BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Islamofascism's true colors

Not too long ago, the Israelis were in the process of a raid across the Gaza border. To kill civilians? To oppress the Palestinians? No. To keep the people of Israel safe from Islamic fascist scum. Terrorists. Now unfortunately there were civilian casualties, but in response came something much worse. Palestinian "militants" (aka Islamofascists) kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Then when the Israelis invaded for the sole purpose of getting back their soldier, two more are kidnapped. This just shows Islamofascism's true colors, and how vicious they are compared to their enemies.

As I have said before, knowing the "who" and the "what" are important, but it means nothing without the why. Why did the Israelis drop that bomb? They were trying to kill murderers who if left alone would kill Israelis until the day they died. Why did the Palestinians kidnap that Israeli soldier? Oppression? No. Greed? Yes. Don't get the two mixed up. I have said before that the Muslims have clear demands and they will not stop until they are met. They want Israel as their homeland, which means all Jews out, all Muslims in. They also want all of the terrorists held in Israeli prisons released. Every single one of those religious extremists; those brutal killers, released. Just listen to what Hamas' spokesman, Osama Hamdan had to say.

"We have proven to this enemy (Israel) that the one option is the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab captives. All captives, without exception,"

It's clear these scum have demands that Israel cannot meet, therefore, when I think realistically, as much as I hate to say it, I do not see peace as something the Jews and Muslims can share. These Muslims are still living in the dark ages, where all they know is violence, and they simply won't stop until they are killed. But what does that have to do with our war on terrorism? The Islamofascists in Palestine don't have many differences compared to the ones in the rest of the Middle East. You've heard about some of the horrible things they've done to Americans. Therefore my same point stands for them. Peace between us and them is not an option, their demands are too unrealistic, yet they won't stop until they are met.

Let me make it clear to you, I am sick of playing along in this PC warfare against Islam. I am sick of the double standards held by the people in our own country making it impossible to win a war. I'm sick of Liberals and their Democratic talking points about the war on terror. The Muslims had their preemptive strike on 9/11, and when we hit back in Iraq, and Afghanistan, there's no justification. Forget the fact that we don't target civilians like they do. The Geneva convention. When was the last time you saw Muslims complain that they were breaking it while they watched on Al-Jazeera as Americans got their heads sawed off!? And we're complaining about putting panties on the heads of terrorists! I am sick and tired of it, these guys are crazy! They don't follow international laws or treaties. They kill you for being an infidel, and they do not stop until they are killed themselves. Yet we just don't get it yet. God forbid we racially profile our enemies. Because not offending people is more important than saving lives. And God forbid we even say we're in war against Islam, or Islamofascism at least!

What has happened to us these days? They say, "but not all Muslims are terrorists."
True, but almost all terrorists just happen to be Muslim. With the exception of Mr. Bush of course, according to Harry Belefonte. Sorry, but in World War II, I imagine there were some Germans that weren't Nazi's, but that didn't hold us back from us fighting them. And guess what, we won! That's why we don't speak German right now. Unfortunately, if we don't get our act together, we will however be speaking Arabic.

You know what, maybe Palestine needs to be "wiped off the map". Give the innocent a solid month to escape then bomb the hell out of the place. Then while the bastards are on the run, pick off the terrorists. That is how you win a war. Not being PC, killing the enemy. I know I just pissed off every single Liberal on the planet right now, and I don't apologize for that. I know you want to tell me "well it only creates more terrorists,"
Bullcrap. Sitting in a country and neither killing them nor meeting their demands makes more terrorists. "So then we should meet their demands,"
Yeah, I know exactly what would make them happy, us; the infidels, all killing ourselves! That just might work. The only way to become safe from the raghead terrorists, is to kill them. Again, look at WWII. We try to isolate ourselves, we get attacked, we attack the enemy and and they stop. It does not make more enemies.

It seems that the only outrage from the left is things we supposedly do wrong, yet when a Muslim scumbag saws the head off one of our soldiers, they don't make one single fricken peep. Republicans, aren't as bad, but it's all politicized. "Look, Iraqi's are voting, now vote for me!" Politicians in general care more about themselves and their jobs than their country and it's safety. We need someone who does care more about this country, and truely understands the nature of Islam and the importance of our war against it. Someone who has the balls to fight this damn war! If they could find the right candidates, I would support Unity '08. Lieberman and Giuliani, I'd vote for them. They could fight a non-PC war. And they could lead us to victory.

I know what I have said in this post is going to piss a lot of people off and make many people look at me as a nutjob. And as an independent thinker, I truely hate to sound like an extremist, but what other options do we have? Just tell me. Look at history and you'll see what works when you're fighting a war. It's not isolationism, it's not negotiation, it is kicking the bad guy's ass! Wake up America, people want to kill you for not following their religion. And all you can do is complain about WMD's or a preemptive strike. Wake up. Look at reality. We can't lose this war on terrorism, on Islamic terrorism.

50 Comments:

  • At 12/7/06 11:14 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Two points that sort of reinforce what you're saying here.

    1.) The reason the Israelis cannot work with the Palestineins is because they keep making stupid demands. They're basically saying that they'll kill one person if they don't get all thier prisoners released. The Israelis can't do that! If these terrorist morons would get it into thier heads to at least try to be reasonable they might get the peace they claim to want.

    2.) The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. I've made this point many times. People want to hold terrorists by the Geneva Conventions (and in fact we do). But just because we can and do doesn't mean that we have to. The Geneva Conventions apply to the official armies of an organized country. Terrorists are not the official army of any country and therefore do not apply. It's not cruelty saying that people it's the law! And it hardly matters anyway because we are in fact following the conventions with regard to the terrorists.

     
  • At 12/7/06 11:19 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I'm at the point where I think we should be killing 20 Gitmo prisoners for every soldier killed in Iraq. I don't care what the left says, I don't care what France says. We can't fight this war and keep our hands clean. It may work against some enemies, but not ones that are as violent, and cruel as the Muslims.

     
  • At 12/7/06 11:21 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Can't kill em. They have information we need. We shouldn't squander our resources. Stop thinking like a berserker and start thinking like a soldier.

     
  • At 12/7/06 11:27 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Yeah, I'll give you that one. Though when I see terrorists not only murder, but torture and then cruely murder Americans and Israelis, we have to do something. Maybe not in Guantanamo, but something.

     
  • At 12/7/06 4:01 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    First of all, I am missing the part where the conflict between Isreal and Palestine is a "terrorist threat" to the United States. You went from talking about them, to talking about the war on terror, and I don't quite understand how that fits together.

    Dark, the prisoners at Gitmo, while they are being detained under the suspicion that they are terrorists, are not all terrorists. Most may be extremists, but that does not mean that they would inflict harm on the United States. (Some are even completely innocent, and some aren't even Muslim...hmm...)How would we react if another country detained American citizens (whether they were terrorists or not) and didn't offer them council or a fair trial to find them guilty of what they were accused? I am not saying that they deserve to be treated like kings, I'm saying that by operating the way we have been in Gitmo, we are showing the world that while we brag of the freedoms our country holds, we clearly contradict those ideals of peace and justice with our prisoners. We have seen in recent years that desperate times are being used as an excuse to violate those ideals and the powers granted to government officials, and ESPECIALLY you, as a proud American, should be outraged at that. We cannot just start killing these people off because WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. It is not the "politically correct" thing to do, it is the RIGHT thing to do.

    Also, not all terrorists are Muslim. That is such an ignorant statement. Just from recent news you should know that that isn't true. One of the largest atrocities in American history is the Oklahoma City bombing. Who did that? From what I recall, Timothy McVeigh was NOT Muslim. And he had that much hate just the same. Do you know any Muslims? I do. They don't hate America. They aren't terrorists. They don't want to kill anyone. Because a caucausian male killed hundreds of people in a bombing, would YOU like to be targeted every day of your life, as an American citizen? Would you be comfortable with being violated because of your race and/or gender? You may say that "if it protects your country, then yes," but there other countries that you could live in, other than the United States, that wouldn't subject you to that type of treatment. I can't imagine that any innocent AMERICAN CITIZEN wants to go through that, much less deserves to.

    I completely understand the threat that terrorism holds. These are dangerous, dangerous times. I am not at all saying that any of yuor anger isn't valid, because it is. But by simply getting revenge, who benefits? There will always be a bigger crime to admit, and more people to kill. The reason that the left focuses so much on the war is because it has divided our country, divided our world, and resulted in bigger problems than were ever anticipated. I would say that's worth taking about, and in a time when there seem to be no other answers, and when the government begins exercising powers it isn't supposed to have, thers is reason for concern and reason for conversation. You must remember that although liberals anger you, they are not the ones in office. They are not the ones making the top decisions. If you want things to go better, or are dissatisfied with how they have been going, it is not the fault of the liberals in the media, it is the fault of the politicians and officials in office. And most, these days,are Republicans.

     
  • At 12/7/06 4:29 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    allisoni said...
    "First of all, I am missing the part where the conflict between Isreal and Palestine is a "terrorist threat" to the United States. You went from talking about them, to talking about the war on terror, and I don't quite understand how that fits together."

    How about the fact that they are all Islamofascists who want the same things? This post is meant to be about all terrorists, and all countries getting attacked by them. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough.

    "(Some are even completely innocent, and some aren't even Muslim...hmm...)"

    Where did you find that one? The detainees in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan. A Muslim country.

    "Also, not all terrorists are Muslim."

    Oh, you're right, I forgot to include ELF. The Liberal Hippy extremist group. I almost forgot...

    "Do you know any Muslims? I do. They don't hate America. They aren't terrorists. They don't want to kill anyone."

    Some people don't get too caught up in the phoney religion so they don't hold extreme thoughts. Listen, I'm pretty sure I made it clear that we were in a war against Islam, not Muslims. The religion itself corrupts good people. Every religion had a time where it promoted violence, and then the people reformed. Not the case for Islam. And I don't think it ever could change.

    "would YOU like to be targeted every day of your life, as an American citizen?"

    Oh, the enjoyment would have no end. If the Muslims don't want to be targeted then guess what, they need to prove to the American people that good Muslims do exist and they don't condone what the terrorists are doing. Until then, it's a war against Islam. If the moderates can speak out, and the religion starts to reform, then it becomes a war on Islamofascism.

    "The reason that the left focuses so much on the war is because it has divided our country, divided our world, and resulted in bigger problems than were ever anticipated."

    Don't you mean our country is divided because of the left?

    "it is the fault of the politicians and officials in office. And most, these days,are Republicans."

    You're right there. The Republicans aren't satisfying me either. In fact if you've been reading my blog, they have drivin me from the party because they are so off and now I just call myself a neolibertarian. I think the best chance at winning the war on terror will come from someone outside of the Democratic or Republican party.

     
  • At 12/7/06 4:35 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I just read through my post again, and I did not once say all Muslims are terrorists. Because I describe the terrorists by what they are; Muslims, does not mean I think they are all bad. Though I will admit I hate the religion itself, and I think the whole thing is bullcrap. But before you get on my case, I'm an Agnostic so I think that about most religions.

     
  • At 12/7/06 11:16 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    First of all, I am missing the part where the conflict between Isreal and Palestine is a "terrorist threat" to the United States. You went from talking about them, to talking about the war on terror, and I don't quite understand how that fits together.

    Okay, its not that complicated, but it can be kind of confusing for those who haven't studied Israel's history. In short Israel was created in 1948 by the UN for the Jews. It was placed in the Middle East. Quickly it became sort of a target for terrorists. This led to strong connections between the United States and Israel, as well as groundbreaking weapons and security advancements invented by Israelis trying to stay ahead of the terrorists. Not to mention the Israeli spy network. This triangle of weapons, security and spying has become the United States' de facto force in the US when we can't always do things quickly. In return we provide the Israelis with money to finance these advancements. That is why what happens is Israel connects to what could happen or what might be prevented in the US.

    Dark, the prisoners at Gitmo, while they are being detained under the suspicion that they are terrorists, are not all terrorists. Most may be extremists, but that does not mean that they would inflict harm on the United States. (Some are even completely innocent, and some aren't even Muslim...hmm...)

    Okay first I resent the implication that it would make a difference to me if a terrorist was a Muslim. Second of all since you want to be precise and play sementics, fine they're SUSPECTED terrorists. Happy now?

    How would we react if another country detained American citizens (whether they were terrorists or not) and didn't offer them council or a fair trial to find them guilty of what they were accused?

    We do give them fair trials. They're just tribunal because they're not US citizens. It's the basic law of any country. And if a US citizen was a terrorist then he deserves just like all terrorists, not to be treated according to the Geneva conventions because he was not acting on US Army orders.

    I'm saying that by operating the way we have been in Gitmo, we are showing the world that while we brag of the freedoms our country holds, we clearly contradict those ideals of peace and justice with our prisoners.

    I'm sick of explaining how Gitmo is nicer than most US prisons. Please see my various posts on this.

    We cannot just start killing these people off because WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. It is not the "politically correct" thing to do, it is the RIGHT thing to do.

    I beleive I clearly said not to kill them. Did you actually read my comment or just assume I agreed with Cody?

    Also, not all terrorists are Muslim. That is such an ignorant statement.

    Neither Cody nor I ever said that. Do you read this or just summarize them and guess what we said?

    I can't imagine that any innocent AMERICAN CITIZEN wants to go through that, much less deserves to.


    Hey, if they're American citizens they're generally not targeted. It's Middle Easterners with links to terrorist groups we target. In fact it is illegal to target US citizens. Please stop making assumptions about our government when you don't even know its laws.

    The reason that the left focuses so much on the war is because it has divided our country, divided our world

    It has? Really? So why then are there currently 70 countries supporting it? Geez. Do you even check up on these facts or what? I've seen nothing but assumptions here.

    Oh, the enjoyment would have no end. If the Muslims don't want to be targeted then guess what, they need to prove to the American people that good Muslims do exist and they don't condone what the terrorists are doing.

    Forget it Cody, to liberals it's always America's fault first, not Muslim terrorists.

     
  • At 13/7/06 2:35 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    "True, but almost all terrorists just happen to be Muslim."

    Yes, Cody's words. "Almost all" is pretty close to "all." Especially if you feel they should be racially profiled.

    Also, they are NOT all from Afghanistan. I mis-spoke in saying that they are not all Muslim--they are all of Muslim decent but not all currently residing in or even citizens of a Muslim country (such as the UK and Australia).


    Why should any Muslims have to prove themselves? What about being innocent until proven guilty? Why must we be suspicious of them if there is no evidence that they are all harmful to us?

    Even if 70 countries do support the war, there are 193 countries in the world. 70 is BY far less than half. Nice try, though.

    I said nothing about America being at fault rather than terrorists. But do you have any idea how much of the Islamic population is counted as extreme? Nearly 1 in 5 people in the world are Islamic--and there are are more than 299,000,000 people in the world. I would say a very SLIGHT minority is of the extremist mindset that you speak of. You don't seem to believe that us assuming they are terrorists or supporting of Islamic terrorism CREATES anger and even more terrorism, but if you put yourself in those shoes I can't imagine you would react any differently.

    Do either of you plan to enlist when you turn 18?

     
  • At 13/7/06 9:50 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "I beleive I clearly said not to kill them. Did you actually read my comment or just assume I agreed with Cody?"

    I took that comment back if you remember.

    allisoni said...
    "Do either of you plan to enlist when you turn 18?"

    Oh, how I love these questions. Why can't I support a war and not enlist? I'm just not the fighting type. I could never hurt someone, no matter who they are. I'm just not that kind of person. But because I support the war I do what I can. I try to get the truth out to the people. It's bloggers like me and Robby who are fighting here, fighting lies about the war so people understand its purpose and importance.

    allisoni said...
    "You don't seem to believe that us assuming they are terrorists or supporting of Islamic terrorism CREATES anger and even more terrorism"

    What are you implying? That every time I'm in a taxi cab with an Arab I scream out terrorist? Please. When I use the word Muslim, I am referring to the terrorists. Which is why I say "these" Muslims, instead of "all" Muslims. I know it's not PC, we're supposed to be calling them "militants" now. Not me.

     
  • At 13/7/06 10:42 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Yes, Cody's words. "Almost all" is pretty close to "all." Especially if you feel they should be racially profiled.

    How come allosoni you are among the most wounded when someone takes your words and interprets them wrong, yet you can just asssume that "almost all" means "all"? The fact is that he did NOT say all, and you cannot find where he did. And so what if he did say that almost all terrorists were Muslim? The majority are! Wake up! This is not a game, this is real life! There haven't been many Christain terrorists, a few I'll grant but not many. The majority of terrorists in this day and age ARE Muslim. You cannot erase history with political correctness.

    Also, they are NOT all from Afghanistan. I mis-spoke in saying that they are not all Muslim--they are all of Muslim decent but not all currently residing in or even citizens of a Muslim country (such as the UK and Australia).

    Hey you're right. They're NOT all Afghani. Some are Iraqi! Imagine that. Yet you did not think going to war with Iraq was a good idea. You thought there were no ties. C'mon allosoni, you're smarter than this, be consistant.

    Why must we be suspicious of them if there is no evidence that they are all harmful to us?


    Um are you serious? Are you truely serious about there being no evidence that they are harmful to us? Please look around you. No not all are, but a great many are. What about the US Muslim driving a Jeep into a bunch of students a while back? What about Danish Muslims rioting over a cartoon? C'mon now. No evidence? Be realistic. You can't let political correctness cloud history. You can't erase what happened just because it sounds bigoted.

    Even if 70 countries do support the war, there are 193 countries in the world. 70 is BY far less than half. Nice try, though.

    Um excuse me but, 70 countries is the single biggest coalition of forces in any war in history. Clearly you don't know much about military history at all. You're trying to base a history statistic on a FRACTION? Psh. Nice try though.

    This part's funny by the way:

    I said nothing about America being at fault rather than terrorists.

    Then later...

    You don't seem to believe that us assuming they are terrorists or supporting of Islamic terrorism CREATES anger and even more terrorism,

    Oops, you just squarley laid the blame with the people of the US, except yourself of course. Contridicting yourself again.

    Do either of you plan to enlist when you turn 18?

    I've thought about it but I doubt it. Nor do I see why it matters or is relevant or any of your damn bussiness. This notion that I can't support the war without enlisting is bull I've had to listen to for three years. If that's true then why aren't you out prostesting allosoni?! Go protest! After all your can't be anti-war without protesting! We all have a job to do allosoni. A soldier's is to fight. A pro-war supporter's is to write and support and an anti-war person's is to get the hell out of the way and let us do our jobs.

    I took that comment back if you remember.


    I know, I know. I'm just saying that she can't say that we want them dead. If she can she obviously didn't read the comments.

    I could never hurt someone, no matter who they are. I'm just not that kind of person.

    Oh I could I think. However I think that I would be more effective writing pro-war books and things like that to help out the guys over there. This arguement that I have to be a soldier to be pro-war is so stupid. We all have our jobs allosoni. If I enlist, which I probably won't, it will be as an officer, because my job is as a thinker, not a fighter. Most likely I will write, because my job is also that of a propagandist. Why can't you understand that concept?

     
  • At 13/7/06 3:00 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    "Hey you're right. They're NOT all Afghani. Some are Iraqi! Imagine that. Yet you did not think going to war with Iraq was a good idea. You thought there were no ties. C'mon allosoni, you're smarter than this, be consistant."

    First of all, I was responding to Cody's statement that "the detainees in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan. A Muslim country." So your retaliation was not very well founded. Second, I was not trying to prove anything besides the fact that his statement was incorrect. I'm not quite sure where you tried to go with that.

    I'm glad that you referred to yourself as a propogandist, as this is my favorite definition of propoganda: "A way of presenting a belief that seeks to generate acceptance without regard to facts or the right of others to be heard. Propaganda often presents the same argument repeatedly, in the simplest terms and ignores all rebuttal or counter-argument." How very accurate.

    Did you catch my fact about the sheer number of Islamic people in the world? I think it is so very silly that you still think we have no reason to believe that they don't all want to harm us. Although, that definition I just listed explains that.

    Lastly, I was simply just wondering if either you planned to enlist. You seem passionate about eliminating the threat of terrorism, especially in this post COdy, so I was curious. And Dark, if you thought it was "none of my damn business," you sure took a big paragraph to explain it.

     
  • At 13/7/06 4:12 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    First of all, I was responding to Cody's statement that "the detainees in Guantanamo are from Afghanistan. A Muslim country." So your retaliation was not very well founded.

    It wasn't? And where do you think those Afghanis were captured? You don't think the fact that Afghanis were captured in Iraq is relevant?

    I'm glad that you referred to yourself as a propogandist, as this is my favorite definition of propoganda: "A way of presenting a belief that seeks to generate acceptance without regard to facts or the right of others to be heard.

    May be your favorite but it ain't the only one. I prefer this one: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

    It's pretty sad that you have to use a definition other than the one you knew I was using to prove your point. But hey, blowing smoke and telling only half the story is the liberal way isn't it? Yes I'm a propagandist. I write propaganda for a cause. It's a good cause. Nowhere in the above definition does it say that the propagandist doesn't listen to opponents' views, nor does it say that the cause has to be a bad one. You might want to make sure that your definition is the only one next time you try to pull a trick like that.

    Did you catch my fact about the sheer number of Islamic people in the world? I think it is so very silly that you still think we have no reason to believe that they don't all want to harm us

    I never said all. You keep maintaining that I said all in a desperate attempt to make me seem like a bigot. Nowhere did I say all.

    And Dark, if you thought it was "none of my damn business," you sure took a big paragraph to explain it.

    So what? Just because I permit you to know something that isn't your business means that it automatically is? I could have not told you anything, but I decided to explain myself so you'd understand. By playing semantics with me every time you comment you accomplish nothing but making yourself seem like a smarmy and arrogant little ingrate.

     
  • At 13/7/06 4:35 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    A "smarmy and arrogant little ingrate." NICE.

    "No evidence? Be realistic. You can't let political correctness cloud history."

    You are saying that I am ignoring some type of evidence that we should be suspicious of all Muslims (which would be called racial profiling) because there is this evidence that Muslims are terrorists. I don't think I am the one misinterpreting things, here. That's what you said. My argument is that the group you are focusing on is extremely minute in comparison to the number of people that makes up Islamic culture. In case you missed it.

    Also, I didn't say that was the only definition, I said it was my favorite one. Historically, think WWII, what is propaganda used for? Lies. Of course. You are the history buff here, aren't you?

     
  • At 13/7/06 7:02 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    A "smarmy and arrogant little ingrate." NICE.

    Hey, just telling you what it looks like when you play around with words for little or no reason.

    You are saying that I am ignoring some type of evidence that we should be suspicious of all Muslims (which would be called racial profiling) because there is this evidence that Muslims are terrorists.

    Errr... yeah. See it's sort of a waste of time to randomly check white Christian Americans. I'm not saying to assume that all Muslims are terrorists. I'm just saying that we should be careful of suspicious looking Arabs. Racial profiling is unfortunate but it is also necessary. What you're basically saying is that you'd rather risk another 9/11 rather than offend a Muslim?

    Also, I didn't say that was the only definition, I said it was my favorite one. Historically, think WWII, what is propaganda used for? Lies. Of course. You are the history buff here, aren't you?


    Yep. Which is why I study WWII Allied propaganda as well. Or did you think only the Axis did propaganda? Are you saying that we were lying with OUR propaganda in WWI? You're supposed to be the open-minded liberal. Didn't you see that ANY side good or evil can use propaganda? And are you saying that if the US makes propaganda it's evil?

     
  • At 13/7/06 7:14 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    The only word of that insult that would make sense in the context is arrogant. Thus, no offense taken, don't worry.

    You have WAY confused yourself on the "all Muslims are terrorists" argument. Maybe go back and read through the comments again.

    Again, that's my favorite definition, and I have no problem applying it to you.

     
  • At 13/7/06 10:17 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Nothing in the above really has any arguement. It's all denials and snide remarks. Which is fine with me, go ahead and make yourself look bad.

     
  • At 14/7/06 12:17 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    You can give up, it's ok.

     
  • At 14/7/06 10:16 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Wow, last time I heard that used as an arguement was on the playground.

     
  • At 14/7/06 1:38 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    It wasn't an argument...Just a statement.

     
  • At 14/7/06 4:35 PM, Blogger Mary Ann said…

    You're exactly right - we can't afford to lose the war on terrorism.

    As for Israel, I am in total support of what they're doing. They're a tiny flicker of democracy over there, and America is just about their only ally in the world.

     
  • At 14/7/06 9:26 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    allisoni said...
    "You can give up, it's ok."

    So does that mean there isn't anything left for you to debate now so you want to pretend you "won"? Come on. We all know that people don't win debates, especially in the blogosphere. People just go back and forth until the writer has a new post up. I thought you had figured that one out by now.

     
  • At 14/7/06 11:23 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I presented debatable things, and Dark ignored them and said I didn't present any new arguments. So clearly he gave up on the debate.

     
  • At 14/7/06 11:42 PM, Blogger John The Patriot said…

    Allison,
    I'm interested to know how you can make the statement that some of the Gitmo detainees are innocent. Can you provide proof they have not been involved with terrorist activity?

    I think you've been putting too much stock into what the main stream media reports. The people at Gitmo are there for a reason. If you have a SHRED of proof that they are being detained without cause, please produce it now

     
  • At 15/7/06 2:01 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    http://www.watsoninstitute.org/events_detail.cfm?id=750

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602390.html

    http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/06/note_see_the_pr.html

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html


    These aren't very mainstream...

     
  • At 15/7/06 4:22 AM, Blogger John The Patriot said…

    Allison,
    Three lawyers representing detainees and one actual detainee? That's who claim the prisoners are innocent?

    And you're willing to accept their word over the Pentagon...YOUR America military who said this:
    "The US has no interest in detaining anyone any longer than necessary,"

    Precisely. If they are still there, there is a reason for it. Yet, you have this notion to think the absolute worse about your country.

    You believe what you want. Personally, I'm not putting any stock into what the lawyers and the detainees say.

     
  • At 15/7/06 10:57 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I think that's a good question that should be posed. Allsoni, who do you trust more? The US military or the terrorists. I thik the answer should be very interesting. Usually from people who don't like Gitmo the answer is vague and long but says nothing.

    Oh and for the record as to who "won" or "lost" a debate, I don't really give a rat's.

     
  • At 15/7/06 4:38 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    1. I didn't say a word about winning or losing. That was Cody. I said you gave up, I didn't say that I won or that you lost.

    2. My original point about detainees being innocent is not that they all are, but that there are a few who are. Even though the military doesn't want them there longer than they have to be, it still seems to be a lengthy process to release them. I also made no ponit about them being mistreated, etc., just that not all were harmful.

    3. No, I do not trust the terrorists more. But yes, I do feel that every American citizen has the right to question their government. Do we not have that right? What is "un-American" about trying to improve the country that you live in? I do not know what happens each day at Gitmo. Neither do you. While I disagree with what presumably goes on, that says nothing about me "trusting" a terrorist more than the U.S. However, in a time of war, even you would be ignorant to believe that everything said by government officials is true, or even a version of the truth. Just because "your party" is in office does not mean that you know some truth that I do not. We are all told the same thing--our opinions are based on how we feel about what is told to us and what we perceive as right and wrong. We know the same things about Gitmo--I believe it's wrong, but you disagree. My feelings are this; We can't expect the world to uphold our standards if we can't even do it ourselves.

    And don't you dare call that "vague and not saying anything," because it's all very valid.

     
  • At 17/7/06 9:09 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    1. I didn't say a word about winning or losing. That was Cody. I said you gave up, I didn't say that I won or that you lost.


    Allosoni, this childish wordplay is getting us nowhere. We all know what you meant. Cut the sementics crap. You pull this every single comment.

    My original point about detainees being innocent is not that they all are, but that there are a few who are.

    How is this different from any US prison? How is this different from ANY prison. Yet you only argue that some people are innocent when they come from other countries and it is beneficial to your political point to defend them. If you really cared about the imprisioned innocent why don't you check out some US prisioners istead of suspected terrorists? It's funny you said your favorite defenition of propaganda was a negative one, because only talking about innocent Gitmo detainees is propaganda of the highest form.

    Even though the military doesn't want them there longer than they have to be, it still seems to be a lengthy process to release them.

    Again, please do stop talking about things you don't know about. Lengthy process? Have you ever tracked a United States trial? Let's compare here.

    Guantanamo: One trial per year for every prisoner, no questions asked.

    United States Federal System: Idicment, followed by about three months for jury monitering, preperation of cases etc by the state. Then the trial itself, which takes several days, sometimes weeks in more sensational trials. Then if guilty, there's sentencing which takes a few days, then you have about 1-5 years till appeal. You really think that the US system is faster than Gitmo? But again, where were you when the US system needed to be totally redone and made faster so that any innocent Americans could get appeals faster? You didn't talk about them because it doesn't help you politically.

    But yes, I do feel that every American citizen has the right to question their government. Do we not have that right? What is "un-American" about trying to improve the country that you live in?

    Yes questioning the government is fine, but you question soldiers? That is unAmerican. And you say we should improve the country, yet again you only to "improve" it by improving Gitmo (which would be pretty hard to improve anyway, at least not the way you mean). You don't care about improvements withen your own federal system. Why? Because it's not to your political gain.

    I do not know what happens each day at Gitmo. Neither do you.

    I can take a pretty good guess. It's taking the terrorists' word for it and the lawyers' word for it or the soldiers' word for it. I know which ones I trust.

    While I disagree with what presumably goes on, that says nothing about me "trusting" a terrorist more than the U.S.

    Actually it rather does. You beleive the stories that the terrorists tell and not the ones the soldiers tell. That's about all there is that needs saying.

    However, in a time of war, even you would be ignorant to believe that everything said by government officials is true, or even a version of the truth.

    Again, I don't trust the government, but when several US soldiers tell the same story I tend to believe them.

     
  • At 17/7/06 10:50 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    allisoni said...
    "Just because "your party" is in office does not mean that you know some truth that I do not."

    Now that's just being ignorant. How many times do I have to make it clear that I am not a party-line Republican, that I am a political independent and a neolibertarian? Besides, you've got it mixed up. I do not put endless trust in the Republican party, I put it in the US military. The people who are running Guantanamo.

     
  • At 18/7/06 1:14 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    1. Cody--I have been responding now mostly to Dark. That comment was not directed at you.

    2. I was not trying to argue anything about US prisons or prisoners. I was making a statement about how American prisons treat foreigners, and how US citizens would feel if other countries did that to us. It is not logical to compare US prisoners in US prisons to foreign prisoners in a "secret" detention center during war time. They are not formed or operated with the same intentions, and not until recently were the prisoners at Gitmo even given the right to be treated humanely. Americans that are in the prison system have at least been charged of a crime--proven guilty. Those situations are not the same.

    Of course soldiers say that they don't abuse the prisoners. How often do you do something horribly wrong and then admit it? To an entire country, none the less? I'm not saying that the soldiers are lying, but I'm saying that NO ONE, in reality, can be trusted. It is something to be very skeptical of, no matter where the information is coming from. You can call me unAmerican, but frankly I don't care. I think that questioning the decisions my country makes is really quite American, and I know that soliders are humans too who make mistakes and have the same capacity to lie as you or I do. I think it is unAmerican to blindly accept facts that you know nothing about, even if a soldier says it. Yes, they are fighting for our country, but no, they are not untouchable. Once again, call me unAmerican, but I could go on for days in defense.

     
  • At 18/7/06 10:25 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I was not trying to argue anything about US prisons or prisoners. I was making a statement about how American prisons treat foreigners,

    Okay so basically you're saying that you think US citizens should be treated worse in their own jails than foreigners in our jails? That's very bigoted.

    and how US citizens would feel if other countries did that to us.

    You're joking right? I don't really have the time or patience to list atrocities done to US soldiers by other countries while in prison. Look it up if you want.

    It is not logical to compare US prisoners in US prisons to foreign prisoners in a "secret" detention center during war time.

    Secret? The Red Cross has 24 hour access to everywhere in that camp, what do you mean secret? You can go down there if you want. There's paperwork involved but you can still do it.

    They are not formed or operated with the same intentions, and not until recently were the prisoners at Gitmo even given the right to be treated humanely.

    Why is it that no matter what I say they always brush it aside? I do not have the patience to tell you how nice Gitmo is for the millionth time. Go to my blog and look up some posts on Gitmo ok? I'm sick of telling deaf liberals how nice it is.

    Americans that are in the prison system have at least been charged of a crime--proven guilty. Those situations are not the same.


    Oh yes they are. Tons of people are in jail without being proven guilty. It happens all the time, especially with people who can't afford bail. Do you in fact know how the system works?

    Of course soldiers say that they don't abuse the prisoners. How often do you do something horribly wrong and then admit it?

    Uh, in case you haven't noticed, there's more than one soldier there. Soldiers would report these things to their superiors. Unless you're suggesting that every single soldier there is abusive (which is really nice of you by the way) that argument holds no water.

    I'm not saying that the soldiers are lying, but I'm saying that NO ONE, in reality, can be trusted.

    Paranoia, the founding principle of the Democratic Party. If you're saying no one can be trusted, then you are in fact accusing the soldiers of lying. Have the spine to back up your argument please.

    I think that questioning the decisions my country makes is really quite American, and I know that soldiers are humans too who make mistakes and have the same capacity to lie as you or I do.

    I'm not sure how distrusting your military veterans is American but whatever. And I'm not really sure that you know how the army works. What you're suggesting is that all soldiers are liars OR that they're all so stupid that they haven't realized that the liars are lying and none of them have witnessed abuse, even though the ACLU apparently has after less time spent there than them. So which are are soldiers to you? Liars or morons?

    Oh and has it occurred to you that the terrorists and ACLU lawyers might be lying, and not the soldiers?

    I think it is unAmerican to blindly accept facts that you know nothing about, even if a soldier says it.

    You mean like you blindly accept "facts" from the terrorist's lawyers? Again, it’s a question of where your trust lies. Do you believe the soldiers or the terrorists more?

    Yes, they are fighting for our country, but no, they are not untouchable.

    They're a damn sight better disciplined and honest then most people, especially lawyers and terrorists. This is a question I really haven't seen answered yet. Who do you trust more, soldiers or terrorists? The closest you've gotten is saying I trust nobody," and if that's true then you should not trust the lawyers either and therefore have no valid argument against Gitmo.

    Cody: I'll be away about a week from Saturday on, so I won't be able to comment or anything. Just so you know.

     
  • At 18/7/06 6:26 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    We've had this conversation before, but calling me a bigot made not a bit of sense in that first response. Maybe look it up. Again.

    And how did the US government respond to these atrocities commited against it's soldiers? That's the point I'm trying to make, thanks for backing it up.

    Gitmo is not NICE. It's not. Don't waste your time saying that again. Do you ignore the pictures that show things you don't agree with ? Do you know that prisoners commit suicide? It is NOT "nice."

    People maybe be in jail without being proven guilty, but prison is a much bigger deal. I didn't say anything about jail, I was talking about prisons. Even if someone in a prison is innocent, they have still undergone a trial and been proven guilty by a fault. They are stil in prison because they went through a trial and were sentenced to time there. I have studied the prison system, just so you're aware.

    I am done talking about "who I trust more." I trust the American side more, but still know that our soldiers HAVE lied and HAVE been convicted of abuse. That has happened, remember? Or didn't they show that on FOX News? Not all of them, I never said that, but there are some that have and there are more now being suspected. I was not blindly accepting anything, I was asked to show evidence that there are innocent people at Gitmo, and all of those links said that there are. Not that they are being abused or treated badly, but that they are in "limbo"--innocent people in a prison, waiting for somewhere to go. THat is the ONLY reason I sited those sources, simply to prove the very small point that I was questioned on. If you want to try to make me look bad by continuing this further, go ahead, but that's my explanation and if you can't figure that out then you're outta luck.

     
  • At 18/7/06 7:28 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    We've had this conversation before, but calling me a bigot made not a bit of sense in that first response. Maybe look it up. Again.


    The word games again, but ok I'll explain for you how what I said does in fact make sense. The defenition of bigot is: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Because of your partiality to your liberal views you see the minority (in this case the Gitmo prisoners) as deserving better than the majority (US prisoners). Therefore you are a bigot.

    And how did the US government respond to these atrocities commited against it's soldiers? That's the point I'm trying to make, thanks for backing it up.


    What? Your point was "how would you like it if Americans were treated badly?" I pointed out that they are, contradicting you. How does that back up your point?

    Gitmo is not NICE. It's not. Don't waste your time saying that again. Do you ignore the pictures that show things you don't agree with ? Do you know that prisoners commit suicide? It is NOT "nice."

    What pictures? You mean the ones from Abu Ghraib a completely different prison? Oh and by the way about the suicides, did you know that the Muslims there proclaimed that three of them had to commit suicide to close Guantanamo? They're trying to trick you into closing it, and you are falling for it you gullible sap.

    Even if someone in a prison is innocent, they have still undergone a trial and been proven guilty by a fault.

    No they have not. Before a trial you are put in jail if accused of a crime, innocent or guilty.

    I have studied the prison system, just so you're aware.


    Obviously not enough if you don't know what happens when you can't get bail.

    I trust the American side more,

    Really? And yet you believe the terrorists stories?

    but still know that our soldiers HAVE lied and HAVE been convicted of abuse. That has happened, remember?

    Yeah, and I know that terrorists HAVE blown up building and HAVE crashed planes into them. That has happened remember? According to your argument we should not trust the soldiers because some have done bad things, but we should trust the terrorists, even though they did things that were much worse. That's totally inconsistent.

    they are in "limbo"--innocent people in a prison, waiting for somewhere to go.

    Again, how is this different from US prisons where if you are accused you spend time before your trial in jail? Does that mean we should close US jails too?

     
  • At 19/7/06 12:42 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    JAIL is different than PRISON. None of your arguments are valid because you are failing to see the difference. Read over my comment again if you'd like to comment something that makes sense.

     
  • At 19/7/06 9:54 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "did you know that the Muslims there proclaimed that three of them had to commit suicide to close Guantanamo? They're trying to trick you into closing it, and you are falling for it you gullible sap."

    hmm, that does ring a bell. Oh, Yeah! I brought that up in an earlier blog post and the point was ignored quite well.

    allisoni spewed... ahem, said...
    "but still know that our soldiers HAVE lied and HAVE been convicted of abuse."

    So you're against the war, you think our soldiers are liars and abusers, but you still claim you support the troops? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Liberals are so funny. Join me in a laugh Robby.

    "Gitmo is not NICE. It's not. Don't waste your time saying that again. Do you ignore the pictures that show things you don't agree with ? Do you know that prisoners commit suicide? It is NOT "nice.""

    Do you ignore the fact that those pictures are of camp x-ray, a prison camp that was open for a matter of months right after 9/11? And then closed so they could open nicer prisons? Don't lecture me about being one sided about getting news. I watch all of the news stations, I read internet news from both sides, and listen to radio shows from both sides, then I pick out what i think is right. You on the other hand stick to the democratic underground type websites where they brainwash you and yes, make you a bigot.

     
  • At 19/7/06 9:58 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    oh and Robby, there are a few things I have to talk to you about including the finalizing of our script before I can go any further in the animation process. If you could get on AIM some time this week that would be nice. You did say it was next week you'd be gone right?

     
  • At 19/7/06 11:38 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    JAIL is different than PRISON. None of your arguments are valid because you are failing to see the difference. Read over my comment again if you'd like to comment something that makes sense.


    Okay, so your arguement now consists of word games (again) and declaring that my entire comment was invalid. Uh...no. No, I don't think I'm going to redo my entire comment just because you didn't like it. If you want to continue this debate then you are going to have to respond to points withen my comment rather than declare the entire thing invalid. This isn't school allosoni, and you're not a teacher. You can't make me redo an entire comment based on the fact that you didn't like it. If you want to specify something that made it bad then fine, but just playing word games and declaring it invalid? No. Nice try, but if you want to debate you have to work at it, not just ignore an entire point.

     
  • At 19/7/06 12:21 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    But jail and prison are not the same thing, and I wasn't talking about jail. It's not a word game, you just don't get it.

     
  • At 19/7/06 12:41 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I am using the terms interchangeably. It may not be correct. Get over it. Grammatics are not valid arguments for a political debate. And whether or not Guantanamo and US prisons are the same is also irrelevant. My point is that the terrorists are treated better than US prisoners and that if you really think that what's going on in Gitmo is torture than maybe you should advocate for US prisons closing.

     
  • At 19/7/06 3:42 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    US prisoners, for the most part, are not interrogated and do not undergo the interrogation techniques used mbe the military, as the military does not run them. There is a big difference.

    The words mean different things. You cannot use them to mean the same thing.

     
  • At 19/7/06 4:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    US prisoners, for the most part, are not interrogated and do not undergo the interrogation techniques used mbe the military, as the military does not run them. There is a big difference.

    You're right. Interrogations for US Prisoners are much much worse. See Gitmo interrogations feature couches, large-screen televisions for when the suspect is waiting, and a variety of snacks. There is a panic button, which has been used only once, and not by the suspect, in case things go wrong, and all interrogations are monitored via camera. You won't find those things in US interrogation rooms. So thanks for pointing that out.

    The words mean different things. You cannot use them to mean the same thing.

    Actually I can. I may not be right in doing so but I can certainly do it if I want. You may as well accept that I might use the terms interchangeably by mistake sometimes. As I said before, get over it.

     
  • At 19/7/06 4:41 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Why should I accept the fact that you repeatedly say wrong things and try to use them against me? I won't get over it, you should get used to the fact that you were wrong.

    Show me the evidence you have of these luxurious conditions. Please.

     
  • At 19/7/06 5:44 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Why should I accept the fact that you repeatedly say wrong things and try to use them against me? I won't get over it, you should get used to the fact that you were wrong.


    I already said I was wrong, but I also said that I don't really care. Can we drop this particular arguement? It's really stupid. And it's pretty childish of you have to keep bringing it up.

    Show me the evidence you have of these luxurious conditions. Please.

    I wrote a thing on it a while back. Here.

     
  • At 19/7/06 6:15 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    So if you believe that TERRORISTS, heaven forbid, live in such posh conditions at the expense of the U.S., then why would you support it? I find this so contradictory.

     
  • At 19/7/06 7:53 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 19/7/06 7:54 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 19/7/06 7:55 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    So if you believe that TERRORISTS, heaven forbid, live in such posh conditions at the expense of the U.S., then why would you support it? I find this so contradictory.

    Please point out where I said I supported it. I simply said that we were not torturing people. The simple absence of the negative does not necessarily describe the positive. However I am glad you finally realize we're not torturing anyone. That misconception is too widely held.

     
  • At 19/7/06 8:13 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I didn't say we weren't torturing anyone. I still think we are. But I don't understand why you are so set on defending it if they are being so lax. While I don't think they should be tortured, they also shouldn't be living in luxury. I don't think that's the case, either, but if you think it's true I'm wondering why you defend it.

     
  • At 19/7/06 8:24 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I didn't say we weren't torturing anyone. I still think we are. But I don't understand why you are so set on defending it if they are being so lax. While I don't think they should be tortured, they also shouldn't be living in luxury. I don't think that's the case, either, but if you think it's true I'm wondering why you defend it.

    It's simple. I am defending Guantanamo from accusations of torture, not from criticism saying that it's too nice.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home