McGentrix wrote:Woiyo, the detainees in Gitmo are not POW's. They are illegal combatants. POW's are eligible for the full protection of the Geneva conventions. The camps in Iraq full of Iraqi soldiers are POW camps.
Please do not confuse the two as they have very different rights and protections.
I understand the distinction. The point I am trying to show here is the contradictory nature of the left wing. On one hand, they want Gitmo prisioners treated under the terms of the GC. Then they say they deserve rights granted under civil law. Apparently they do not know what they want.
That is not what he said. Breathe and re-read.
Terrorism as a word means to employ tactics that bring about fear and trembling to it's intended targets.
Our administration has done a really good job of it. You want other to question thier assumptions in this case because you think they are off base. What you do not question is:
1) We are better off now - "protected" from the terrorists.
2) What we have done by 'hunting them down and smoking them out' has garnered us more safety than before.
3) That the methods we have employed have not contributed to the general sense of fear and terror.
The proof for this is our track record and Al-Queda themselves. We funded, trained, and essentially put them in power because they temporarly helped us oust the Russians from Afghanistan.
Sure, terrorists are sawing heads off and everything -- whatever! But we should really be talking about the "flag protection amendment."
No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now?
Intrepid wrote:No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now?
No, he does just fine all by himself. I was just wondering if you were purposefully being insolent, or maybe you were not aware that Brandon was asked, rather rudely, to stay on subject on a different thread.
Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.
Brandon9000 wrote:Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.
Since you started a thread about al Qaeda and 9/11 and heads getting sawed off, it was on topic to point out how perverse it is to harp on about stuff that's going on thousands of miles away when the American flag is in danger of being burned right here in the US! Your assertion that I'm off topic is both absurd and completely consistent with the conservative propensity for avoiding facing an opponent's argument head on.
Count on you to attack the man, but run away from the argument.
If you want to play with me, you're going to have to do better than this.