Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Club Gitmo

Club Gitmo- your tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad.

70 Comments:

At 1:25 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Love It!

 
At 1:30 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

I thought we weren't supposed to do anything which might incite the terrorists.

TWO

 
At 2:40 PM , Blogger Tori said...

if that were the case then the entire media and most democrats should be bound, gagged and shipped to Gitmo

 
At 3:06 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"if that were the case then the entire media and most democrats should be bound, gagged and shipped to Gitmo"

How have the media and the Democrats incited the terrorists?

TWO

 
At 3:11 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Two words, Cindy Sheehan.

 
At 3:19 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

Cindy Sheehan incites terrorism? How do you figure that?

I know we're talking about frivolous subject matter such as terrorism and prisoner treatment, but can you guys try to be less obtuse so I don't have to ask so many questions?

TWO

 
At 3:27 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Yes, TWO, the terrorists are evil and are looking for any sign of breaking the American public. Cindy Sheehan shows them our weakness and incites them to be more bold and break our spirit.

Unfortunately, libs think we are the enemies and as such, can't imagine someone like Sheehan ever inciting terrorists. It's just a fundamental misunderstanding on your side of how the world works.

 
At 3:45 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Yes, TWO, the terrorists are evil and are looking for any sign of breaking the American public. Cindy Sheehan shows them our weakness and incites them to be more bold and break our spirit."

So, if weakness is what incites terrorists, then why is the Pentagon arguing in court that the release of torture images from Abu Ghraib prison might incite violence against US troops in Iraq? Are the torture images from Abu Ghraib not brutal enough to release to the public?

TWO

 
At 5:01 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

TWO,

Why is it you always side with the evil doers and never point out the kind of torture OUR captured troops go through. I frankly don't give a damn one bit if we torture Iraqi soldiers or insurgents trying to murder OUR troops. If you love Iraq so much, why don't you move there or some other Islamo facist Country and see how many women rights you have there?

 
At 5:32 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Why is it you always side with the evil doers and never point out the kind of torture OUR captured troops go through."

My comments here are a response to Tori's blog post about Limbaugh's Club Gitmo satire. But for the record, I am disgusted by what the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are doing. But just because I am disgusted by the insurgents and terrorists doesn't mean I have to ignore wrongdoing by my side.

I suppose you think Lindsey Graham, a Republican, was siding with the terrorists when he pointed out the following...

"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." - Republican Senator Lindsey Graham

"I frankly don't give a damn one bit if we torture Iraqi soldiers or insurgents trying to murder OUR troops."

Like I said before, you love to preach about American ideals, but the truth is that you just aren't comfortable with them.

The humane treatment of prisoners is practiced for the sake of the innocent, not the guilty.

Unless you think that the US military is infallible, you cannot assume that all the suspects that the US military detains are guilty of being terrorists.

Imagine the following scenario...

You are an Iraqi husband and father. Some terrorists tell you that they will kill your family unless you drive a car of theirs to a certain location. You agree to the demands of the terrorists. While driving the car given to you by the terrorists, you are picked up by the US military which promptly finds explosives in the car you were driving. You are thrown in prison despite your claims of innocence. Do you deserve to be mistreated?

If you don't care about how the US treats prisoners, so be it, but don't claim that you are much better than terrorists and other barbarians when you so passionately embrace their ways.


TWO

 
At 5:46 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

And by the way, you dodged my question...

If weakness is what incites terrorists, then why is the Pentagon arguing in court that the release of torture images from Abu Ghraib prison might incite violence against US troops in Iraq?

TWO

 
At 8:47 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

two more words: Dick Durbin

 
At 10:27 PM , Blogger Tori said...

2 more words: howard dean

 
At 2:38 AM , Blogger pappy said...

2 more words peewee hermen

 
At 8:18 AM , Blogger stuffle said...

If weakness is what incites terrorists, then why is the Pentagon arguing in court that the release of torture images from Abu Ghraib prison might incite violence against US troops in Iraq?

No one every said that weakness was the only thing that incites terrorists. Obviously, a whole host of things can excite and embolden such scum, including, but not limited to: shows of weekness or lack of fortitude,
giving in to their demands, and yes, images of us behaving badly (like at Abu Ghraib).

The thing is, when situations like what happened at Abu Ghraib take place, we take action to correct the situation and punish those at fault (ask Lindy England, and others who did wrong in that case). That is a lot more than can be said about other governments, especially the one we overthrew in Iraq.

However, we are talking here about Gitmo, where no such abuse has taken place, and while conditions are not alway perfect, many of the so called "problems" that have been reported simply are not true, or have been greatly exaggerated.

 
At 8:59 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:59 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Gitmo - good lord, we're back to this. Does anyone else see that there is clearly something wrong when it is "torture" to give the detainees anything less than gourmet meals, while our men and women in uniform are eating MREs?

Torture. Its funny how the libs and dems are so concerned with torture when it comes down on Americans. Where were all these humanitarian efforts while Saddam and his two evil-bastard-hope-they're-rotting-in-hell sons had rape rooms, and torture chambers for fun. There's a difference between certain types of torture for information (if they have to beat the shit out of an Iraqi to stop another 9/11 or other attack, I'm all for it).

 
At 9:12 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

RR,
I have one thing to say about your posts, "word."

 
At 9:14 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Right back at ya Eddie!

 
At 9:38 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"No one every said that weakness was the only thing that incites terrorists. Obviously, a whole host of things can excite and embolden such scum, including, but not limited to: shows of weekness or lack of fortitude,
giving in to their demands, and yes, images of us behaving badly (like at Abu Ghraib)."

For the record, I don't believe that anyone is justified in reacting violently to images of torture. I'm more or less playing Devil's Advocate for the Pentagon...

If we are going to block the release of torture images because they might incite the terrorists, then shouldn't we avoid doing anything which might incite the terrorists? For instance, if reports of US casualties embolden the terrorists, then why announce them?

"However, we are talking here about Gitmo, where no such abuse has taken place, and while conditions are not alway perfect, many of the so called "problems" that have been reported simply are not true, or have been greatly exaggerated."

Perception is everything. Do you honestly think that the Arab world draws a distinction between Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?

One of the reasons why the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was so damaging to the US is that it created the perception that abuse of prisoners is widespread and commonplace in prisons run by the US military. So, when Limbaugh makes light of Gitmo, he is, in the eyes of Arabs, making light of Abu Ghraib.

Moreover, considering the attitude of people like Eddie, should we really be surprised that Arabs believe that Abu Ghraib is the rule rather than the exception?


TWO

 
At 9:42 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

TWO,

I now see that you speak for all Arabs. I actually, personally, talk to those who are Arab over here and I can, indeed, say with confidence that they are happy as hell that Hussein is out of power, as most of them are peaceful, freedom loving people. The Koran is a very well written piece.

However, being as you are on the left, personal interaction is beyond you as you live in a box and drink the Kool Aid that is fed to you by other brainwashed lefties.

I actually didn't mind your comments until this last one. Much like a typical liberal, you turn people off and no one actually wants to listen to you as it is so lacking in intellectual thought.

God Bless America, KILL THE TERRORISTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, TORTURE THEM AND THEN DO IT AGAIN!

Love Eddie.

 
At 9:44 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Torture. Its funny how the libs and dems are so concerned with torture when it comes down on Americans. Where were all these humanitarian efforts while Saddam and his two evil-bastard-hope-they're-rotting-in-hell sons had rape rooms, and torture chambers for fun."

Human Rights Watch and other groups were highly critical of Saddam Hussein while guys like Donald Rumsfeld were shaking his hand and cutting sweetheart deals with him.

Why does the mistreatment of prisoners in prisons run by the US miliary garner so much attention? Americans expect barbarism from the terrorists, not from the US military. So, when the American people see the US military acting like barbarians, it shocks them.

TWO

 
At 10:02 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Oh give me a break, we're not the ones cutting heads off of civilians - so there were some pictures taken that were inappropriate. Fine. Those guards were brought up on charges. Our troops are not barbarians. The military is fighting this war ethically, because our guys have the media looking over their shoulders every step of the way. I wish one of our soldiers would just turn around and shoot the camera crew because we know the only reason they're over there is to hopefully catch one of our guys accidentally kill a woman and child so they can get it on CNN.

They're the ones hiding in their mosques which we try not to touch and shooting from inside them.

And big deal that certain watch groups were "critical" of Saddam. What did they do about it? Nothing. What did we do about it? Killed the two bastard kids and locked Saddam up in jail - being "critical" about the torture they inflicted on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of their own people is a joke - that's right Human Rights Watch - you wave that finger at Saddam and say "bad dictator!" That really seemed to accomplish a lot. Nice try though, really.

 
At 10:07 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"And big deal that certain watch groups were "critical" of Saddam. What did they do about it? Nothing."

What do you expect HRW to do? Invade the countries it criticizes?

Human Rights Watch exists to draw attention to problems. It has neither the authority nor the capacity to invade countries run by tyrants.

TWO

 
At 10:09 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

No I don't expect them to invade a country, I'm making the point that we actually took care of the problem - under Lib and Dem principles, this should have been justification enough for the war in Iraq - but no, we have a Republican president, so that isn't good enough. Even though mass genocide was reason enough for the removal of Slobadan Milosevich.

 
At 10:16 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

TWO,

By your illogic, our soldiers should have never fought to defend us in WWII, b/c I assure you that things that went on were far worse than Abu Graib. Yes, all is fair in love and war and I will stop at no end to defend the honor of my Country and our way of life.

Go live in open minded Middle Eastern Country's where you can truly see how "well" you are treated as a woman.

 
At 10:18 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"However, being as you are on the left, personal interaction is beyond you as you live in a box and drink the Kool Aid that is fed to you by other brainwashed lefties."

If I were brainwashed, then why would I bother asking for other opinions? If I were brainwashed, I would simply come here and post tirades, wouldn't I?

I'm only trying to determine if you right wingers think that inciting the terrorists is a good idea or a bad idea.

From my perspective, I see right wingers and military people sending a lot of mixed signals, so to speak...

On one hand, the Pentagon is furiously fighting to block the release of imagery which it argues might incite the terrorists.

On the other hand, right wing websites and blogs display all sorts of things which might incite the terrorists. Heck, even the President incited the terrorists when he challenged them to "bring it on" not long ago.

Can you understand my confusion?

TWO

 
At 10:21 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"No I don't expect them to invade a country, I'm making the point that we actually took care of the problem..."

You don't need to diminish or ridicule the hard work of HRW to make the point that the US military, not HRW, deposed Saddam.

TWO

 
At 10:24 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

I find it ironic that TWO is so worried about "human rights," except when it comes to
1. Americans
2. The unborn
3. Anyone who isn't a commie

 
At 10:35 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

I doubt terrorists are incited by a statement such as "bring it on." Terrorists, by their own admissions, are incited and react when they see liberal Senators such as Durbin comparing the guards at Gitmo to Nazis and such.

Ayman al-Zawahri himself, in his letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, stated how the American media continues to undermine the war effort and that America will cut and run like we did in Vietnam. They see the same tv and news we see. The fact that they hear Durbin spouting lies about our military, and our "trusted journalists" comparing this war to Vietnam will incite them and only reaffirm their affirmations that if they keep pressing, we will run.

There are differences between this war and Vietnam, and the main difference is the fact that Bush won't run. Even the Dems themselves don't want out of Iraq - you don't see or hear any of the liberal Senators or Representatives actually wanting to withdraw from Iraq or de-fund the effort for the war on terror (outside your wacko-far-lefties).

 
At 10:35 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"I find it ironic that TWO is so worried about "human rights," except when it comes to
1. Americans
2. The unborn
3. Anyone who isn't a commie"

And I find it ironic that someone who avoids discussion by taking generic stabs at what he perceives to be political opposition would accuse me of being brainwashed.

TWO

 
At 10:36 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

I just call them as I see them, sweetheart :)

 
At 10:52 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"I doubt terrorists are incited by a statement such as "bring it on."

When one challenges the kind of people who cut off heads and strap on explosives to "bring it on", they pretty much do just that. It is insane to suggest that challenging the terrorists to "bring it on" does not incite them. I mean... are you kidding?

"Terrorists, by their own admissions, are incited and react when they see liberal Senators such as Durbin comparing the guards at Gitmo to Nazis and such."

We are going in circles. If the terrorists are incited by displays of weakness, not strength, then why is the Pentagon attempting to block the release of torture images, which are nothing if not a raw display of force?

TWO

 
At 11:02 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

I haven't heard the President say "bring it on" - and I don't know in what context he was saying that in, so I'm not goign to comment on that any more than saying that terrorists are probably incited by both shows of strength and shows of weakness.

You keep bringing up the Pentagon and the torture images. I would imagine that the Pentagon is attempting to block the use of the images because it is not an accurate picture of our military in general. You have a few guards, doing a few stupid things. They have been brought up on charges and will pay for doing those things.

As stated, the majority of our military takes extreme precautions in not hitting mosques and other symbols of their religion and ideology.

While the images likely will incite terrorists, it is plausible that while the images can be, as you stated, a raw display of force, thus exhibiting strength, it is likely that many people in the Pentagon and this Administration view it as a weakness, and a fumble on the part of the military.

We obviously don't want to incite terrorists to commit more disturbing acts of violence on civilians and our military, but at the same time, we must put up a strong front here at home and in the media. They can, and will, use any ammo we throw at them - like Durbin's statements.

 
At 11:05 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"There are differences between this war and Vietnam, and the main difference is the fact that Bush won't run."

Bush may not run from Iraq, but not running from Iraq won't necessarily fix Iraq.

I'm curious... How many more lives and how much more money would you be willing to throw at Iraq?

TWO

 
At 11:09 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

The answer: As much as it takes. We are saving both money and lives by fighting over there.

 
At 11:12 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"I haven't heard the President say "bring it on" - and I don't know in what context he was saying that in, so I'm not goign to comment on that any more than saying that terrorists are probably incited by both shows of strength and shows of weakness."

Oh come on. The President's imfamous "bring 'em on" statement was all over the news when he said it.

"I would imagine that the Pentagon is attempting to block the use of the images because it is not an accurate picture of our military in general."

You don't need to imagine why the Pentagon is attempting to block the release of torture images. The Pentagon has stated that it wants the torture images to remain classified because it believes they might incite violence against troops deployed in dangerous places like Iraq.

TWO

 
At 11:19 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

I hate the fact that lives are being lost and money is being spent over there, don't get me wrong. And a good majority of the time, I hardly feel the Iraqis deserve what we're giving them; but if it takes out more terrorists, so they don't attack us here, then we must stay the course.

International terrorists have chosen Iraq as the central arena for their war against the democracies, but they couldn't prevent an Arab nation from joining the democracy club. Libs keep insulting the Iraqis saying that theyre not capable of self-government. This was disproved AGAIN in the elections last week.

Iraqis in record numbers braved jihadist threats in order to exercise the rights of free choice delivered to them by the coalition forces. Perhaps the most important aspect of the vote on the constitution was that security was provided mainly by Iraqi police and soldiers, whereas US troops provided the necessity in the January elections.

In case you missed the probably one-line story on the good things going on in Iraq - to summarize: (1) Saddam has been captured; (2) Saddam's evil sons are dead; (3) Iraqi's voted in a temporary legislature back in January; (4) Iraqi's came together (including a large increase in Sunni participation) to draft a constitution; (5) they effectively voted on that constitution (with a higher voter turnout rate than we have in this country).

No this will not end the violence, but it has now been made clear that by the proven moethod of allowing a free and fair election, there is little support for jihadists among ordinary Iraqis. They no longer put up with the threats. As the Iraqi's assume greater and greater responsibility for the nation's security, it will be harder for terrorists to preserve the anonymity they have enjoyed while fighting coalition troops who don't speak Arabic.

America's liberals, still smarting over their loss last November, have intensified their own jihad against President Bush, while at the same time, not even necessarily wanting troops out of Iraq. The day our troops will leave Iraq will come a lot sooner as the Iraqi's stand on their feet. The elections last week should show that we are moving closer and closer towards that day.

War costs lives, and war costs money. If you're someone who doesn't believe in the cause, then it's not worth arguing with you over because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine - but whether or not you see terrorism in Iraq as a threat to our homeland security, it is ignorant to wilfully close your eyes to the enormous progress that has been accomplished in Iraq.

The media doesn't help in this regard either - instead of reporting the success of the elections, and the Iraqi forces responsible for that success, we are given a body count each night. Full and fair dislosure? I think not.

 
At 11:19 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"The answer: As much as it takes. We are saving both money and lives by fighting over there."

The phrase "whatever it takes" is a euphemism. People tend to use euphemisms when they want to avoid difficult or troubling discussions.

I'm asking for hard numbers. So far, the Iraq war has killed and maimed thousands of US soldiers and Iraqis and has cost roughly $200,000,000,000. No end is in sight. How much more should we spend/gamble on Iraq?

You're a CPA, Eddie, so you know all about hard numbers. So, let us hear them.


TWO

 
At 11:26 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"I hate the fact that lives are being lost and money is being spent over there, don't get me wrong. And a good majority of the time, I hardly feel the Iraqis deserve what we're giving them; but if it takes out more terrorists, so they don't attack us here, then we must stay the course."

The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a mere 19 men. It is dangerous to assume that Al Qaeda is so bogged down in Iraq that it can't spare a handful of men to conduct attacks on the US.

The fact of the matter is that the fighting in Iraq does very little to protect America. In fact, some in the intelligence community have argued that Iraq has become both a recruiting tool and a trainging ground for terrorists.

TWO

 
At 11:36 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"No this will not end the violence, but it has now been made clear that by the proven moethod of allowing a free and fair election, there is little support for jihadists among ordinary Iraqis. They no longer put up with the threats. As the Iraqi's assume greater and greater responsibility for the nation's security, it will be harder for terrorists to preserve the anonymity they have enjoyed while fighting coalition troops who don't speak Arabic."

The violence in Iraq has not gone down significantly in two years. The Iraq insurgency has managed to operate successfully amidst a heavy US presence and amidst a population of Iraqis which supposedly love Americans. Maybe all that will change, but I won't believe it until I see it.

TWO

 
At 11:41 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

They've also reported that more than 3500 of Al-Qaeda's membership has been killed or captured, and that their capabilities are increasingly diminished. Of course this hurts their cause and ability to carry out an attack.

I'm not saying that killing these people in Iraq is going to conclusively prevent an attack on American soil, but theres a much smaller chance when most of them are dead or captured. Obviously.

Terrorists have been known to be coming into Iraq - still better we fight them over there than over here. If we're perpetually killing terrorists over in Iraq and Afghanistan, then your argument ("fighting in Iraq does very little to protect America")is just plain wrong. Clearly, fighting and killing them elsewhere, protects the American people.

 
At 11:48 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

"The violence in Iraq has not gone down significantly in two years. The Iraq insurgency has managed to operate successfully amidst a heavy US presence and amidst a population of Iraqis which supposedly love Americans."

There is also a considerable difference in who the insurgents are attacking. They are hardly attacking Americans anymore, but Iraqis instead. This continues to hurt their cause. Again, in his letter, Zawahiri cautioned that killing Iraqis - especially in brutal ways like beheading - has not been good PR.

Most of the Iraqis targeted until recently were Shiites, the majority long oppressed by Saddam and the 20% Sunni minority. But as Sunnis began to participate in the Constittuion-writing process, winning compromises from teh Shiites and Kurds, they too came under fire. A successful constitution and election this coming January guaranteeing that Iraqis have the rigt to vote and worship as they choose - and giving women equal status with men ing overnment and the workplace - is an important step forward.

The continued attacks by insurgents on Iraqis (including now the Sunnis because they participated in the constitution and electoral process), is going to weaken because the ordinary Iraqis are not putting up with it. They now see the insurgents for what they're worth, and with the continued progress of the formation of democracy, Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds are able to stand against the killing. As Zawahiri stated, it's bad PR for their cause.

Iraqis aren't going to put up with it anymore.

 
At 12:19 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

TWO,
If I knew what the final number would be, I certainly would share it with you. How about a "sum sufficient amount" to accomplish the goal of self-rule and governing. I am not sure how much clearer I could be.

Your math is fuzzy at best. Liberals like to quote numbers and "lump" in things like the war on terror in Afghanistan to try to make their numbers as large and ridiculous as possible. Also, it's impossible to say that the money we are spending on the war would not have been spent on general military operations, just in a different manner. Much of the cost is fixed anyways, we have to buy fighters, armor, etc... in the normal course of defending ourselves. How, pray tell, can you then say that those amounts are all spent on Iraq?

See, I have already said too much. It's not worth the effort it takes to write it. Use your brain, you're a smart woman, much smarter than Saddam would have ever let you become in his Iraq!

 
At 12:26 PM , Blogger Tori said...

RR, don't you know that libs will never admit to anything good in Iraq. If America fails, they will be happy. When America has any kind of setback, they celebrate and point fingers.

I bet they're praying Hurricane Wilma is going to blow Florida to smitherines just to give President Bush one more thing to take care of.

 
At 1:44 PM , Blogger Adrianne said...

How can someone who teahces in a highschool make such generalizations about half of this nation? Your negative stereotype is insulting. I am a liberal and have never behaved the way you described. This blog only shows the hate you have for liberals. Sad sad sad.

 
At 1:48 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"There is also a considerable difference in who the insurgents are attacking. They are hardly attacking Americans anymore, but Iraqis instead."

The rate of US casualties in Iraq has remained more or less steady since the occuption began. I think what we are seeing is an increase in the rate of attacks on Iraqis, but not necessarily a decrease in attacks against US troops. You can check the numbers and the graphs if you don't believe me.

TWO

 
At 1:50 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"I'm not saying that killing these people in Iraq is going to conclusively prevent an attack on American soil, but theres a much smaller chance when most of them are dead or captured. Obviously."

But if Iraq has become both a recruitment tool and a training tool for terrorists, I have a difficult time seeing how the Iraq occupation makes us safer.

TWO

 
At 1:52 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Iraqis aren't going to put up with it anymore."

Iraqis have put up with the occupation and the insurgency for over two years now. I really don't see why you think we are now at a turning point.

Listening to Republicans, I get the sense that Iraq has turned the corner so many times that it is going around the block.

TWO

 
At 1:54 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"If I knew what the final number would be, I certainly would share it with you. How about a "sum sufficient amount" to accomplish the goal of self-rule and governing. I am not sure how much clearer I could be."

Eddie, I'm not asking you how much bloodshed and money you think will be required to stabilize Iraq. I'm asking you how much bloodshed and money you personally would tolerate the US spending on Iraq.

TWO

 
At 1:56 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"RR, don't you know that libs will never admit to anything good in Iraq. If America fails, they will be happy. When America has any kind of setback, they celebrate and point fingers."

Actually, Tori, I wake up every day hoping that I'm wrong about George Bush and Iraq. I would gladly give Bush a 3rd term in office if it meant a reasonably stable Iraq.

TWO

 
At 1:57 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"See, I have already said too much. It's not worth the effort it takes to write it. Use your brain, you're a smart woman, much smarter than Saddam would have ever let you become in his Iraq!"

I am a guy.

TWO

 
At 2:01 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

My bad.

 
At 2:02 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

TWO,

Don't you have anything better to do than pollute Teacher Tori's blog all day?

 
At 2:34 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

TWO,

Do you have a suggestion for keeping us safer? If we don't hunt them down and kill them, won't they just come and kill us? Seems to be their method of choice.

Other than going out and killing all the terrorists, I suggest we close the borders. But I'd like for once to hear some suggestions and solutions coming from the opposition rather than just Bush-bashing.

 
At 2:47 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Holy Shit, TT, you are just rocking with comments now. I remember when your blog hardly ever got any.

 
At 3:07 PM , Blogger Tori said...

what can I say....I bring out the best and worst in people!

 
At 3:10 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Could you please email me? I would love to converse over email if you have an account that you don't wish to keep private.

 
At 3:55 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Do you have a suggestion for keeping us safer? If we don't hunt them down and kill them, won't they just come and kill us? Seems to be their method of choice."

Well, for starters, how about we not invade and occupy countries which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

TWO

 
At 4:02 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Don't you have anything better to do than pollute Teacher Tori's blog all day?"

If Tori wants to turn her blog into an Amen chorus, that is up to her. I suspect, however, that Tori, unlike certain Republicans, is not afraid debate those who disagree with her.

If Tori wants me to stop posting comments on her blog, I will do so. Of course, I'm not the only liberal who posts here, so if Tori wants to shut liberals out completely, she should probably employ membership restrictions.

TWO

 
At 4:11 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

I disagree with you TWO on the fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but I've debated that point to death with other libs, and it seems people see what they want to see; so I'm not going to address that here and now.

 
At 10:08 PM , Blogger sandy said...

I'll say one thing about all these comments. Without justsexy and cameilmom, the name calling was held to a minimum. Way to go people!

TWO's question about the Pentegon is a good one. Here's my thought. I think they want to suppress the torture pictures because the Muslim population will probably think it is widespread and can make recruiting easier for the radical Muslims, ie, terriosts. That is also why the MSM should verify all the storys about the Koran being abused and other related rumors.

If they are verified, then of course they should be made public and the person or persons involved should be held accountible. But it is irresponsible reporting to just broadcast every story without verification and the MSM should be held accountible for their actions as well.

We are suppose to be differant than these radicals and should make every effort to show the world we are sensitive to others. But keep in mind that the terriost will use eveything availible to them to defeat us. They don't seem to concerned about world opinion now do they?

 
At 9:26 AM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"I disagree with you TWO on the fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but I've debated that point to death with other libs, and it seems people see what they want to see; so I'm not going to address that here and now."

If you disagree with me about my claim that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, then you are disagreeing with not just me, but also the White House, which has clearly stated that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Now, the argument can be made Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, funded and supported terrorists, but that would make it no different from Saudi Arabia, under the Saudi royals.

TWO

 
At 3:17 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Last time I checked, the Saudi Royals weren't shooting down our planes in the no fly zone, threatening to destroy our nation, or funding suicide bombers in Israel or other terror orgs. Yes, the Saudis have made mistakes and have since done a better job of policing their own Country as our long term ally.

 
At 7:10 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Last time I checked, the Saudi Royals weren't shooting down our planes in the no fly zone, threatening to destroy our nation, or funding suicide bombers in Israel or other terror orgs."

Eddie, for God's sake, turn off the Limbaugh.

Saudi royals funding Palestinian jihad
Rethinking the Saudi-U.S. Alliance
A Cure for Royal Pains

And, keep in mind that despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were Saudis, Mr. Bush has yet to utter any direct criticism of the country which produced the 9/11 terrorists.

"Yes, the Saudis have made mistakes and have since done a better job of policing their own Country as our long term ally."

Not one Saudi royal or aristocrat has been charged, or much less arrested, for having ties to terrorism.

The Saudi goverment is still very much a tyrannical plutocracy. It deserves criticism, not praise.

An example of the cruelty which goes on in Saudi Arabia...

Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue

Are you still lovin' those Saudis?

TWO

 
At 9:38 PM , Blogger sandy said...

I have to agree with TWO about the Saudi Royals. I don't think they are our friends. As two said' the majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudia Arabia.

The difference though is this, they never invaded, raped and murdered their neighbors. They did allie themselves with us in Desert Storm.

The reason I don't think they can be our friends is because they are a muslim country.

And isn't just like TWO to get to another topic altogether? We have come from club gitmo all the way to Saudi.

 
At 2:23 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"And isn't just like TWO to get to another topic altogether? We have come from club gitmo all the way to Saudi."

Eddie brought up the Saudis.

TWO

 
At 3:47 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

TWO,

I have not listened to Limbaugh in years! For God's sake, I work during the day. Get a brain!

 
At 3:49 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Yes TWO,
Typically lefty tactics. Pick out the most heinous of examples, delete the rest, and extrapolate that to the entire argument. Thank you, Michael Moore! Well done.

Yes, I love the Saudis. I would love to move there and take you with me.

 
At 4:35 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Typically lefty tactics. Pick out the most heinous of examples, delete the rest, and extrapolate that to the entire argument. Thank you, Michael Moore! Well done."

You unequivocally claimed that the Saudis don't fund terrorism. All I did was point out the fact that the Saudis do in fact fund terrorism.

TWO

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home