Club Gitmo
Club Gitmo- your tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad.
posted by Teacher Tori @ 12:39 PM
21 Comments
Teacher Tori
I'm revamping this blog so I'll get back to you
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
About Me
- Name: Teacher Tori
- Location: Chicagoland, Illinois, United States
I'm a 29 year old married high school teacher from Chicago with a baby boy
Previous Posts
- libs in traffic
- Pray for Teacher Tori
- Holding Court
- mixed emotions
- Pretty Funny
- I dated a conspiracy theorist :O
- ouch!
- I love my job!
- Interesting Quote
- I'll take my crow fried
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
21 Comments:
if that were the case then the entire media and most democrats should be bound, gagged and shipped to Gitmo
two more words: Dick Durbin
2 more words: howard dean
2 more words peewee hermen
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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).
Right back at ya Eddie!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
what can I say....I bring out the best and worst in people!
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.
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?
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.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home