# Obama Negotiates With Taliban Over Gitmo Prisoners



## Cowboy

Something about this really bothers me. 



> In a deplorable move that could seriously compromise national security, the Obama Administration is in the process of negotiating a deal to release up to five Taliban prisoners from the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> As part of “Taliban reconciliation efforts,” the terrorists would be transferred to Qatar, a Middle Eastern Arab state where the militant Islamic group will soon open an office. The Obama Administration is selling the preposterous deal to Congress by saying that the prisoners won’t actually be released but rather transferred to the custody of the Qatari government and they will remain in jail.
> While much of the mainstream media has ignored this unbelievable story, a bimonthly global magazine dedicated to covering politics and economics, published a piece this week on how the backdoor deal is going down. It includes details of how top Obama Administration officials briefed eight senior Senate leaders this week about the pending Taliban “transfer” from Gitmo to Qatar.
> 
> The classified briefing took place in the basement of the capitol building and none of the eight senators would discuss details, according to the magazine, but a few spoke before entering the secure briefing room. Michigan Senator Carl Levin revealed that the briefing was “about the ongoing Taliban reconciliation efforts.” The Democrat lawmaker questioned whether the Qataris can be trusted to keep the Taliban prisoners behind bars.
> Calling the deal “highly questionable,” Arizona Senator John McCain said he’s not confident that the Qataris will keep the Taliban prisoners locked up. The Republican lawmaker also noted that at least one of the prisoners was responsible for the deaths of several Americans. Reports have identified three of them as Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister, Noorullah Noori, a former governor in northern Afghanistan and former army commander Mullah Fazl Akhund.
> It’s not clear who the two others will be, though one thing is certain; the Obama Administration’s own Guantanamo review task force has determined that they are too dangerous to transfer. Additionally, U.S. intelligence assessments have concluded that the Taliban prisoners scheduled for transfer are too dangerous to be released.
> The Taliban is a radical terrorist group that rules large parts of Afghanistan and enforces Sharia law, the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism. Just last month the Taliban released a horrific video of the executions of 15 Pakistani soldiers that had been abducted weeks earlier. Incredibly, the Obama Administration believes the terrorist group is reformed and last month began engaging in “peace talks” with Taliban leaders.


 
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/02/02/obama-negotiates-with-taliban-over-gitmo-prisoners/

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...ion_briefs_senate_leaders_on_taliban_transfer


----------



## jimbo

Everything about this bothers me.  Gitmo is a thorn in the ass of Obama and one way to get rid of it, or at least say progress is being made prior to November is to reduce the population.  

Remember the Lockerbee bomber?  You know, the guy who was released by our friends the Scots as he had only a few months to live.  Still alive as far as I know,


----------



## thcri RIP

> The Obama Administration is selling the preposterous deal to Congress by  saying that the prisoners won’t actually be released but rather  transferred to the custody of the Qatari government and they will remain  in jail.
> While much of the mainstream media has ignored this unbelievable story, a  bimonthly global magazine dedicated to covering politics and economics,  published a piece this  week on how the backdoor deal is going down. It includes details of how  top Obama Administration officials briefed eight senior Senate leaders  this week about the pending Taliban “transfer” from Gitmo to Qatar.




This is really quite the comment.  How stupid is this and does anyone really believe the Taliban is going to keep these guys in a jail.  Well I guess an extremely nice mansion could be considered a jail.

Someone posted Rosanne Barr running for President.  Unfortunately as bad as she would be she probably has more smarts than the current.


----------



## Danang Sailor

jimbo said:


> Everything about this bothers me.  Gitmo is a thorn in the ass of Obama and one way to get rid of it, or at least say progress is being made prior to November is to reduce the population.
> 
> Remember the Lockerbee bomber?  You know, the guy who was released by our friends the Scots as he had only a few months to live.  Still alive as far as I know,



Yep, still alive as of today, even though his "compassionate release" was due to his death being only "months" away ... 
in 2009, nearly three years ago!


----------



## fogtender

Maybe he was going to send them to Allah.... That would be a good tool to deal in good fath with the Taliban! 

It could happen!.... Look, Osama got a head start from Obama!


----------



## tiredretired

Well, he gives it a fancy name.  The Taliban Reconciliation Effort.  Wow, sounds important. I hope he bows down to them as well when they're released.  Maybe sing a little Al Green to them to send them on their way.


----------



## joec

Well let me see if I understand this. Taliban prisoners captured in Afganistan during a war on the field of battle. Now we will return them in exchange for a peace agreement to end a war that has lasted for over a decade. You mean something like the thousands of Nazi and Italian soldiers we captured and had many in prision camps in the US at the end of WWII. If I'm not mistaken we sent them home as well after the war ended but could be wrong. Perhaps it would be better to just keep them for ever I guess and continue to pay their medical, food and board.


----------



## mak2

I can see keeping them if they were convicted of war crimes or killing civilians.  Have any of them been convicted of anything?  If not, prisioners of war and should be treated as such.


----------



## joec

mak2 said:


> I can see keeping them if they were convicted of war crimes or killing civilians. Have any of them been convicted of anything? If not, prisioners of war and should be treated as such.


 
I don't believe a single Teliban prisoner was captured in the US but could be wrong on that. It seems a number of prisoners where released previously before also.


----------



## jimbo

Joe, Mak, just to clarify, these prisoners are not being released.  They are being transferred to a different jail in a different country.  POW's in a war are generally given a ride home and released.


----------



## tiredretired

joec said:


> Well let me see if I understand this. Taliban prisoners captured in Afganistan during a war on the field of battle. Now we will return them in exchange for a peace agreement to end a war that has lasted for over a decade. You mean something like the thousands of Nazi and Italian soldiers we captured and had many in prision camps in the US at the end of WWII. If I'm not mistaken we sent them home as well after the war ended but could be wrong. Perhaps it would be better to just keep them for ever I guess and continue to pay their medical, food and board.



I am sure we returned Jap, German and Italian POW's AFTER we won the war.  Not as part of a peace deal like now.  We are negotiating with the devil.  It will not work.  Wait and see.  You know those people as well as I or maybe better.


----------



## joec

TiredRetired said:


> I am sure we returned Jap, German and Italian POW's AFTER we won the war. Not as part of a peace deal like now. We are negotiating with the devil. It will not work. Wait and see. You know those people as well as I or maybe better.


 
Granted I do probably know them better. With that said we are talking about those taken from a battlefield over there not here. Cutting them lose to show good will in a negotiating isn't that uncommon. Even Israel has done it and set hundreds loose even after they did kill civilians. Our war with Afghanistan is winding down and and that won't change regardless if Obama wins or loses in November. 

I often wonder how many Americans actually understand why this country is so disliked around the world. I won't go there at this time but it isn't always without cause even when our intentions are good.


----------



## Cowboy

IMHO , There is no such thing as negotiating with terrorists period. Those that think you can are living in a phukin dreamworld.


----------



## tiredretired

joec said:


> Granted I do probably know them better. With that said we are talking about those taken from a battlefield over there not here. Cutting them lose to show good will in a negotiating isn't that uncommon. Even Israel has done it and set hundreds loose even after they did kill civilians. Our war with Afghanistan is winding down and and that won't change regardless if Obama wins or loses in November.
> 
> I often wonder how many Americans actually understand why this country is so disliked around the world. I won't go there at this time but it isn't always without cause even when our intentions are good.



I did not spend that long in Turkey but it was too long.  I do not like those people.  The reason I do not like them is I do not trust them.  I do not like anybody I cannot trust.  I guess that means I do not like many people.  That would be a true story.  We should not negotiate with terrorists and scum.  We took that stand in WW2.  It is the only way.  You will see.


----------



## joec

Cowboy said:


> IMHO , There is no such thing as negotiating with terrorists period. Those that think you can are living in a phukin dreamworld.


 
First off Cowboy terrorism is a technique not a group of people. Secondly if the US was invaded how would you fight an army if you didn't have their might? Think back to the tactics used by our "Patriots" during the Revolutionary war. I'm sure the British considered them terrorist also. Perhaps if people learned a little about the real world they might not live in their "dreamworlds".


----------



## jimbo

joec said:


> First off Cowboy terrorism is a technique not a group of people. Secondly if the US was invaded how would you fight an army if you didn't have their might? Think back to the tactics used by our "Patriots" during the Revolutionary war. I'm sure the British considered them terrorist also. Perhaps if people learned a little about the real world they might not live in their "dreamworlds".


Joe, he said terrorists, not terrorism.  Terrorists are people, terrorism is a method used to scare the hell out of a group of people.

I'm not sure what you mean by tactic used by the patriots during the Revolutionary War, but the war was fought on our turf and had nothing to do with terrorism.  If we had blown up Windsor Castle, that might have been termed terrorism.

Those who think that we can negotiate with people who have as their stated goal the annihilation of infidels, being defined as those who do not believe as they do, are in fact living in a dream world.

I would have to agree, however, about the living in a phukin dreamworld, although I would term it somewhat stronger.

The real world you want to espouse is simply this.  These bastards want to kill us.  It says so in their bible (over 60 times).  And I, for one, do not want to be killed.


----------



## mak2

So you just wanna kill all the Moslems?


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> So you just wanna kill all the Moslems?


I don't, Mak, just those who want to kill me.  If that is all of them, then you have answered your own question.


----------



## mak2

jimbo said:


> Joe, he said terrorists, not terrorism.  Terrorists are people, terrorism is a method used to scare the hell out of a group of people.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by tactic used by the patriots during the Revolutionary War, but the war was fought on our turf and had nothing to do with terrorism.  If we had blown up Windsor Castle, that might have been termed terrorism.
> 
> Those who think that we can negotiate with people who have as their stated goal the annihilation of infidels, being defined as those who do not believe as they do, are in fact living in a dream world.
> 
> I would have to agree, however, about the living in a phukin dreamworld, although I would term it somewhat stronger.
> 
> The real world you want to espouse is simply this.  *These bastards want to kill us.  It says so in their bible (over 60 times).*  And I, for one, do not want to be killed.





jimbo said:


> I don't, Mak, just those who want to kill me.  If that is all of them, then you have answered your own question.



What do you mean you dont, Say it, you wanna kill all devout Moslems, right?


----------



## joec

jimbo said:


> Joe, he said terrorists, not terrorism. Terrorists are people, terrorism is a method used to scare the hell out of a group of people.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by tactic used by the patriots during the Revolutionary War, but the war was fought on our turf and had nothing to do with terrorism. If we had blown up Windsor Castle, that might have been termed terrorism.
> 
> Those who think that we can negotiate with people who have as their stated goal the annihilation of infidels, being defined as those who do not believe as they do, are in fact living in a dream world.
> 
> I would have to agree, however, about the living in a phukin dreamworld, although I would term it somewhat stronger.
> 
> The real world you want to espouse is simply this. These bastards want to kill us. It says so in their bible (over 60 times). And I, for one, do not want to be killed.


 
Perhaps you aren't following what I said. Many of these Taliban aren't in the US at all but prisons around the world including Gitmo. Now as far as I know no Taliban where captured on US soil at all but in Afghanistan.

No terrorist and terrorism is different. Terrorist is a label applied to someone using terrorism as a tactic, so one is the person using them the other is the act. As for the Revolution at the time we was considered the property of Great Britain and not a sovereign nation and their tactics was considered terrorism of the day. The "Patriots" targeted officers and didn't stand swapping volleys with a better armed force. 

Now as for them wanting to kill us, that is true. However, it is time you get over it as they aren't alone in this world. The list is pretty long on those that would love to kill us, many are among our allies also. If you traveled the world a little you might just find this as fact and learn to deal with it. Perhaps someday you might realize why they don't like us too when you see how we come across to them.

So basically your only option is to fight them until we win or go bankrupt like the USSR did. I guess you haven't figured out yet, the US won't do what it takes to win this kind of war, as there is only one way. No one seemed to pick up on the lessons from the experience in Nam at all. We won't annihilate the whole race and short of that you will loose or go bankrupt your choice. There is another choice, get out of their lands and stay out other wise take them out. Taking them out will never happen so learn to live with them or stay away from them.


----------



## fogtender

You know, if these guys captured our troops, they would have lopped off their heads.  My issue is they are being treated like "Guests", three squares a day and so forth.  We should be keeping them in pig pens with swine like they are...  That would be a message to send, we simply aren't going to put up with their Sixth Century Crap.

Instead we send a signal that we will treat them humanly when they treat their own women and children like animals, that isnt a sign of strength, it is weakness on our part. When is the last time you saw Americans strap bombs on kids and sent them into a Pizza Parlor? Until we play on the field with at least the same rules and treat them like the cancer they are, it will only be a matter of time the next 9/11 will be a mushroom cloud over NY City.

Then the liberals can wonder what happened when NY is a crater filled with water!  If you don't treat a war like a war, you are going to lose!  When you make it so terrifying to wage war, it will end! The enemy truely thinks they are winning because we are backing off!

I think it was said "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your Tactics suck"!

I'm so tired of the bleeding hearts that are killing our own soldiers with all the rules of engagement.  On the battlefield, if someone looks threatening, eliminate the threat!  When you have to be a target first to establish a threat, it's too late.

Can you tell I'm pissed at bleeding hearts?  We should have never gone into Iraq, but we should have bombed it into the sixth century and left, that message would have been heard by those that do us harm, and we won't stand by and except casualties and look the other way.

The Israelis take a thousand rockets over the boarder and the liberals want them to show restraint?  That is just insane, they should level a dozen blocks for every rocket fired, you don't think that will get the "innocent"  Palestinians off their butts and start cracking down on the A$$holes launching rockets!

Now because of all this touchy feely crap, Iran may be struck by Israel to protect itself, to knock out their Nuke Program that we could have stopped it fifteen years ago?  Gues what happens after that? 

Now I feel better!  Any comments?


----------



## mak2

joec said:


> Perhaps you aren't following what I said. Many of these Taliban aren't in the US at all but prisons around the world including Gitmo. Now as far as I know no Taliban where captured on US soil at all but in Afghanistan.
> 
> No terrorist and terrorism is different. Terrorist is a label applied to someone using terrorist tactics so one is the person using them the other is the act. As for the Revolution at the time we was considered the property of Great Britain and not a sovereign nation and their tactics was considered terrorism of the day. The "Patriots" targeted officers and didn't stand swapping volleys with a better armed force.
> 
> Now as for them wanting to kill us, that is true. However, it is time you get over it as they aren't alone in this world. The list is pretty long on those that would love to kill us, many are among our allies also. If you traveled the world a little you might just find this as fact and learn to deal with it. Perhaps someday you might realize why they don't like us too when you see how we come across to them.
> 
> So basically your only option is to fight them until we win or go bankrupt like the USSR did. I guess you haven't figured out yet, the US won't do what it takes to win this kind of war, as there is only one way. No one seemed to pick up on the lessons from the experience in Nam at all. We won't annihilate the whole race and short of that you will loose or go bankrupt your choice. There is another choice, get out of their lands and stay out other wise take them out. Taking them out will never happen so learn to live with them or stay away from them.



But, but the military complex must eat...so lets send them oil money, let them buy arms then war with them.  My goodness we are a smart bunch.


----------



## joec

mak2 said:


> But, but the military complex must eat...so lets send them oil money, let them buy arms then war with them. My goodness we are a smart bunch.


 
Or prop up their corrupt governments for decades while they abuse their citizens. This was the reason we have a bad relationship with Iran among others today.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> What do you mean you dont, Say it, you wanna kill all devout Moslems, right?


Once again, Mak, you move the line.  You start out by stating Muslims, now it is devout Muslims.  My position doesn't change.  If you are out to kill me, then you are fair game to me.


----------



## jimbo

*Re: Obama Negotiates With Taliban Over Gitmo Prisoners
*
Mak, Joe, do you realize how far you have to stray to make a somewhat dubious point?

"But, but the military complex must eat...so lets send them oil money,  let them buy arms then war with them.  My goodness we are a smart bunch. 		"

"Or prop up their corrupt governments for decades while they abuse their  citizens. This was the reason we have a bad relationship with Iran among  others today."


----------



## mak2

There is no difference in a Christian and a devout Christian or a Moslem and a devout one, I was attempting to imply they believed in the Koran, or their bible as you put it.  The line did not move I did intend to confuse you.  

Just say what you mean, you want to kill all Moslems, because you believe they all want to kill you cause their bible tells them to.  Right?  Even the ones I know at work?


----------



## mak2

fogtender said:


> You know, if these guys captured our troops, they would have lopped off their heads.  My issue is they are being treated like "Guests", three squares a day and so forth.  We should be keeping them in pig pens with swine like they are...  That would be a message to send, we simply aren't going to put up with their Sixth Century Crap.
> 
> Instead we send a signal that we will treat them humanly when they treat their own women and children like animals, that isnt a sign of strength, it is weakness on our part. When is the last time you saw Americans strap bombs on kids and sent them into a Pizza Parlor? Until we play on the field with at least the same rules and treat them like the cancer they are, it will only be a matter of time the next 9/11 will be a mushroom cloud over NY City.
> 
> Then the liberals can wonder what happened when NY is a crater filled with water!  If you don't treat a war like a war, you are going to lose!  When you make it so terrifying to wage war, it will end! The enemy truely thinks they are winning because we are backing off!
> 
> I think it was said "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your Tactics suck"!
> 
> I'm so tired of the bleeding hearts that are killing our own soldiers with all the rules of engagement.  On the battlefield, if someone looks threatening, eliminate the threat!  When you have to be a target first to establish a threat, it's too late.
> 
> Can you tell I'm pissed at bleeding hearts?  We should have never gone into Iraq, but we should have bombed it into the sixth century and left, that message would have been heard by those that do us harm, and we won't stand by and except casualties and look the other way.
> 
> The Israelis take a thousand rockets over the boarder and the liberals want them to show restraint?  That is just insane, they should level a dozen blocks for every rocket fired, you don't think that will get the "innocent"  Palestinians off their butts and start cracking down on the A$ launching rockets!
> 
> Now because of all this touchy feely crap, Iran may be struck by Israel to protect itself, to knock out their Nuke Program that we could have stopped it fifteen years ago?  Gues what happens after that?
> 
> Now I feel better!  Any comments?



I agree with if we go to war we kick ass take names and come home, wish Bush thought like that.  Thankfully Obama is getting us out of both Iraq and Afganistan.


----------



## Ross 650

Howdy,
You can catch and pen up a mad dog.  You can send it home.  However it is still a mad dog which should be eliminated.  Alas, we have no leadership with enough gonads to stand up instead of bowing to the barking dogs!!!!  Have a goodun!!!!!


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> I agree with if we go to war we kick ass take names and come home, wish Bush thought like that.  Thankfully Obama is getting us out of both Iraq and Afganistan.




Wasn't the plan to get out of Iraq done under the Bush Administration?  And didn't Obama put us in a war we had no business being in with no approval.


US - Iraq Agreement



> U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement  between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our  presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said. He continued  that "two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the  surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these  two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament.


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> Wasn't the plan to get out of Iraq done under the Bush Administration? And didn't Obama put us in a war we had no business being in with no approval.
> 
> 
> US - Iraq Agreement


 
Yes the agreement was made under Bush however with all the bitching about Obama doing it and early one would think it was him backing out.

Now as for Libya again it is Obama fault when NATO forces fought it and the US gave them support with logistics. You know the thing about leading from behind. 

You know you really can't have it both ways and Libya didn't cost 1 trillion dollars or 10 to 13 years either. I guess no American GI died so it had to be another illegal war, oh wait there is the war powers act and NATO fought the actual war. But then Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't perhaps it is time to back off as even the economy is improving. And guess what no one's taxes have gone up, however they have gone down.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> Yes the agreement was made under Bush however with all the bitching about Obama doing it and early one would think it was him backing out.
> 
> Now as for Libya again it is Obama fault when NATO forces fought it and the US gave them support with logistics. You know the thing about leading from behind.
> 
> You know you really can't have it both ways and Libya didn't cost 1 trillion dollars or 10 to 13 years either. I guess no American GI died so it had to be another illegal war, oh wait there is the war powers act and NATO fought the actual war. But then Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't perhaps it is time to back off as even the economy is improving. And guess what no one's taxes have gone up, however they have gone down.



Joec nobody can tell me we had any business being over there.  And as far as Obama he did exactly what he accused Bush of doing but Bush did have approval if I remember right.  If Obama would not have bashed Bush many years ago it probably would not have been a problem with me.  You know that two faced thing.  

Yes no Americans died but there sure could have been.  Can't tell me people were not put into harms way. 

Not trying to get into an  argument but let's put credit where credit is due as Obama did not take us out of Iraq as far as I am concerned.

Carry On


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> Joec nobody can tell me we had any business being over there. And as far as Obama he did exactly what he accused Bush of doing but Bush did have approval if I remember right. If Obama would not have bashed Bush many years ago it probably would not have been a problem with me. You know that two faced thing.
> 
> Yes no Americans died but there sure could have been. Can't tell me people were not put into harms way.
> 
> Not trying to get into an argument but let's put credit where credit is due as Obama did not take us out of Iraq as far as I am concerned.
> 
> Carry On


 
I agree we had no business nor have any business in the middle east. We sure can live without their oil too since they really supply little to us. Oh and I don't give credit to Obama for getting us out of Iraq, just for getting us out earlier than was scheduled. I also think he should of pulled out of Afghanistan also but damn if the right doesn't want him to invade Iran.


----------



## Kane

A circular conversation.

America will always need a Gitmo.  Call it by any name, we will always require off-shore detention of illegal combatants (terrorists) so as to avoid the messy constraints of our own legal system.

Accept it.  Embrace it.  Move along.


----------



## mak2

Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was.  Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.  





thcri said:


> Wasn't the plan to get out of Iraq done under the Bush Administration?  And didn't Obama put us in a war we had no business being in with no approval.
> 
> 
> US - Iraq Agreement


----------



## Cowboy

mak2 said:


> Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was. Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.


 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4Bh-hlUWA"]U.S. Troops on the Ground in Libya      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mak2

The only boots on the ground I can find from a real news source sites CIA operatives, who are probably everywhere in the world and bomb removal from the embassy.  THe Faux piece above I find extremely interesting.  In one breath the Col says the Obama administration was lying about the troops on the ground to protect him, yet Faux repeatedly states there are troops on the ground regardless of national security.  IF this is to be believed, faux is no better than Manning and that Swedish goofball, Assange.  Anyway the bottom line is, were American troops ever on the ground in Libya and were any of them killed?  Let me think...


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> Thankfully Obama is getting us out of both Iraq and Afganistan.



You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?



thcri said:


> Wasn't the plan to get out of Iraq done under the Bush Administration?  And didn't Obama put us in a war we had no business being in with no approval.



I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed.  Your little boy in the office is not as good as you think.



mak2 said:


> Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was.  Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.




And you still can't accept it can you.  NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever.  But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it.

And who blamed Obama for anything in this?


----------



## Cowboy

mak2 said:


> Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was. Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.


As thcri posted, just before President George W. Bush left office, he signed a Status Of Forces Agreement that said American forces will withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. Like it or not thats a simple fact.


----------



## tiredretired

Don't forget, Obama got us out of Libya too. Oh wait, he got us into it first, then got us out.


----------



## Cowboy

TiredRetired said:


> Don't forget, Obama got us out of Libya too. Oh wait, he got us into it first, then got us out.


 Very true TR, and lets not forget he also made this statement. “President Obama said it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that any U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.”


----------



## Kane

Cowboy said:


> Very true TR, and lets not forget he also made this statement. “President Obama said it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that any U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.”


...  and that American involvement would last "a matter of days, not weeks."


----------



## mak2

thcri said:


> You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?
> 
> 
> Who was the POTUS when the troops were pulled out?
> 
> 
> I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. see above *Your little boy *in the office is not as good as you think. Childish derogatory term noted, I wonder if "boy" is of special significance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still can't accept it can you.  NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever.  But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it. I understand, long standing treaties mean nothing, when you are ate up with Obama hate. I love when you talk about libs being in lock step.   Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative.  But you can pretend if it makes you feel better.
> 
> And who blamed Obama for anything in this? QUOTE]
> 
> Well no one, of course.


----------



## joec

He sure did under treaty agreement, and I might add without a single American dieing also. Damn that has to be what bothers you guys is no American's dieing so you can't rap yourselves in their death with righteous indignation over leaving would mean they might of died in vain. Giving reason to keep it going long past the job being done. 

I love how you support the troops till they come home then to hell with them. Oh and folks we have special forces at a moments notice any place on the planet and a few you have probably never heard of.


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> thcri said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?
> 
> 
> Who was the POTUS when the troops were pulled out?
> 
> 
> 
> I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. see above *Your little boy *in the office is not as good as you think. Childish derogatory term noted, I wonder if "boy" is of special significance.
> 
> 
> 
> And you still can't accept it can you.  NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever.  But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it. I understand, long standing treaties mean nothing, when you are ate up with Obama hate. I love when you talk about libs being in lock step.   Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative.  But you can pretend if it makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> And who blamed Obama for anything in this? QUOTE]
> 
> Well no one, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point 1
> The president of the United States was Barack Obama following a document and policy instituted by Former President Bush.
> 
> Point 2
> Only showing you your favoritism to the existing  President.  I seriously think you think he can do no  wrong.
> 
> Point 3
> I have no hate for Obama.  My opinion of him though  is he is not qualified to be President of the United States.  A big  difference that obviously you can't understand.
> 
> Point 4
> You stated he got the blame.  read your earlier post.  Here I will help you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## mak2

joec said:


> He sure did under treaty agreement, and I might add without a single American dieing also. Damn that has to be what bothers you guys is no American's dieing so you can't rap yourselves in their death with righteous indignation over leaving would mean they might of died in vain. Giving reason to keep it going long past the job being done.
> 
> I love how you support the troops till they come home then to hell with them. Oh and folks we have special forces at a moments notice any place on the planet and a few you have probably never heard of.



They want Obama to fail soooo bad I think they forget they and he are all Americans.  Except when that guy on the radio tells them they are great Americans.   actually it is not really that funny but  kinda sad really.

Just to stay a little more concrete, I think the RW is to the point where they hate Obama more than they love their county.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> thcri said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?
> 
> 
> Who was the POTUS when the troops were pulled out?
> 
> 
> I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. see above *Your little boy *in the office is not as good as you think. Childish derogatory term noted, I wonder if "boy" is of special significance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still can't accept it can you.  NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever.  But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it. I understand, long standing treaties mean nothing, when you are ate up with Obama hate. I love when you talk about libs being in lock step.   Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative.  But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” But you can pretend if it makes you feel better.
> 
> And who blamed Obama for anything in this? QUOTE]
> 
> Well no one, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative.
> 
> Quite possibly, mak2, this is your problem.  You swing with a crowd that resides way too far left of reality.  Way too far.
Click to expand...


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> They want Obama to fail soooo bad I think they forget they and he are all Americans.  Except when that guy on the radio tells them they are great Americans.   actually it is not really that funny but  kinda sad really.
> 
> Just to stay a little more concrete, I think the RW is to the point where they hate Obama more than they love their county.




that is your opinion.  You still don't understand the difference between hate and have a difference of opinion in his policies.  No sense me discussing anymore with you.


----------



## mak2

What ever you think, but I have been anti abortion, pro gun rights and several other non Democratic things for years.  I doubt you have any major divisive opinions with teh RW, too inconvient.  You have to convience yourself anyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw or is just stupid.  That is a device to avoid having to think.  Carry on was my line, by the way.. 





thcri said:


> mak2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point 1
> The president of the United States was Barack Obama following a document and policy instituted by Former President Bush.
> 
> Point 2
> Only showing you your favoritism to the existing  President.  I seriously think you think he can do no  wrong.
> 
> Point 3
> I have no hate for Obama.  My opinion of him though  is he is not qualified to be President of the United States.  A big  difference that obviously you can't understand.
> 
> Point 4
> You stated he got the blame.  read your earlier post.  Here I will help you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cowboy

"Combat troops" is used in newspeak because it helps obfuscate understanding about war (which is an important contribution the mainstream media and many independent outlets perform) . It has a technical military meaning, but it's often used to imply (falsely) that the troops or operatives there are not engaging in combat. This term became more prevalent after Obama pretended that following the Status of Forces Agreement 2008 that Bush signed with Iraq had something to do with his "change" of foreign policy. This was because in that agreement was this:

Article 24 - 2: All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, 
villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security 
Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, 
provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

Obama actually pushed this date back a year before speeding it up a couple months as another opportunity to pretend he had changed something about Bush's foreign policy (besides tone of diplomacy of course, which was more flattering [as opposed to Bush's undisguised arrogance]).

Likewise, for clarity, the scheduled withdrawal at the end of this year is from that same agreement:

Article 24 - 1: All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. 



Furthermore!






On Feb. 27, 2009, one month after taking office as president, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Obama said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." 

He repeated the Aug. 31 date on Aug. 2 when he spoke to a group of disabled veterans in Atlanta.

“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said.  “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end,” Obama said. “And that is exactly what we are doing, as promised and on schedule.”

http://cnsnews.com/node/72052


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> What ever you think, but I have been anti abortion, pro gun rights and several other non Democratic things for years.  I doubt you have any major divisive opinions with teh RW, too inconvient.  You have to convience yourself anyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw or is just stupid.  That is a device to avoid having to think.  Carry on was my line, by the way..
> 
> I think you have listened to too much Olberman and Mathews over the years.  Personaly the above makes no sense and was a waste of your time typing.   Out of here since you can't discuss respectively with others.  Did Mathews tell you that the RW all hate Obama, or was it Olberman?


----------



## tiredretired

mak2 said:


> They want Obama to fail soooo bad I think they forget they and he are all Americans.  Except when that guy on the radio tells them they are great Americans.   actually it is not really that funny but  kinda sad really.
> 
> Just to stay a little more concrete, I think the RW is to the point where they hate Obama more than they love their county.



Oh, my God!  My heart is bleeding.    Eight years of listening to the liberal left spread their poison toward GWB, his wife and daughters and it was OK by everyone on the left and in the lamestream media.  Accepted. Business as usual.   Now the right has the audacity to speak out against Mr. Fair Share and we're now unpatriotic because of our dislike toward the Fresh Prince.  Wow.  Sipping on some strong stuff there Mak.


----------



## mak2

So what?  Calling him boy is not hateful?  Again you retreat to your fall back position, "Someone disagrees with me, must be to his handlers telling him what to think."  Cant you see what you are doing?  Of course not.





thcri said:


> mak2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you think, but I have been anti abortion, pro gun rights and several other non Democratic things for years.  I doubt you have any major divisive opinions with teh RW, too inconvient.  You have to convience yourself anyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw or is just stupid.  That is a device to avoid having to think.  Carry on was my line, by the way..
> 
> I think you have listened to too much Olberman and Mathews over the years.  Personaly the above makes no sense and was a waste of your time typing.   Out of here since you can't discuss respectively with others.  Did Mathews tell you that the RW all hate Obama, or was it Olberman?
Click to expand...


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> So what?  Calling him boy is not hateful?


Only racists find hate and racism in the use of "your boy".  Most of us boys and girls on FF don't see it that way.  When we had our boy GWB in the White House, it wasn't hateful and racist.  Why is it now?

Boy, oh boy.  What has the world come to ....


----------



## mak2

Oh, excuse me.  I had forgotten how truly enlightened you all are.  


Kane said:


> Only racists find hate and racism in the use of "your boy".  Most of us boys and girls on FF don't see it that way.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> There is no difference in a Christian and a devout Christian or a Moslem and a devout one, I was attempting to imply they believed in the Koran, or their bible as you put it. The line did not move I did intend to confuse you.
> 
> Just say what you mean, you want to kill all Moslems, because you believe they all want to kill you cause their bible tells them to. Right? *Even the ones I know at work?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> and hence your apologetics about islamic ideology.
> I suggest you study the quran, and the difference between shiite and sunni.
> Islam and it's followers cannot be compared to other world religions, and by saying it shows you don't know much about the subject. I know you like to follow your liberal groupthink about how islam and the evil right wing, but you should really study what you're trying to debate before you continue to make yourself look foolish.


----------



## thcri RIP

I didn't call him Boy.  I said he was your boy that can do no wrong no matter what it is.  That is the teachings of the liberal left you  have consumed.


----------



## mak2

SShepherd said:


> mak2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no difference in a Christian and a devout Christian or a Moslem and a devout one, I was attempting to imply they believed in the Koran, or their bible as you put it. The line did not move I did intend to confuse you.
> 
> Just say what you mean, you want to kill all Moslems, because you believe they all want to kill you cause their bible tells them to. Right? *Even the ones I know at work?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> and hence your apologetics about islamic ideology.
> I suggest you study the quran, and the difference between shiite and sunni.
> Islam and it's followers cannot be compared to other world religions, and by saying it shows you don't know much about the subject. I know you like to follow your* liberal groupthink *about how islam and the evil right wing, but you should really study what you're trying to debate before you continue to make yourself look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is a difficult concept.  I am not defending Islam.  I dont beleive in any part of it.  What I do believe in is religious freedom in the United States.  Many people (American citizens) in this country are Moslem, they have every right to freely practice that religion in this country, until they break a law.  You cannot just pretend it is not a religion and discriminate against it, or kill them.  That is such a simplistic approach to the problem I think this is about the only place I ever hear about it, oh, and those whacky wing nut sites.  Again with the liberal group think.  Come on, lets try one original thought.
Click to expand...


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> Oh, excuse me. I had forgotten how truly enlightened you all are.


I've stayed out of this thread....seeing you continually throw your backhanded insults, like you implying someone is a racist because they used the term "your boy" shows your desperation- just like jesse jackson and al sharpton.

More on topic, US policy has been not to negotiate with terrorists . This isn't the 1st time the current admin has decided against that long standing policy.
Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments' political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent.
Here's an example of the last time things were "negotiated"
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227765/negotiating-terrorists/andrew-c-mccarthy


----------



## mak2

But...you did call him boy, it is right there in black and white.  Isnt it about time you say I am off topic and change the subject?  





thcri said:


> I didn't call him Boy.  I said he was your boy that can do no wrong no matter what it is.  That is the teachings of the liberal left you  have consumed.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> SShepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is a difficult concept. I am not defending Islam. I dont beleive in any part of it.* What I do believe in is religious freedom in the United States.* Many people (American citizens) in this country are Moslem, they have every right to freely practice that religion in this country, until they break a law. You cannot just pretend it is not a religion and discriminate against it, or kill them. That is such a simplistic approach to the problem I think this is about the only place I ever hear about it, oh, and those whacky wing nut sites. Again with the liberal group think. Come on, lets try one original thought.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it a 3rd abd final time- study it for yourself, or are you afraid of being wrong?
> The video i posted (which you obviously didn't watch) explaind things so anyone can understand them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cowboy

jimbo said:


> *Re: Obama Negotiates With Taliban Over Gitmo Prisoners*
> 
> Mak, Joe, do you realize how far you have to stray to make a somewhat dubious point?
> 
> "But, but the military complex must eat...so lets send them oil money, let them buy arms then war with them. My goodness we are a smart bunch. "
> 
> "Or prop up their corrupt governments for decades while they abuse their citizens. This was the reason we have a bad relationship with Iran among others today."


 
I had to go back and look to find it but I think this is the last post that even resembles WTF was even being discussed as far as the original topic.  Talk about a thread growing fuckin legs, but considering who has been adding to it its no big surprise.


----------



## mak2

SS you are flat wrong, Islam is a religion, American Islams have every right to practice it a Baptist or a Catholic does.  The prevailing view on this forum about declaring it not a religion so it can be discriminted against is so laughingly simplistic you never hear about the idea in any sort of serious discussion (I take that back, if you consider the far far right serious, you only hear it there).  I am not afraid of consdiering any concept, but pretending Islam is just dumb.  I dont undstand it becaue the concept is stupid it is not beause I am.


----------



## thcri RIP

thcri said:


> *Your little boy* in the office is not as good as you think.





mak2 said:


> *But...you did call him boy*, it is right there in black and white.  Isnt it about time you say I am off topic and change the subject?




What part of *"Your" *did you not understand?  You seem to have a problem with reading what people are actually saying.  Typical Left Wing crap to try and sway the people.   You have been swayed.


----------



## tiredretired

That's only because the American lamestream media would never dare to cross the PC boundry line and call the spade for what it is.  The hue and cry from the left would be deafening.  The very same left that mocks things like Tim Tebow's display of faith would have a shit fit over any statements exposing Islam for what it is.  A Cult.  Nobody is professing that the majority of those that participate in this cult are terrorists, just that the majority of terrorists belong to this cult.  That's all.


----------



## SShepherd

and you are flat wrong. Islam cannot be forced into the same catagory as other world religions- 

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/islam_religion_ideology_4346.jsp

http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/11/islam-political-ideology-or-religion.html

Islam is a state religion created to justify power and the oppression of non-Muslims.

http://librabunda.blogspot.com/2005/11/stop-islamization-of-europe-stop.html

One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as _just another one of the world's great religions_. We shouldn't. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, politics all wrapped up in a deity.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...gy-than-religion-f-b-i-analyst-says-in-video/

The video is dull — seminar room, dim lights, PowerPoint — but its message from an F.B.I. counterterrorism analyst is provocative: fighting Al Qaeda and other extremist groups is a “waste” compared to the broader threat posed by Islam itself.


----------



## mak2

What about, "Your idiot SS just made another post"  If I say "your" can I pretend I didnt say he is an idiot, too?  This is too silly to argue, you called him a boy right here in black and white.  Man up, you did it.  It is not the Left Wings fault, you did it. By the way, I was using idiot and SS in a hypothetical circumstance, I really wasnt calling him an idiot.  But I bet that will be a bit more difficult to understand.  I am bored with this.      





thcri said:


> What part of *"Your" *did you not understand?  You seem to have a problem with reading what people are actually saying.  Typical Left Wing crap to try and sway the people.   You have been swayed.


----------



## Cowboy

> I am bored with this.


 
That says a lot about your reasoning for being here, and you have the nerve to resort to calling others childish.


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> I am bored with this.



Good.  It is all drivel anyway. I called him "Your Boy" because no matter what or how wrong and unfair he is you will go to no end to protect him. Not in the sense you are thinking that has been driven into you. 

And don't call me right winger as I have no plans of voting for any of them right now. 

And don't call me racist as you no idea of what I am or who I associate with. You just like to say stuff like that because that is what the media has said. I am done too


----------



## SShepherd

and yet again, he'd rather debate semantics and namecalling than discuss the subject of the OP


----------



## mak2

Anyone who mindlessly repeats Islam is not a religion is not even up to the semantics level yet.  Islam is a religion and is constitutionally protected, pretending it is not a religion is simplistic and far more dangerous to the US than all the terrorist combined.  You do understand that right?


----------



## SShepherd

I'm tired of your uninformed insults. I'm not going to lower myself to your level of ignorant debate, simple as that. You want to debate, do it without the insults and after you've don't your homework.

PS, homework does not mean listening to oberman


----------



## mak2

SShepherd said:


> I'm tired of your uninformed insults. I'm not going to lower myself to your level of ignorant debate, simple as that. You want to debate, do it without the insults and after you've don't your homework.
> 
> PS, homework does not mean listening to oberman


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


>


 and besides baiting conflict, is there anything else you can do here ?

really, your MO is pretty tiresome


----------



## Kane

SShepherd said:


> and besides baiting conflict, is there anything else you can do here ?
> 
> really, your MO is pretty tiresome



With *mak2* it's not a matter of trying.  It just comes natural.  Right now he has another thread, the Global Warming thread, on its knees with the same pointless BS.  Seems to be a waste of everyone's time trying to have a conversation with him.  Why bother?


----------



## mak2

I just want to make sure you realize probably more than 90% of Americans think Islam is a religion, and if I say that on here it is pointless bullshit.   YOu really do crack me up.  





Kane said:


> With *mak2* it's not a matter of trying.  It just comes natural.  Right now he has another thread, the Global Warming thread, on its knees with the same pointless BS.  Seems to be a waste of everyone's time trying to have a conversation with him.  Why bother?


----------



## fogtender

mak2 said:


> Anyone who mindlessly repeats Islam is not a religion is not even up to the semantics level yet.  Islam is a religion and is constitutionally protected, pretending it is not a religion is simplistic and far more dangerous to the US than all the terrorist combined.  You do understand that right?



It may be a religion, but so is "Global Warming" to a lot of people.  But they aren't killing in the name Al Gore.  

Millions of people are part of Islam just as people are Christians, becaused that is what they were raised with like Obama was raised as a Muslum (it's a fact, get over it).

The differance is most people want to be left alone and raise their families, no matter what religion they are.  The differance is as a rule, you don't find "Christian" countries saying they are going to wipe anyone off the planet because of their race, but at some point that changes.  You have Islamic Clerics preaching pure hatred, not just "Don't like them", but Genocide.

Israel is about ready to attack Iran to slow their stated distruction by Iran.

There are millions of people that will be dying shortly because they clearly believe their version of "God" is telling them to kill.  That makes them a cancer, and you don't wait until you are Overwhelmed with cancer before you react...  This time coming apon us isn't going to be good times!


----------



## mak2

Fine fogtender, all the rest of that are arguable points on other threads.  My point is Islam is a religion.  That religion deserves the same rights as any other under our constitution.  That is my whole point plain and simple.  We as a nation cant just pretend it is not a religion so we can make seperate rules for it.  As soon as a person who practices Islam breaks a law anyone else in America is subject to they should be held to the exact same standards as everone else.  If an American Islam kills someone he should be prosectued exactly the same as everyone else.  I have seen killing American Islams for no other reason touted on this board and not one of you voiced any dissent.  THe global warming schtick doesnt really pertian to this thread, that is the other one I ahve to odascity to disagree with someone on.   





fogtender said:


> It may be a religion, but so is "Global Warming" to a lot of people.  But they aren't killing in the name Al Gore.
> 
> Millions of people are part of Islam just as people are Christians, becaused that is what they were raised with like Obama was raised as a Muslum (it's a fact, get over it).
> 
> The differance is most people want to be left alone and raise their families, no matter what religion they are.  The differance is as a rule, you don't find "Christian" countries saying they are going to wipe anyone off the planet because of their race, but at some point that changes.  You have Islamic Clerics preaching pure hatred, not just "Don't like them", but Genocide.
> 
> Israel is about ready to attack Iran to slow their stated distruction by Iran.
> 
> There are millions of people that will be dying shortly because they clearly believe their version of "God" is telling them to kill.  That makes them a cancer, and you don't wait until you are Overwhelmed with cancer before you react...  This time coming apon us isn't going to be good times!


----------



## Cowboy

> THe global warming schtick doesnt really pertian to this thread,




*Neither does most of your other rantings. *

*Thread topic WAS. Obama Negotiates With Taliban Over Gitmo Prisoners .*


----------



## mak2

jimbo said:


> Joe, he said terrorists, not terrorism.  Terrorists are people, terrorism is a method used to scare the hell out of a group of people.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by tactic used by the patriots during the Revolutionary War, but the war was fought on our turf and had nothing to do with terrorism.  If we had blown up Windsor Castle, that might have been termed terrorism.
> 
> Those who think that we can negotiate with people who have as their stated goal the annihilation of infidels, being defined as those who do not believe as they do, are in fact living in a dream world.
> 
> I would have to agree, however, about the living in a phukin dreamworld, although I would term it somewhat stronger.
> 
> The real world you want to espouse is simply this. * These bastards want to kill us.  It says so in their bible (over 60 times)*.  And I, for one, do not want to be killed.



I think this was the first anti Islamic post and I responded to it,  why bitch at me?


----------



## mak2

And by the way, some of the best threads on our fourm have completely drifted off topic.  That is usually considered a good thing for copy and paste OPs. Why insist on sticking to the topic if the thread has taken a different tangent?


----------



## fogtender

mak2 said:


> Fine fogtender, all the rest of that are arguable points on other threads.  My point is Islam is a religion.  That religion deserves the same rights as any other under our constitution.  That is my whole point plain and simple.  We as a nation cant just pretend it is not a religion so we can make seperate rules for it.  As soon as a person who practices Islam breaks a law anyone else in America is subject to they should be held to the exact same standards as everone else.  If an American Islam kills someone he should be prosectued exactly the same as everyone else.  I have seen killing American Islams for no other reason touted on this board and not one of you voiced any dissent.  THe global warming schtick doesnt really pertian to this thread, that is the other one I ahve to odascity to disagree with someone on.




It was what.... Some 19 Islamic innocents that boarded planes on 9/11, and by the end of the day we had a bunch of new craters around the Northeast!  At some point one has to realize this was done in the name of a perverse God.

You want to call it a religion, that is fine... But it is very blood soaked and all though history has ruled by terror.  They have by far killed more people world wide than any other religion, although Christanity has done it's fair share as well during the dark ages, but tended to get over it.


----------



## joec

fogtender said:


> It was what.... Some 19 Islamic innocents that boarded planes on 9/11, and by the end of the day we had a bunch of new craters around the Northeast! At some point one has to realize this was done in the name of a perverse God.
> 
> You want to call it a religion, that is fine... But it is very blood soaked and all though history has ruled by terror. They have by far killed more people world wide than any other religion, although Christanity has done it's fair share as well during the dark ages, but tended to get over it.


 
Christanity has gotten over it, really? Doctors killed for performing abortions, a war in Ireland that lasted till the mid 90's. Not so sure that Christanity or Jedusim has gotten over anything yet. I see both as simply taking a break till the next time they think they can get away with taking control.


----------



## Cowboy

Islam for dummys, simply explained. 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dRr854zxbA&feature=player_embedded"]The Grand Jihad      - YouTube[/ame]#!


----------



## Kane

Cowboy said:


> Islam for dummys, simply explained.
> The Grand Jihad      - YouTube#!


Bana was virulently anti-colonial and felt strongly about Salafiyyah (righteous ancestors).

hmmmm.

Obama is virulently anti-colonial and feels strongly about his righteous ancestors.

Now I see. Banaobama.  Obamabana.
.


----------



## Dargo

Cowboy said:


> Islam for dummys, simply explained.
> 
> 
> The Grand Jihad      - YouTube#!



Pretty good artist; fast too!  Actually, I have an internal turmoil about Islam.  Obviously, I do NOT want to consider Muslims as 'a group of terrorists'.  *However,* it seems every time I remind myself to not think that way, I see fact after fact that seems to now be indisputable that most (but, as far as we know) not all mosques promote the credo "Convert to Islam or my religion dictates I kill you".  

Our laws here keep that from overtly happening.  Clearly, that is a good thing.  Unfortunately, there is this particular word that keeps popping up called 'covert'.  I'll admit that it really bothers me that we know for a fact we have both overt and covert factions of Islam _within our own borders_ who want to kill all 'infidels'.  Even worse, I've been told that there is even part of the Quran that allows their followers to veer from outwardly appearing to be a Muslim in order to fulfill this apparent basis or charter for their religion.  Even "our friend", Saudi Arabia, has an extremely barbaric side if you're born there, live there, but want to have any freedom of thought or speech.  I'm pretty sure doing so will begin a sequence that allows you to assume room temperature prematurely.

So, back to the topic; how in the hell can our current (mistake) president even consider releasing these people who basically admit that their detention has only strengthened their resolve to destroy the west?  I simply do not understand.  Take all of Obama's other thousands of blunders in office that has NOT been good for our country aside.  Just this single act alone, IMHO, is enough to make me want him removed, by force if need be, from office.  How can anyone not see that Obama is derelict in his sworn duty he spoke upon assuming his position?  I honestly do NOT believe that Obama is like every single president before him.  This has nothing to do with his heritage or that he had an African sperm donor for a father, it has to do with my belief that he does NOT love this country and would never honestly consider putting his life, or even perceived reputation, on the line to make our country better and stronger.


----------

