do will never change.  

 

3. Again false accusations don't fly with me.  Where do I say I support an open war with Muslims?  I want us to get the hell out of there.  And take care of our own economy and helping countries with food and medicine.  You know just putting these !!!!!!! everywhere doesn't add credibility to what you say, you actually have none.  

 

4.  Pearl has nothing to do with GITMO, he has everything to do with how THEY treated OUR citizens.  Why should I bring up examples of Non-Muslims when we are talking about a conflict between us and a militant group that happens to be Muslim. As if every conflict since 1776 has been against "brown" people, I guess the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW1, WW2 weren't really white people, I guess we go where we are needed.  And then you mock my religious beliefs, Who is the ignorant one here again, yeah you.  I'd insult your beliefs but I think you only believe in yourself and that's just to easy.  


"Slap a liberal today, you'll both feel better."
"Nobody dies an atheist."
http://i464.photobuc...maSocialist.jpg

#55 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:44 PM

4.  Pearl has nothing to do with GITMO, he has everything to do with how THEY treated OUR citizens.  

This is still the part you don't get. Pearl was an American journalist, who happened to be Jewish, and wanted to go interview some of the most anti-American terrorists on the planet. Does that mean someone deserves to die? No. But it's a little like jumping in to a lion's cage with raw meat tied to your body, and condemning the lion for attacking. He entered somebody else's dojo, and lost his life over it. The prisoners at Gitmo were all picked up in their own back yard, by the world's biggest superpower, and remain there 12 years later.



#56 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:45 PM

1.  So this is all a race war?  A racially diverse country declared war on a country because it wasn't white?  Your post just drips with race, I think you are the racist with the racist world views.  Tell me your honest opinion of white people, by all means I'd love to hear it.  I also assume that someone will call us out for creating 9/11.  Read my post #36 again and try not to pop a vein in your forehead because you continue to bring up racial terms when this was never a racial debate.  Put aside your race baiting hate for a minute and tell me what the hell to do with GITMO and their hunger strike, because you are just a babbling idiot spouting ignorant hate speech and making even the liberals on this site keep their distance from you.

 

2.  You accuse me of assuming when I never said that Obama was a racist, only that he continues a war that he campaigned to stop and continues to keep GITMO open, find where I call him a racist, racist against whom?  You make it sound like I have some say over our foreign policy, I am 1 in 3 in regards to voting in the right president, and I was a teenager when this all started, hardly in a position to refute what I was told, but I never claimed that our gov. doesn't do shady things, just that we can see no matter who the POTUS is, that what they do will never change.  

 

3. Again false accusations don't fly with me.  Where do I say I support an open war with Muslims?  I want us to get the hell out of there.  And take care of our own economy and helping countries with food and medicine.  You know just putting these !!!!!!! everywhere doesn't add credibility to what you say, you actually have none.  

 

4.  Pearl has nothing to do with GITMO, he has everything to do with how THEY treated OUR citizens.  Why should I bring up examples of Non-Muslims when we are talking about a conflict between us and a militant group that happens to be Muslim. As if every conflict since 1776 has been against "brown" people, I guess the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW1, WW2 weren't really white people, I guess we go where we are needed.  And then you mock my religious beliefs, Who is the ignorant one here again, yeah you.  I'd insult your beliefs but I think you only believe in yourself and that's just to easy.  

 

 

Here, I'll do you a big favor... Read Orientalism by Edward Said. That would be a good primer for you on racism and how it bleeds into a nation's foreign policy. 

 

Again, you point out yet again your racist bias. Who is this elusive "THEY"??? These are people who are NOT terrorists and you compare them to terrorists. I wonder on what grounds?

So, I guess I'm the racist for pointing it out. "Race-baiter." The word Rush Lim-baa and the right-wing love to use to hide their lack of comprehension of a condition which still ails this country. Here's another great read with the preceding in mind: Racism Without Racists. But, we all know you guys don't read outside the ancient bible and what you lap up from Faux News (which isn't technically reading but for your kind, I guess it counts). PS Guess what kind you are?


Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell