Gitmo Detainees to Get Welfare Checks!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Anyway, on topic, the people responsible for 911 had nothing to do with the people in Pakistan.

Nope, and they had nothing to do with the people of Iraq, or the people of Afghanistan. They are a terrorist group, they have cells all over the world. The leadership of the particular group responsible for 9/11, are hold up in caves located in northern Pakistan. Many in the surrounding villages, are indeed sympathetic to their cause, and no one in Pakistan is crazy hot on America or American culture.

Quote:
Let me tell you something, you stupid fucktard... if we do not stand up and defeat radical Islamic fascism, we will lose entire GENERATIONS of Americans in the coming years. Again, as Damo so eloquently pointed out, ignoring the problem and pretending it would all go away if we just stayed out of it, clearly didn't work.

Stayed out of it? What the hell are you talking about? We've been "in it" since the end of the Second World War! Interfering, influencing, covert deals......what planet do you live on? That's why I previously asked how old you were.

We've gone from lurking in the shadows and making deals with tyrants (our type of tyrants, of course, like Saddam) to openly interfering in countries. The people in those countries have finally realized their dispute is not with their neighbor. It is with a foreign power.

You have failed to name ANY example of the United States establishing laws or appointing leaders to ANY country in the world. To my knowledge, the ONLY countries we've had a damn thing to say anything about, are Puerto Rico and Guam. Yes, just like every country, we have "backed" certain people, we have "supported" certain factions. As the #1 Superpower, and leader of the free world, we can't help but have influence.

You have bought in to the "complaint" made by the radical Islamics! This is the means in which they brainwash poor uneducated Muslim people, into supporting their insanity, and here you are, spouting it as reasonable justification for why we shouldn't fight them! The part you seem to keep missing is, we didn't declare war on them, it was the other way around. There is no justification for their war, or what they did on 9/11.

Quote:
Just as, ignoring Hitler and pretending that we could negotiate with him and coexist with Nazism... did NOT work! In retrospect, had we taken a bold and unpopular stand against Hitler in 1937, we may have saved hundreds of thousands who had to die fighting the Germans to liberate Europe. The fact that we used your exact same approach then, and it resulted in enormous casualties, is evidence that ignoring the problem, pretending it's not a big deal, is not the best way to go, if we are concerned with preserving future lives.

Awww, gee. Here we go again with the Hitler comparison. Look, the Islamic Extremists/Fundamentalists/whatever were already in Afghanistan and Iraq just like they're in Iran and Syria and few other places. They aren't moving in on us. We are moving in on them. They are not trying to change a democracy to an Islamic form of government. It it the western powers who are trying to change an Islamic form of government to a democracy. Now do you get it?

I get a lot of stuff. I get that radical Islamics speak often of their ultimate objectives, of establishing an Islamic Caliphate from Europe to Indonesia, which will be ruled by the Mullahs. I get that they believe it is their mandate from Allah to eliminate the Jews and pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam, and the Apocalypse. I get that they have adopted suicidal terror tactics as a righteous means to implement their plan. I get that we can either choose to stop it now or later, but we have to face it either way. I get that we can't appease it, we can't negotiate with it, and we can't change or conform our ways to satisfy it. I get that we can never change a religiously-based ideology with guns and bombs, and the only sufficient counter-ideology we can use to change it, is democracy. I get that democracies are preferable to dictatorial tyrants or theocratic extremists, because democracies do not war with one another.

Principals, huh? Let's examine those principals a little more closely. Regarding marijuana laws do you believe in the current oppression where a person is jailed, loses their job and, thus, their home throwing their family into poverty or do you think those laws should be changed?

You should stick to the topic, when you jump ship, it is usually a good indication you were sinking badly. You have a warped perspective of things, where you assume your assumptions of what is 'oppressive' are supported and valid. I believe states should decide their own laws regarding pot, abortion, death penalty, etc. I believe it should be done democratically, at the ballot box, and everyone should have to live with the result.

So, you believe in woman's equality. Great! The next time a woman is arrested for prostitution can we expect to see Dixie at the court house protesting? Well, actually more than protesting. If they jail the woman can we count on you to grab a gun and try to free her or do you believe the government has ownership and control of her body?

Again, you have a warped perspective, where you assume your viewpoint is valid. Having principles doesn't mean you will jump up and grab a gun and go fight government, that is profound retarded stupidity, and recipe for the nut house. As I said previously, I believe the states should decide these issues democratically.

Is your high talking, noble, chivalrous words just bullshit like that of most people who talk about freeing other countries/people while they impose oppressive laws at home? When it comes to freeing women the government has no right to tell them to cover their face but every right to demand they cover their breasts? Foreign governments have no right to insist women be accompanied by a male when leaving their house but we have people here who insist the government force a woman to bear a child she does not want.

I wonder where you stand on woman's rights. Going topless? Prostitution? Abortion?

What about gays in the military? Or a person sitting on a park bench enjoying a doobie?

Tell us about your love of freedom and noble ideals. I'd love to hear about them.

Well, I told you already, I am a big "states rights" person, I believe the states should be allowed to determine if all of these things are legal in their society. Furthermore, I think this should be done at the ballot box, and everyone should have to live with the results.

The thing that gets me about Liberals, is how you think. All of your ideas and beliefs, are based on this mindset, that you know best, and the only right way is your way. We should all just learn to live by your standards and guidelines, and the whole world would be perfect! The sooner the rest of us realize that, the better off we'll all be! It's why you often misjudge the intentions of Conservatives, you assume we are the same as you.

My ideas and mindset, are based on the belief that I don't personally know what is best for my community, that should be debated. I know what I believe, but I am not King or Dictator, so it doesn't matter what I personally believe. What is important, is what my fellow neighbors believe, how they want to live, what kind of society they want for themselves and their children.

 

[apple0154]

Why don't you ask the current administration why we are still fighting this war? I really don't have much of a say in it. I kind of get the impression, Obama is in favor of continuing to fight the war on terror, so he would be the one you might need to talk to about that.

It doesn't really matter how long it takes to fight the war on terror, does it? I mean, one day was one too many for you, right? So let me answer your question with a hypothetical for you to consider, maybe that will help you understand... Let's say that, tomorrow, by some unthinkable act, all of your Constitutional rights and human rights, ceased to exist. Any and all "rights" you may have, are only granted if you fight daily for them. When you choose to no longer fight, you will lose all freedom and liberty forever. Under those circumstances, how long would you continue to fight? What would be a reasonable amount of time to fight for your freedom?

...Or would you even put up a fight?

Great hypothetical and that's exactly my point. The Pakistanis are not fighting for their freedom. At least not the freedom we assume they want. Sure, there are a few but I'm talking about the general population.

There are 170 million Pakistanis. How many terrorists? If the entire population rose up against the terrorists how long do you think the terrorists would last?

If every able man took to the streets and when they found a neighbor or friend or a business acquaintance was associated with the terrorists they kicked his a$$ across town and back there would be a lot fewer terrorists.

What you don't understand is many citizens like the terrorists. They like what they stand for. They like the idea the terrorists want to bring the country back to religion and the old ways. In their eyes the terrorists are fighting for their beliefs.

The problem you have is you think the Muslims want what you call freedom. They don't. In their eyes bringing our way of life to them is like someone coming to your community and saying they'll free you by removing restrictions on whore houses and drug sales.

I'm sure Dixie wants to be free so we'll stop the terrorists (law enforcement) from jailing people who want to sell drugs on the street corner. We'll stop the terrorists (law enforcement) from throwing women in jail if they don't cover themselves (their breasts) properly. We'll set Dixie free! The strange thing is Dixie isn't fighting for his own freedom. Why isn't Dixie fighting? Well, maybe Dixie's idea of freedom does not include having whore houses and drug dealers in the neighborhood.

Do you understand now? There are a lot of Muslim "Dixies" in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and they don't want what the US considers freedom. They don't want billboards showing Britany Spears in a bikini any more than you'd want a billboard advertising a whore house in your neighborhood or the corner store advertising sales on amphetamines aimed at your youth.

Here's another example: "U.S.-funded programs paid farmers to work on projects requested by the community, such as a water diversion project to expand the reach of the Kabul River. Many people believed that the government would fully compensate them for giving up the living they earned from poppy.

Within two years, Nangahar's fields were filled with poppy again.

Farmers have gone back to growing poppy here because they're poor and desperate...."

http://www.voanews.com/english/arch...essionid=00308f3edb571dfbfe007019467376111456

The farmers, the regular population, have started growing poppies so they can feed their families and who is helping them? Who is protecting them? Who is aiding them to feed their children? Take a guess. It's the terrorists! So, does anyone in their right mind think those farmers are going to fight against the terrorists?

Now do you get the picture? The farmer thrives under the terrorist or starves under US occupation. Which would you choose if you were in their place? Would you fight for "freedom", freedom that would result in your children dying from hunger?

I honestly don't know why people have such difficulty in understanding this. If the Iraqis and the Afghans and other Muslim people wanted to be free they would be free. They would fight but they're not and no one in their place would.

 

[apple0154]

The thing that gets me about Liberals, is how you think. All of your ideas and beliefs, are based on this mindset, that you know best, and the only right way is your way. We should all just learn to live by your standards and guidelines, and the whole world would be perfect! The sooner the rest of us realize that, the better off we'll all be! It's why you often misjudge the intentions of Conservatives, you assume we are the same as you.

Don't try to pull that one! You're describing Conservatives to a "T". You think you know what is best for people 1/2 way around the world. Conservatives believe they should decide if a woman can have an abortion. If someone should be allowed to smoke pot. If a woman should cover her breasts but not her face. It's Conservatives who believe everyone should live by their rules and that results in never-ending war.

Obama is doing his best to change what has gone on for longer than I care to remember. Those changes won't happen overnight or even in one Presidential term because, first of all, he has to get the ship headed in the right direction.

Instead of a hundred thousand troops trying to catch terrorists building a bomb or making drugs have them at border entry points. Just imagine how safe the country would be if all the armed services checked what's coming into the country. Just imagine if all the armed services were here to help Police do their job.

Almost one and a half million (1,500,000) on active duty and over eight hundred thousand (800,000) reserve for a total of two million three hundred thousand (2,300,000) people with a base budget of $431 billion and another $169 billion for the War on Terror for a total of $600 billion.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces[/ame]

And citizens here still go hungry and live on the street. Can you say, "Nucking Futs"?

Change. It's long overdue.

 

[kathaksung]

supported by Pentagon. When they fought for US interest, they are resistence. When they work as a false flag fighter, then they became Al Qaida.

In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel's case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel's character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system "got him" for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group. It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of "Al Qaeda." We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Don't try to pull that one! You're describing Conservatives to a "T". You think you know what is best for people 1/2 way around the world. Conservatives believe they should decide if a woman can have an abortion. If someone should be allowed to smoke pot. If a woman should cover her breasts but not her face. It's Conservatives who believe everyone should live by their rules and that results in never-ending war.

I refer you to post #81 above, where I said THREE times, that I support the people deciding these issues at the ballot box. Now, it seems to me, if I simply wanted people to live by my rules, I would not be advocating that the people get to decide at the ballot box, would I? I mean, one kinda nullifies the other, doesn't it? I can't very well implement MY rules, if I am allowing the PEOPLE to vote on them, can I?

You see, what you have here is a contradiction you can't rectify. So my prediction is, you will run away from the allegations you've made, and attempt to change the subject, because you've been thoroughly trounced in the debate. Let's see if that happens!

 

[apple0154]

I refer you to post #81 above, where I said THREE times, that I support the people deciding these issues at the ballot box. Now, it seems to me, if I simply wanted people to live by my rules, I would not be advocating that the people get to decide at the ballot box, would I? I mean, one kinda nullifies the other, doesn't it? I can't very well implement MY rules, if I am allowing the PEOPLE to vote on them, can I?

You see, what you have here is a contradiction you can't rectify. So my prediction is, you will run away from the allegations you've made, and attempt to change the subject, because you've been thoroughly trounced in the debate. Let's see if that happens!

You continue to miss the point. You wrote, "I support the people deciding these issues at the ballot box." That is your rule. You believe people should be allowed to vote on things.

Muslim societies are not like us. Their politics and religion are one. Try and understand that. You and others continue to address them as individual entities. They are one.

Imagine, if you can, a foreign power took over your country and decided Priests could marry. They said the Pope was a dictatorial tyrant and they, the foreign power, was going to set the Priests free.

Imagine if you were a Catholic and decided to divorce and remarry. The church would not acknowledge the marriage but, not to worry. People can vote on it and if the majority of Protestants and Jews and Jehovah Witnesses all voted against the catholic church then that rule would be changed because the foreign power is going to "set you free".

Abortion? Against the doctrines of your church? No problem. The foreign power will set you free.

People continue to go on and on about the Muslims wanting to change our lifestyle. It is us trying to change them! Their law stipulated woman cover their faces. We, the invaders, decided we didn't like that.

Now let's turn it around and imagine people invaded your country and decided your laws stipulating woman cover their breasts was dictatorial and changed the law so woman could go topless in public. Topless female teachers. Topless women in church. Would that bother you? If so, are you a misogynist? Do you believe women should be discriminated against? Or would you welcome the foreign power that has come to set you free?

Try to remember, for certain peoples, religion and politics are one. It is as absurd to suggest they should vote for a leader as it is to suggest one should vote for their Minister or Priest or Rabbi. To suggest those peoples should have the right to vote on whether or not a woman should wear a hijab makes as much sense as voting on the 10 Commandments.

The US is a secular country. It makes as much sense for them to embrace our ways as it would for us to embrace theirs.

The questions we need to be asking is who is in whose country and who is trying to change whom. I don't think those questions are all that tough. Do you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You continue to miss the point. You wrote, "I support the people deciding these issues at the ballot box." That is your rule. You believe people should be allowed to vote on things.

LMAOooo... Yeah, crazy Fascist radical me!! How dare I advocate democracy in America! I should be ashamed of myself!! LMFAOOOOoooooo!! This was TOoo Much!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Try to remember, for certain peoples, religion and politics are one.

Try to remember, because certain people adopt radical religious ideology as opposed to democracy, they can justify flying planes into buildings and blowing innocent people up with suicide bombs. Try to understand, unless we can somehow change that dynamic, they will continue to do these kinds of things. Try to comprehend, the only ideological tool in our toolbox to combat radicalism, is democracy. Since we can't "change hearts and minds" with guns and bombs, it is reasonable to consider we might be able to (in time) change their minds through peaceful democracy. Or...We can do as you would have us do, and simply stick our heads up our ass until the next horrific terror attack occurs on US soil, then blame Republicans.

 

[apple0154]

Try to remember, because certain people adopt radical religious ideology as opposed to democracy, they can justify flying planes into buildings and blowing innocent people up with suicide bombs. Try to understand, unless we can somehow change that dynamic, they will continue to do these kinds of things. Try to comprehend, the only ideological tool in our toolbox to combat radicalism, is democracy. Since we can't "change hearts and minds" with guns and bombs, it is reasonable to consider we might be able to (in time) change their minds through peaceful democracy. Or...We can do as you would have us do, and simply stick our heads up our ass until the next horrific terror attack occurs on US soil, then blame Republicans.

Change their minds through peaceful democracy?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ah, Dixie. You're quite the joker.

Yep, we sure did go the peaceful route in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our repertoire of words and logic shocked and awed them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Great hypothetical and that's exactly my point. The Pakistanis are not fighting for their freedom. At least not the freedom we assume they want. Sure, there are a few but I'm talking about the general population.

There are 170 million Pakistanis. How many terrorists? If the entire population rose up against the terrorists how long do you think the terrorists would last?

If every able man took to the streets and when they found a neighbor or friend or a business acquaintance was associated with the terrorists they kicked his a$$ across town and back there would be a lot fewer terrorists.

What you don't understand is many citizens like the terrorists. They like what they stand for. They like the idea the terrorists want to bring the country back to religion and the old ways. In their eyes the terrorists are fighting for their beliefs.

The problem you have is you think the Muslims want what you call freedom. They don't. In their eyes bringing our way of life to them is like someone coming to your community and saying they'll free you by removing restrictions on whore houses and drug sales.

I'm sure Dixie wants to be free so we'll stop the terrorists (law enforcement) from jailing people who want to sell drugs on the street corner. We'll stop the terrorists (law enforcement) from throwing women in jail if they don't cover themselves (their breasts) properly. We'll set Dixie free! The strange thing is Dixie isn't fighting for his own freedom. Why isn't Dixie fighting? Well, maybe Dixie's idea of freedom does not include having whore houses and drug dealers in the neighborhood.

Do you understand now? There are a lot of Muslim "Dixies" in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and they don't want what the US considers freedom. They don't want billboards showing Britany Spears in a bikini any more than you'd want a billboard advertising a whore house in your neighborhood or the corner store advertising sales on amphetamines aimed at your youth.

Here's another example: "U.S.-funded programs paid farmers to work on projects requested by the community, such as a water diversion project to expand the reach of the Kabul River. Many people believed that the government would fully compensate them for giving up the living they earned from poppy.

Within two years, Nangahar's fields were filled with poppy again.

Farmers have gone back to growing poppy here because they're poor and desperate...."

http://www.voanews.com/english/arch...essionid=00308f3edb571dfbfe007019467376111456

The farmers, the regular population, have started growing poppies so they can feed their families and who is helping them? Who is protecting them? Who is aiding them to feed their children? Take a guess. It's the terrorists! So, does anyone in their right mind think those farmers are going to fight against the terrorists?

Now do you get the picture? The farmer thrives under the terrorist or starves under US occupation. Which would you choose if you were in their place? Would you fight for "freedom", freedom that would result in your children dying from hunger?

I honestly don't know why people have such difficulty in understanding this. If the Iraqis and the Afghans and other Muslim people wanted to be free they would be free. They would fight but they're not and no one in their place would.

Your analogy is on target. After 9/11, when we were inundated with the viewpoint that the terrorists that attacked us did so because "they hate our freedoms". One of my brothers shook his said sadly and said, "those people are not worried about our freedoms, they are worried about theirs".


I've always contended that it's THEIR country. If they disagree with their leadership, let them hash it out in their own time and fashion. And if their way of life is so reprehensible to Americans, then don't do business with them! That may seem a bit simplistic and naive, but given the history, it's not that far out of the realm of possibility.

 

[apple0154]

Your analogy is on target. After 9/11, when we were inundated with the viewpoint that the terrorists that attacked us did so because "they hate our freedoms". One of my brothers shook his said sadly and said, "those people are not worried about our freedoms, they are worried about theirs".


I've always contended that it's THEIR country. If they disagree with their leadership, let them hash it out in their own time and fashion. And if their way of life is so reprehensible to Americans, then don't do business with them! That may seem a bit simplistic and naive, but given the history, it's not that far out of the realm of possibility.

Our political leaders have deceived to us for so long, twisted the truth, turned common sense on it's head......it's no wonder so many people are confused. I'm sure that's why people believe Obama is selling America down the river and jeopardizing our safety. Unfortunately, the shock would be too great if Obama just stood up and said everything we have been led to believe is a lie. It has resulted in folks buying into the absurd tale the Muslims are trying to change our way of life when it is us who are in their country.

Obama has a lot more to do than just fix the economy. He has to make the people aware of the lies and deceit they have been fed. A monumental task, indeed!

 

[kathaksung]

After Soviet bloc collapsed in 1992, US intelligence turned its resource once used against Soviet Union on to the Islamic bloc because of its oil tresure. A large quantity of informants converted into Islam to infiltrate the Muslim group. Padilla is one of such story. He was recruited in prison and infiltrated to the Muslim world in 92. Seven years ago, he almost became a dirty bomb witness to justify the Iraq war.

This one becomes an Al Qaida spokesman. Along with Bin Laden, the Al Qaida is under the leadship of US intelligence.

Al-Qaeda’ spokesman Adam Gadahn (a.k.a. Pearlman) is scion of Jewish ADL

Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 03:26 PM BST

Even the (Jewish-run) mainstream media now admits that ‘Adam Ghadan’ -- an ‘Al-Qaeda’ spokesman known for making absurd calls-to-arms against ‘infidels’ and ‘Zio-Crusaders’ -- is, in fact, the grandson of a prominent board member of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League:

The Los Angeles Times: ‘Gadahn's grandfather was Dr. Carl K. Pearlman, a well-known Orange County urologist who died in 1998.’

Haaretz: ‘Gadahn's grandfather was well-known urologist Carl Pearlman, an active member of the Jewish community in Orange County California.’

American Al-Qaeda member Adam Gadahn tells of Jewish roots in video
The Los Angeles Times
June 14, 2009

Adam Gadahn, a Southern California-raised man self-described as American Al-Qaeda has released a new video in which he talks about his Jewish ancestry.

Gadahn, known as "Azzam the American", lived in Garden Grove in the 1990s after growing up on a goat farm in rural Riverside County. The FBI said he converted to Islam as a youth, left the United States around 1998 and later was associated with senior Al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida in Pakistan and attended training camps in Afghanistan.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...h-southern-california-roots-in-new-video.html

 

[kathaksung]

Al Qaida and Mujahedeen

Bin Laden was an asset of CIA and was used to fight against Soviet Union in 80s. At that time Bin Laden's group was called as Majahideen. Qaida was used as a data base in communiction.

In early 90, when Soviet Union collapsed, US intelligence turned its resource on to Mid-east countries which are rich in oil resource, they revive the retired asset - Bin Laden. Bin Laden returned to Islamic world trying to provoke a conflict so that US could justify an interference and invasion.

On 2001, when US inside group had their puppet Bush to be the president, the war was ready. 911 was done to justify the war. To prevent people to link the "terror attack" with Islamic fannatic (Mujahedeen) and CIA, US intelligence then starts to use "Al Qaida" as "terrorist" group to justify the "war on terror". Since then, they blame every terror attack on "Al qaida". Al Qaida could be viewed as a group of special opratives commanded by US intelligence. Their mission is to activate false flag terror attack on civilians to justify US military action.

What Al Qaida did - bombing WTC, killing US civilians on 911, and bombing innocent civilians in Iraq, all targetted at ordinary people. It tarnished Islam as savage, inhuman, cruel. Who benefited? Who expanded the police power by Patriot Act? Who got fat budget? If you can answer these questions, then you know what is Al Qaida - a tool of US intelligence.

 

[Cancel4]

Is Dick-see jealous because the detainees got a bigger welfare check than he did?

 

[Cancel5]

I wouldn't worry too much about their welfare checks. Once they successfully sue the US government they will probably fail to qualify for state assistance at all.

Every cloud and all that...

Exactly!!! Find themselves a good Dutch lawyer.

 

[Cancel5]

Release them in GA , hell we need to practice for the up coming deer season, lol

Come on people be for real, these people were being trained to Kill Americans , do we really want them living next door to us? I don't, for all you good people that feel bad for the poor detainees call the Government and offer your guest room to them.

And you know this, how? I would need to see their files to be sure.

 

[Cancel5]

Okay, so let me get this straight... If our intelligence leads us to a terrorist training camp, and we apprehend the terrorists training there, and some of them happen to be Chinese Muslim separatists.... are we supposed to leave them there and let them continue training? Are we supposed to send them back to China then? What exactly was supposed to be done in this instance... I'm unclear on that.

We chose to take them to Gitmo, instead of ...oh, I don't know... killing them with a big MOAB bomb... or turning them back over to face reprisal from the Chinese government. Now, since we didn't kill them and we showed them compassion of US government protective custody for 8 years, 3-squares a day, warm place to sleep, far from the reaches of their enemies... now we must give them government assistance while they embark on their new American lives?

It's a real wonder someone hasn't completely eliminated liberals by now.

Keep trying to eliminate us, you could become the New Aged Hitler, wouldn't your mother be proud!

 

[Cancel5]

Okay, so let me get this straight... If our intelligence leads us to a terrorist training camp, and we apprehend the terrorists training there, and some of them happen to be Chinese Muslim separatists.... are we supposed to leave them there and let them continue training? Are we supposed to send them back to China then? What exactly was supposed to be done in this instance... I'm unclear on that.

We chose to take them to Gitmo, instead of ...oh, I don't know... killing them with a big MOAB bomb... or turning them back over to face reprisal from the Chinese government. Now, since we didn't kill them and we showed them compassion of US government protective custody for 8 years, 3-squares a day, warm place to sleep, far from the reaches of their enemies... now we must give them government assistance while they embark on their new American lives?

It's a real wonder someone hasn't completely eliminated liberals by now.

You need to keep us around, or your kind would have done each other in in the Dark Ages.

 

[Cancel5]

We should have a war on war.

Brilliant, I get the nukes.

 

[Cancel5]

Why not? Illegals get welfare.

During his news conference, Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.

Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.

That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighers (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.

Blair said the former prisoners would have get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.

"We can't put them out on the street," he said.

==========================================


Well this is just lovely! Our 401k's are tanking, we have no retirement left, our Social Security is gone, and we're headed toward $2 trillion deficits, but we're now going to issue welfare checks to former Gitmo detainees! ...So they can start their new lives in the US!

Tell me something pinheads... If we can't find a country that will take these people, how can we just release them in the US? How have we "deemed them non-threatening?" ...Is it the fact that they aren't on an airplane? Is it because they haven't specifically threatened to kill us all? Seems to me, 19 "foreign exchange students" living a fairly "non-threatening" life, were able to perpetrate the worst attack ever on American soil.

Has anyone really thought this Closing Gitmo thing through? Or is it just one of those Liberal Causes we have to get shoved down our throat, whether it's good for us or not?

[/QUOTE]
Didn't Snopes do away with that lie?