Oh ... Really?

Some things I just don’t get

Mine is not a political blog ... I rarely comment on world affairs or news. I do not ascribe to any particular political ideology. Some of my opinions lie to the left, some to the right, and there's lots of stuff that I haven't even thought about enough to have any kind of opinion at all one way or another. This is probably why so much of what is going on in the world doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

But I can't help but wonder about some thought processes out there ... like, why is it more important to make sure that the terrorists we have caught are not made uncomfortable and suffer no pain, than saving the lives of the people they want to kill?

Why do we want to afford the Geneva Conventions to those who would never dream of treating our soldiers in accordance? And then why do we want to make the Conventions broader so that the terrorist combatants can be protected by them? I don't get it ...

Why is there foaming-at-the-mouth outrage at Christian efforts to evangelize and spread the word ... but when two kidnapped reporters are forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, you can hear crickets chirping?

Why is it OK for Democrats to be racist, but not Republicans?

Why the frenzy over revealing the name of Joe Wilson's wife, a CIA employee that was NOT undercover, when it was supposedly Karl Rove that dunnit, then when it turns out that it was Richard Armitage, a stated foe of the current administration, once again, crickets chirp?

And then, when major media outlets disclose classified, secret security agency methods aimed at preventing terrorist attacks, the media is defended against any criticism! Just what is the public's interest in knowing any of that anyway?

Shortly after 9/11, there was much wailing and gnashing of the teeth amid shrieks that the government did not do enough to prevent the attacks. Now that definitive steps are being taken to root out terrorists here in the US, those same voices are shrieking about privacy rights, constitutional rights, spying, yada yada yada.

If Islam is really a religion of peace, and terrorists are really perverting that kind and gentle religion, would that not be considered an insult against Islam? A slur against Mohammed? An offense against all Muslims? So, why aren't Muslims rioting in the streets threatening to behead the terrorists?

Why, after all the bombs, beheadings, kidnappings, killing and slamming planes into buildings, do so many people refuse to believe that these Islamofascist monsters are really, really, serious about killing as many infidels as they can, by whatever means they have and attempt to subjugate the world to Islam? Do these retards think they are just kidding? I bet the same retards believed all that crap about the poor Hezbollah and how they didn't deserve for Israel to bomb the ever-living shit out of them!

And don't get me started on the 9/11 tin-foil hat conspiracy theories ... if anyone tells me they truly believe that shit, I will call them a liar.

Bloglines Freedbacking: Your pinger is STILL broken. Some feeds do not update properly STILL. The blog claim thing is still broken. I would think they would get things fixed before rolling out any new features or "improvements" that are actually quite annoying.

Posted by LissaKay on 09/29/06 at 11:47 PM in Our World
• (7) Comments Pop UpPermalink
LissaKay's avatar This is why I don't often post about political things ... because people then come along and argue points that I did not make. I ain't gonna play that game.

But, as to the first of the three comments, I will add this ... when we "torture" detainees, we do so within a confined set of parameters that specifically state what can and cannot be done, and it is done for the purpose of obtaining intelligence that could save innocent lives. When the vermin torture our people, civilians and soldiers, they have no limits and they are torturing just for the sake of torturing, and in some cases, to video tape and disseminate their propaganda. If one cannot tell the difference, there is no hope for them.

I find it interesting that it is suggested that we should "expect" that kind of behavior from those "vermin" ... that almost sounds ... oh, I dunno ... bigoted, perhaps?

Of course, we could just follow the Geneva Convention to the letter and shoot them on sight. That would be appropriate for "vermin" don't you think?

Posted by LissaKay on 10/01 at 02:02 AM
LissaKay's avatar And finally we arrived back at my point ... these detainees are NOT lawful combatants. According to the Geneva Conventions definition, they are NOT prisoners of war, and per the GC, our military could simply shoot them on capture, instead of detaining them. So why are we extending them the protections of the GC at all? So we can feel better about ourselves and arrogantly maintain our higher moral code? All the while, the terrorists laugh at our morals and ethics, then turn those same values around and use them against us.

How many American lives are worth sacrificing to ensure these monsters are molly-coddled and treated with kid gloves (as they are when not being questioned)? If it was your family in danger, and someone had information that could prevent an attack on them, how far would you go to save their lives?

As for these coercive (and really, it's hardly torture) methods not working? Better read up on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and what we got out of him, and what benefit we obtained from that information. Op-Eds that cherry-pick out of context quotes to assert that these methods do not work will not convince anyone.

Oh, and Abu Ghraib? We turned that over to the Iraqi security forces a while back. The detainees there are begging for the Americans to come back. But do keep waving that irrelevant banner ... a small group of soldiers acted outside of orders and crossed the line with a few detainees, therefore the whole military complex is corrupt, right? Just like a small percentage of Muslims are radical extremists that want us all dead, therefore .... (go ahead, fill in that blank).

Posted by LissaKay on 10/01 at 01:02 PM
LissaKay's avatar When one of you lefties can actually debate the point I am making, instead of arguing something I never said ... come on back. Meanwhile, I am continually reminded of why I no longer call myself a Democrat or liberal ... it's too embarassing. Accusing me of being a Bushie is laughable.

But I do find it amusing how you contradict yourself.

And you might want to actually read the GC, especially Articles 3 and 4, which define what a prisoner of war is and is not. The vermin in Gitmo are not prisoners of war. The bill that was just passed made it so the protections of the GC can be extended to them, even though they are not prisoners of war. They are not legal combatants, and per the GC, they are to be considered spies with no protections. That they can be shot as such was also upheld in the Hague Conventions.

Now ... to my question - WHY should they be treated as prisoners of war when they clearly are not and do not deserve such protections?

Further, that question is more to the principle of the thing ... we are already treating those vermin much better than the GC states we should.

Posted by LissaKay on 10/01 at 02:24 PM
LissaKay's avatar Umm .. take your disengenuous crap on out of here if you can't debate with reason. You did not read what I posted before, I DID cite the GC articles that define who is to be protected. The detainees do not meet that definition. You continue to argue points that I am not making, assuming things that are not anywhere in evidence, you are contradicting yourself and with each new post, looking more and more the fool.

But, a new question! Why would I give a rat's ass what the Khmer Rouge did? What does that have to do with the price of rice in Japan? Or is it just more of your bloviating?

Or, for that matter, why should I give a rat's ass what you think about my questions, since, as you have shown so inelegantly, that you cannot answer without pulling out bullshit debate tactics?

And yes, it IS all about ME here. This is MY web site, afterall. I could make you go away with the greatest of ease. But I think I shall leave your ramblings here so that others can point and laugh too.

Posted by LissaKay on 10/02 at 07:29 PM
LissaKay's avatar So, now you're a shrink? I have anger issues because I refute what you say? I call your BS and that's unhinged? I cite facts while you bloviate, yet I am unable to control my emotions.

Thanks for the laugh, dude. Best one I've had all day ... :lol:

Posted by LissaKay on 10/02 at 08:36 PM
They 'don't care' what you think of their comments... which is why they posted, what, eight times on the one thread?

Still, the Khmer Rouge 'moral equivalency' argument was cute. The Khmer Rouge, oh, eat food too, therefore the next time you sit down for dinner you're actually just the same as a genocidal regime. Think about it. Got you there, haven't I. Mmm.

Nevertheless, cheers for a blog that's actually interesting (considering I only came here to try to find out about that video that YT wouldn't let you upload, or some such)

Posted by Reaps on 10/07 at 08:43 AM
LissaKay's avatar Thanks. I am still waiting to hear from YT. I want them to explain in detail why and how that video violates the TOS. I'm not holding my breath. Thanks for dropping by!
Posted by LissaKay on 10/07 at 01:24 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

« Back to main