PDA

View Full Version : Why, this man must be a RACIST, no?



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/29/2009, 04:59 PM
A New Defense Posture: Bend Over Backward

By THOMAS SOWELL

It used to be said that self-preservation is the first law of nature. But much of what has been happening in recent times in the United States, and in Western civilization in general, suggests that survival is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness.

We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that exist neither in our laws nor under international law.

These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot.

Nobody even thought that this was a violation of the Geneva Conventions. American authorities filmed the mass executions. Nobody dreamed up fictitious "rights" for these enemy combatants who had violated the rules of war. Nobody thought we had to prove that we were nicer than the Nazis by bending over backward.

Bending over backward is a very bad position from which to try to defend yourself. Nobody in those days confused bending over backward with "the rule of law," as Barack Obama did recently. Bending over backward is the antithesis of the rule of law. It is depriving the people of the protection of their laws, in order to pander to mushy notions among the elite.

Even under the Geneva Conventions, enemy soldiers have no right to be turned loose before the war is over. Terrorists — "militants" or "insurgents" for those of you who are squeamish — have declared open-ended war against America. It is open-ended in time and open-ended in methods, including beheadings of innocent civilians.

President Obama can ban the phrase "war on terror," but he cannot ban the terrorists

JLEW1818
4/29/2009, 05:14 PM
3.66 years left. ishh

yermom
4/29/2009, 07:25 PM
the war on terror isn't a real "war", and the Nazi example does really apply anyway

but what do you say to this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.

"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

but i'm sure you will either not bother to read it, understand it or just ignore it and start another thread

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/29/2009, 07:40 PM
the war on terror isn't a real "war", and the Nazi example does really apply anyway

but what do you say to this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/



but i'm sure you will either not bother to read it, understand it or just ignore it and start another threadWell, so far I've read the quote you inserted into your thread, and would like to know what you think of there being possibly some non-terrorists, or enemy combatants in Gitmo. and maybe I might start another thread sometime.

yermom
4/29/2009, 07:54 PM
i've said many times that someone that is actually a terrorist should probably be shot.

the problem is that they were just picking up people in the area that were not even involved and just let them rot in Gitmo for years even when they knew about it.

that is my main issue with Gitmo, before you even get to torture

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/29/2009, 08:08 PM
i've said many times that someone that is actually a terrorist should probably be shot.

the problem is that they were just picking up people in the area that were not even involved and just let them rot in Gitmo for years even when they knew about it.

that is my main issue with Gitmo, before you even get to tortureYou don't expect me to be in favor of keeping truly innocent people under detention, I hope. Why have you pursued this angle?

yermom
4/29/2009, 08:43 PM
did you read the article?

theresonly1OU
4/29/2009, 09:03 PM
i've said many times that someone that is actually a terrorist should probably be shot.

But not tortured.

You've made that abundantly clear.

BudSooner
4/29/2009, 09:05 PM
You don't expect me to be in favor of keeping truly innocent people under detention, I hope. Why have you pursued this angle?
He forgot his compass? ;)

yermom
4/29/2009, 09:12 PM
You don't expect me to be in favor of keeping truly innocent people under detention, I hope. Why have you pursued this angle?

you seem to purport that when one talks about rights for people in Gitmo and closing the place down it is because they want terrorists to go free. why have you pursued that angle?

JLEW1818
4/29/2009, 10:23 PM
**** horns

Crucifax Autumn
4/29/2009, 11:19 PM
Is Stupid a race? If so I'm a racist from hell!

def_lazer_fc
4/30/2009, 12:11 AM
did you read the article?

getting rush to read something?! thats crazy talk!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/30/2009, 12:24 AM
you seem to purport that when one talks about rights for people in Gitmo and closing the place down it is because they want terrorists to go free. why have you pursued that angle?It's sort of the obvious problem-that of releasing terrorists. Why are you playing dumb?

def_lazer_fc
4/30/2009, 12:31 AM
It's sort of the obvious problem-that of releasing terrorists. Why are you playing dumb?

its sort of the obvious problem - that of jailing people indefinitely without bringing any charges forth. why are you playing dumb? you're willfull stupidity amazes me sometimes. :rolleyes:

Crucifax Autumn
4/30/2009, 12:39 AM
I say put 'em all on trial immediately. If they are terrorists lock 'em up permanently of kill 'em. If they aren't let 'em go and get busy catching the real ones and trying and killing them too.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/30/2009, 12:46 AM
I say PUT 'EM ALL ON TRIAL haha

Crucifax Autumn
4/30/2009, 01:06 AM
You know what I mean...Take care of it, avoid the moral argument, kill the actual terrorists, release the ones that are either incompetent or innocent, and move on to the ones we can continue to nail to the wall.

And **** off with the changing it to uppercase...I don't need any help pissing off the extremists on either side. I just want some balance in the policies and a way to use reason to put all this argumentative shat and the terrorists down. Killing everyone that doesn't live here and all the ones that do live here that are EITHER left of center or right of center is probably counterproductive.

Frozen Sooner
4/30/2009, 11:29 AM
The problem with killing everyone right of center is that it makes the center move further and further left. Sooner or later, you're left with KC//C minus an arm and a leg.

KC//CRIMSON
4/30/2009, 11:40 AM
My limbs!

JohnnyMack
4/30/2009, 07:28 PM
It's only a flesh wound!

OU_Sooners75
4/30/2009, 07:43 PM
What is wrong with Torture?

It isnt like we are making mass graves with these people.

If torture will save thousands of lives. I am all for it.

But if you must torture...just remember one thing:

When threatened with their lives, anyone will say anything. That includes saying something that you want to hear.

Most of these terrorists have no idea what is going inside Al Qaeda so why even bother?

Scott D
4/30/2009, 08:33 PM
Torture is reading threads like this.

StoopTroup
5/1/2009, 02:13 AM
yep.