View Full Version : Right Wing Enraged: Laura Bush Is A ‘Butt-Kisser’ For Wearing Headscarf In Mideast
patriotsblade
10-26-2007, 05:34 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/26/laura-bush-scarf-ii/
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wore a headscarf while visiting the Umayyad mosque in Damascus in April, the right wing pounced on her, attacking her as “subservient” and calling the act “disgust[ing].” Ironically, the right wing failed to note that First Lady Laura Bush had also worn a headscarf while previously visiting the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
During a tour of the Middle East this week, Laura Bush again donned a traditional hijab given to her as a gift by a Saudi Arabian doctor. Subsequently, several progressive bloggers questioned whether similar “opprobium” would follow from the right wing this time. Now we have our answer.
The conservative blogosphere has released its seething intolerance, collectively rising up to denounce Laura Bush as “Ms. Pander Clause” for wearing the head cover:
“I find the image from Saudi Arabia so disturbing. … That she would oblige her hosts by wearing a shmata on her head is a tacit endorsement of Islam’s subjugation of women.” — Weekly Standard
“Bad craziness in Saudi Arabia … [W]e get this, from one of the most misogynistic societies on the planet: a photo of Laura Bush wearing an abaya and a veil. — Little Green Footballs
“This is Sheikha Laura, yesterday, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia … Laura Bush [is] butt-kissing Saudi King Abdullah.” — Debbie Schlussel
Showing tolerance and respect for other cultures is interpreted as “butt-kissing” by far right conservatives.
At least they are consistent more then I can say for the Left Wing
Saguaro
10-26-2007, 05:37 PM
It is a matter of respect to honor a country's customs
Didn't say it wasn't, didn't say that they were right in condemning either Pelosi or L Bush. I just said that they are consistent.
Saguaro
10-26-2007, 05:42 PM
Rev,my post wasn't directed to anyone in particular,just a response to the article
Rev,my post wasn't directed to anyone in particular,just a response to the article
My apologies, anywhoo still needed to make my point clear.
issac the dragon
10-26-2007, 05:48 PM
Yes, they are consistantly stupid, chauvinistic, and intolerant.
Yes, they are consistantly stupid, chauvinistic, and intolerant.
As the left are constantly whining, whishy washy, and oh my intolerant as well.
Seems they have something in common.
Trueblue
10-26-2007, 06:11 PM
At least they are consistent more then I can say for the Left Wing
The left consistently didn't complain either time.
It's common courtesy.
Yes but the left is inconsistent in its attack on those that insult the military.
crazierthanever
10-27-2007, 06:12 AM
Yes but the left is inconsistent in its attack on those that insult the military.
Forgive me, but aren't you reaching a bit far this morning? Not Ringo or Wabash far, but far.
Forgive me, but aren't you reaching a bit far this morning? Not Ringo or Wabash far, but far.
No I am not.
The left have condemned Rush for his military comments but have said nothing about Dick, our troops are Nazis, Dubrin; Osama, our troops are just air raiding villages, Obama; John, our troops are terrorizing women and children, Kerry; John our troops are murdering in cold blood, Murtha.
More here
Video: Job of U.S. soldiers is killing “mothers and sisters,” says David Crosby
http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/10/16/video-job-of-us-soldiers-is-killing-“mothers-and-sisters”-says-david-crosby/
Now to be fair the right isn't any better. While they are consistent in what they condemn (for the most part) they condemn the wrong things and do it for stupid reasons.
Both parties have lost there way.
Lone Laugher
10-27-2007, 07:55 AM
Rev, what are you talking about? Politicians...ALL breeds of them...are born and bred to speak from both sides of their mouths. Political pundits...of any stripe...will say...or write...or "blog" whatever it takes to get the desired reaction from their listeners/readers.
Even the "honest" ones often have to pander or fudge the truth in order to please the most people.
Your contention that the "right" is more consistent than the "left" is simply untrue. Even the article that started this thread concludes that the conservative pundits were inconsistent the first time Mrs. Bush wore the scarf as they let it slide on that occasion.
For everyone's sake...we all need to start looking at things objectively.
Trueblue
10-27-2007, 08:04 AM
No I am not.
The left have condemned Rush for his military comments but have said nothing about Dick, our troops are Nazis, Dubrin; Osama, our troops are just air raiding villages, Obama; John, our troops are terrorizing women and children, Kerry; John our troops are murdering in cold blood, Murtha.
More here
Video: Job of U.S. soldiers is killing “mothers and sisters,” says David Crosby
http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/10/16/video-job-of-us-soldiers-is-killing-“mothers-and-sisters”-says-david-crosby/
I think Durbin was right when he said that the list of interrogation techniques sounded like something out of Nazi Germany.
How does that condemn ALL the troops? ALL the troops weren't there and didn't participate.
The war has terrorized a lot of people.
There have been incidents of cold-blooded murder.
The right is trying to spin legitimate comments on the activities of some of the troops.
The war has terrorized a lot of people.
There have been incidents of cold-blooded murder.
That's war. It sounds cruel, but that shit happens when people are at war. It happens on the other side, yet we never hear people like you condemn it then.
The problem comes when these politicians lump all the soldiers in their disparaging comments. Obama and Kerry were the worst in lumping ALL soldiers in their comments, but Durbin and others do the same almost everyday.
For you to claim that these politicans were only talking of specific soldiers smacks of bias, when you claim that Rush was talking about all soldiers in his remarks. You need to have a solid consistent stance, which seems impossible with your obvious bias. How do you claim YOUR politicans were talking specifics, and Rush was talking all? It makes no sense when you listen to all remarks.
Trueblue
10-27-2007, 08:22 AM
That's war. It sounds cruel, but that shit happens when people are at war. It happens on the other side, yet we never hear people like you condemn it then.
Oh, what bullshit. I know that the other side commits atrocities-why exactly do we need to announce that we also object when the other side does it to? We all agree on that! What kind of a discussion would we have?????
As for "it's just war"-more BS. The US, and our allies, are supposed to be better than that.
The problem comes when these politicians lump all the soldiers in their disparaging comments. Obama and Kerry were the worst in lumping ALL soldiers in their comments, but Durbin and others do the same almost everyday.
Well the thing is, none of those folks meant all soldiers.
For you to claim that these politicans were only talking of specific soldiers smacks of bias, when you claim that Rush was talking about all soldiers in his remarks. You need to have a solid consistent stance, which seems impossible with your obvious bias. How do you claim YOUR politicans were talking specifics, and Rush was talking all? It makes no sense when you listen to all remarks.
I have a bias towards Dems and libs, but I am being honest in my criticisms.
I am not saying that Rush meant all soldiers, just that he meant all soldiers who are opposed to the Iraq war. He has a history of condemning those who disagree with him as unpatriotic.
My stance makes perfect sense, to anyone who actually follows the events instead of the spin.
And Rush is no politician. Keep that in mind! People keep wanting to compare him to a Senator or Congressman. Rush wouldn't last a day in such a job. He's the Wizard, hiding in a sound booth. Not a public servant.
Lone Laugher
10-27-2007, 08:24 AM
"That's war. It sounds cruel, but that shit happens when people are at war. It happens on the other side, yet we never hear people like you condemn it then."
And, therein lies part of the problem.....WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ!!!
It is generous, in fact...to say that we are at war against anyone. We may be at war against an abstract idea...a tactic. The fact that innocent men, women and children are being killed ( by mistake...collaterally...or otherwise ) is an indictment of not only our military...but of our entire nation. The blood of those people is on my hands...your hands and on the hands of EVERY US citizen....including every US soldier.
Take responsibility....we are killing people with whom we are not at war!!!
Kurtz
10-27-2007, 08:57 AM
"That's war. It sounds cruel, but that shit happens when people are at war. It happens on the other side, yet we never hear people like you condemn it then."
And, therein lies part of the problem.....WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ!!!
It is generous, in fact...to say that we are at war against anyone. We may be at war against an abstract idea...a tactic. The fact that innocent men, women and children are being killed ( by mistake...collaterally...or otherwise ) is an indictment of not only our military...but of our entire nation. The blood of those people is on my hands...your hands and on the hands of EVERY US citizen....including every US soldier.
Take responsibility....we are killing people with whom we are not at war!!!
:paclap :paclap
And there ya have it, folks!
toxic
10-27-2007, 10:08 AM
That's war. It sounds cruel, but that shit happens when people are at war. It happens on the other side, yet we never hear people like you condemn it then.
The problem comes when these politicians lump all the soldiers in their disparaging comments. Obama and Kerry were the worst in lumping ALL soldiers in their comments, but Durbin and others do the same almost everyday.
For you to claim that these politicans were only talking of specific soldiers smacks of bias, when you claim that Rush was talking about all soldiers in his remarks. You need to have a solid consistent stance, which seems impossible with your obvious bias. How do you claim YOUR politicans were talking specifics, and Rush was talking all? It makes no sense when you listen to all remarks.
Liberals don't need to be consistant when the situations are not.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have destroyed our modern history of honorable treatment of civilians, due to their own lack of military experience or moral indifference. They repeatedly endorsed war crimes.
Most foot soldiers are not the brightest bulbs and need strict controls on behavior. It has always been so. Training people to kill and ignore their prior moral upbringing, requires strict application of boundrys. It is easer to train people to act on their most basic animal instincts than to get them to limit/stop those actions.
If you let the boundry slip to include shooting wounded soldiers (POWs), then shooting civilians, then shooting/raping woment and children, ... then what is left of US civilization? What then makes American soldiers better than animals?
Do these Right Wingers think that guys killing women and children will turn the key off when they return home? Consider a person that has raped/killed women and children, or tortured handcuffed men. What is the factor that will make that (dim) individual STOP when he gets frustrated with his family or work situation.
He has been conditioned, he will continue to act, he has been trained to avoid detection when he acts. He will be America's enemy when he returns home.
I would home America's moral backbone would be more substantial than simple self preservation (in the above sentence), but I suspect not.
---------
I was proud that Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace refused to accept Rumsfeld's endorsement of war crimes last year. Pace stated it was EVERY SOLDIER'S RESPONSIBILITY to immediated stop any such actions when they see them. Pace over-ruled Rumfeld's objections.
The chatter of ass-ignorant politicians, pimple-ass radio hosts and bad field commanders, continue make the control of troops more difficult. Instead of supporting true American ideals, the Righ Wing supports crime.
Yellowdogtexan
10-27-2007, 10:31 AM
This week's Real Time with Bill Maher had a great piece on this. According to the left, the bushies have always sided with the more extreme religious groups in the Mid east such as the Saudis even though their treatment of women is horrible and attacked Iran and Iraq where women have far more rights. bush practically kissed the ring of the Saudi leader who visited a couple of years ago and when the Saudis tell bush or cheney to jump, they obey.
Here the right does understand that it is okay to be respectful of other countries. Our female soliders stationed in Saudi Arabia had to comply with local customs but no one complained because the Saudis were our allies. Where were these right wingers when female US service personnel complained about having to comply with these customs.
issac the dragon
10-27-2007, 10:58 AM
The right wingers were the ones who told them to shut up and do it. The Bush admin. supports many dictatorships, and countries with appalling rights violations. They could care less. The only time human rights comes up is when they need an excuse to start a war, and it has nothing to do with the real reason they want to start a war.
As for "it's just war"-more BS. The US, and our allies, are supposed to be better than that.
I agree 100%, but shit happens. With that many people, you can't watch 'em all all of the time. You punish those who commit crimes and hope that deters others.
Well the thing is, none of those folks meant all soldiers.
Who exactly was Kerry talking about when said "OUR SOLDIERS" raiding in the dark of night? Seems he was talking about all.
I am not saying that Rush meant all soldiers, just that he meant all soldiers who are opposed to the Iraq war. He has a history of condemning those who disagree with him as unpatriotic.
I disagree with that point, but thank you for clearing that up. I must have misunderstood you on the other threads.
My stance makes perfect sense, to anyone who actually follows the events instead of the spin.
I have followed every bit of the events. THe only spin I'm finding is here.
And Rush is no politician. Keep that in mind! People keep wanting to compare him to a Senator or Congressman. Rush wouldn't last a day in such a job. He's the Wizard, hiding in a sound booth. Not a public servant.
Absolutely he is NO politician. I never siad he was a public servant. I was making the point of two groups saying something along the same lines, and IMO, your lack of consistency on the subject.
The right wingers were the ones who told them to shut up and do it. The Bush admin. supports many dictatorships, and countries with appalling rights violations. They could care less. The only time human rights comes up is when they need an excuse to start a war, and it has nothing to do with the real reason they want to start a war.
You can't just label the Bush Administration. All Presidential Administrations have supported dictators and those with dismal human rights records. Clinton, Carter, Regan, and the current Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates.
Some of you are just ridiculous in your hatred for an Administration, and claiming they are the only ones who do what they are doing.
Oceanbreeze
10-27-2007, 11:26 AM
It is a matter of respect to honor a country's customs
I agree. :aisha
I love how y'all keep defending the left no matter what they do or say.
I must make an apology (I am suprised no one noticed and called me on it) This morning before I had my coffee I decided to post while reading another post. In my doing so I made a big mistake. I was reading the post about Romney calling Obama Osama and inadvertently did the same. I do apologize and for the record do not think the BARRAK Obama and Osama Bin Laden have anything in common.
Moral of story don't post have asleep without and without caffine in your system.
Lone Laugher
10-27-2007, 03:07 PM
I found a new keyboard for you Rev.
307
Look closely and compare with the one you have........
I found a new keyboard for you Rev.
307
Look closely and compare with the one you have........
My keyboard is just fine thank you
http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-967234-0403-Keyboard-Elite-Black/dp/B00006FRUI
It was not a keyboard error but a human error, it is a poor man that blames his tools :wink
Lone Laugher
10-27-2007, 03:13 PM
Closer......
Trueblue
10-28-2007, 09:26 AM
I love how y'all keep defending the left no matter what they do or say.
I must make an apology (I am suprised no one noticed and called me on it) This morning before I had my coffee I decided to post while reading another post. In my doing so I made a big mistake. I was reading the post about Romney calling Obama Osama and inadvertently did the same. I do apologize and for the record do not think the BARRAK Obama and Osama Bin Laden have anything in common.
Moral of story don't post have asleep without and without caffine in your system.
I noticed, and wondered, thanks for the clarification.
I'm not just randomly defending "the left". I would do the same for a Publican who made a simple mistaken in speaking.
I agree 100%, but shit happens. With that many people, you can't watch 'em all all of the time. You punish those who commit crimes and hope that deters others.
I agree.
Who exactly was Kerry talking about when said "OUR SOLDIERS" raiding in the dark of night? Seems he was talking about all.
Didn't seem that way to me-he was talking about a tactic that he didn't approve of.
I have followed every bit of the events. THe only spin I'm finding is here.
I've got to disagree.
Absolutely he is NO politician. I never siad he was a public servant. I was making the point of two groups saying something along the same lines, and IMO, your lack of consistency on the subject.
Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
I am being asked to view two situations as identical that are only identical in the most superficial sense. I retain the right to look at a person's character and body of work in determining their meaning. Rush Limpbaugh is a clown, a bad entertainer for the weak-minded and hateful.
Rush's words are being compared with the words of serious, legitimate public servants. He's a buffoon, and he has continually attacked anyone, including soldiers, who disagree with the war in Iraq.
I noticed, and wondered, thanks for the clarification.
I'm not just randomly defending "the left". I would do the same for a Publican who made a simple mistaken in speaking.
Those people did not make a mistake when tehy were speaking, they knew exactly what they were saying.
Yellowdogtexan
10-29-2007, 05:05 PM
There is an update to the orignal ThinkProgress article that was the source cited in the OP. It has a very amusing rant from some right wingers. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13376.htmlPerhaps the most striking example of the conservatives’ ire comes by way of Atlas Shrugs. (emphasis, and grammatical errors, in the original)We are the king of the world. We are the best and the brightest. We are America goddammit. WTF are we bowing to Islam for? This ain’t PR no matter what Karen Hughes and Condirasha say. This is not not going to make the Islamic world hold hands and sing campfire tunes. Uh uh. This is submission and the worst message to send to Muslims.
Carolyn sent the pic and Schlussel link, shaken by it, with this note, ” This should be the photo that sinks the West. If the Bushes don’t get the proper advice, they will destroy this country before their 14 months are up. Today, the shuttle commander and the space station commander are both women. In Saudi Arabia the women cannot even go out of the house. [Or drive - Atlas]
This picture will say to the Arabs they are winning, and those women who would like to be free, will be very disheartened.Those who subscribe to Islamofascism will, of course, cheer.
Whose country is this, is the question. Is Bush the President shilling for the Saudis? What is Mrs. Bush doing there and in the UAE in the first place.That scarf and abayah has just insulted every single woman in the free world..Well, on the one hand, I suppose the right deserves some credit for consistency. They were apoplectic when Pelosi wore a headscarf, and at least a fair number of these same folks are just as livid today. Score one for bipartisan disgust.
But on the other hand, their rage is terribly misguided. This need not be complicated — when U.S. officials, lawmakers, and diplomats travel overseas, they’re careful to honor local traditions. Male diplomats know not to show Muslims the bottoms of their shoes. They know not to eat with their left hand. They don’t give unwelcome backrubs to foreign heads of state (well, most of them know this). The First Lady’s trip was no different.
Trueblue
10-29-2007, 05:06 PM
Those people did not make a mistake when tehy were speaking, they knew exactly what they were saying.
Actually, Kerry did make a mistake in what he said.
And Durbin was right, so no apology is needed. Durbin criticized torture. Rush criticized dissent. I know which one I think is more deserving of criticism.
Izdaari
10-31-2007, 01:15 AM
Funny, none of the really hardcore conservatives I know had any comments about the First Lady's headscarf at all. It sure doesn't seem to me like they're outraged. It seems to matter to them about as much as the color of Sean Hannity's tie. And that's about how much I care about it too.
Actually, Kerry did make a mistake in what he said.
And Durbin was right, so no apology is needed. Durbin criticized torture. Rush criticized dissent. I know which one I think is more deserving of criticism.
Kerry made a mistake whne he said that OUR troops were terrorizing women and children :confused seems to me he knew exactly what he was doing.
Durbin criticized soething that he has no proof was going on.
Cookie Parker
10-31-2007, 12:17 PM
Kerry made a mistake whne he said that OUR troops were terrorizing women and children :confused seems to me he knew exactly what he was doing.
Durbin criticized soething that he has no proof was going on.
Yeah, we know that torture has occurred and is still occuring and we know that women and children have been terrorized by the US...THOSE are facts.
Cookie Parker
10-31-2007, 12:18 PM
Those people did not make a mistake when tehy were speaking, they knew exactly what they were saying.
Isn't that freedom of speech?
Trueblue
10-31-2007, 05:10 PM
Kerry made a mistake whne he said that OUR troops were terrorizing women and children :confused seems to me he knew exactly what he was doing.
I thought you meant a different comment, actually. As for that one, don't you think that the women and children are frightened?
Durbin criticized soething that he has no proof was going on.
No, he was looking at a report of what happened.
Isn't that freedom of speech?
No arguing againt their freedom to say it.
I thought you meant a different comment, actually. As for that one, don't you think that the women and children are frightened?
No, he was looking at a report of what happened.
I don't think that our troops go around terrorizing them which is what he meant.
Trueblue
10-31-2007, 06:57 PM
No arguing againt their freedom to say it.
I don't think that our troops go around terrorizing them which is what he meant.
Kerry: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, 'Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis.
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not--
Schieffer: Yeah.
Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.
Clearly, he is saying that going into homes should be left to the Iraqis, and not to foreigners. It's not an attack on the troops. Look at the context.
It is an attack on our troops regardless who he says should be doing it because it isn't true. They are not terrorizing people.
You believe what you want to.
You have defended Murtha (who was proven wrong), Kerry (our troops are busting into houses in the dead of night terrorizing women and children)
and others.
It doesn't matter which Democrat I bring up you will defend them regardless what they say.
Trueblue
11-01-2007, 04:16 PM
It is an attack on our troops regardless who he says should be doing it because it isn't true. They are not terrorizing people.
You believe what you want to.
You have defended Murtha (who was proven wrong), Kerry (our troops are busting into houses in the dead of night terrorizing women and children)
and others.
It doesn't matter which Democrat I bring up you will defend them regardless what they say.
If somebody busts into your house in the middle of the night, it does cause terror.
I will defend people who misspeak, or who are misunderstood.
What is happening here is a kind of right wing PC-we aren't allowed to say that the troops terrorize somebody-even if they are.
No the troops are terrorizing people
So you side with code pink in calling our troops terrorists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI81unmTDJ4
Trueblue
11-01-2007, 08:31 PM
No the troops are terrorizing people
So you side with code pink in calling our troops terrorists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI81unmTDJ4
Don't be a Cisco and put words in my mouth.
My post is perfectly clear.
IF our troops were terrorizinig people (which they are not) then that would make then terrorists.
So which is it?
BTW I did NOT put word in your mouth. I asked a question.
Saguaro
11-01-2007, 08:39 PM
They are definitely terrorizing people in Iraq and Afghanistan ! How can you say they aren't ?
Trueblue
11-01-2007, 08:40 PM
IF our troops were terrorizinig people (which they are not) then that would make then terrorists.
So which is it?
BTW I did NOT put word in your mouth. I asked a question.
I'm sorry, that's just not so. Many things might be terrifying to someone without the person doing them being a terrorist.
So stop the "which is it" and "so you agree with code pink" stuff.
Trueblue
11-01-2007, 08:41 PM
They are definitely terrorizing people in Iraq and Afghanistan ! How can you say they aren't ?
Because they aren't terrorists! Therefore, the people do not feel any terror.
Saguaro
11-01-2007, 08:42 PM
Rev, if armed men broke into your house in the middle of the night ,how would you feel ?
sparks
11-01-2007, 08:43 PM
IF our troops were terrorizinig people (which they are not) then that would make then terrorists.
So which is it?
BTW I did NOT put word in your mouth. I asked a question.
Terrorism is largely defined by who's on the recieving end of the violence.
Terrorizing is done purposly and the troops are not purposly terrorizing people.
Just because you are afraid doesn't mean you are terrorized. Are you terrorized at a scary movie? How about when the police make a drug bust?
Trueblue
11-01-2007, 08:47 PM
Terrorizing is done purposly and the troops are not purposly terrorizing people.
Just because you are afraid doesn't mean you are terrorized. Are you terrorized at a scary movie? How about when the police make a drug bust?
You need to read what people have said here in these last few posts, because the points have been made perfectly clear.
sparks
11-01-2007, 08:48 PM
Terrorizing is done purposly and the troops are not purposly terrorizing people.
Just because you are afraid doesn't mean you are terrorized. Are you terrorized at a scary movie? How about when the police make a drug bust?
A scary movie is a controlled environment. No contest.
And police have terrorized many along the way. Don't kid yourself.
Saguaro
11-01-2007, 08:50 PM
Terrorizing is done purposly and the troops are not purposly terrorizing people.
Just because you are afraid doesn't mean you are terrorized. Are you terrorized at a scary movie? How about when the police make a drug bust?
Rev, give it up,you have lost the debate
Rev, give it up,you have lost the debate
Not likely, out numbered is not the same as a lose.
Besides we are just repeating ourselves here.
sparks
11-01-2007, 09:11 PM
Not likely, out numbered is not the same as a lose.
Besides we are just repeating ourselves here.
Very true! :)
Why don't y'all stop by a base and ask out troops if they are terrorizing people. I live about 5 minutes from NASJRB (formely Carswell AFB) and talk to them all the time and they say that they are not terrorizing people.
Yep they look terrorized to me
http://www.guavifo.com/iraq/submitted2/candy.jpg
http://www.files.tellmewhereonearth.com/Photos%20Support%20Our%20Troops/Iraq%20kids%20happy%20to%20see%20us.jpg
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Iraq_1.jpg
But what do our troops know?? (sarcasm)
Just for fun
http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/WEBLOG/kmc/SoldiersKerry2.JPG
Saguaro
11-01-2007, 09:16 PM
Not likely, out numbered is not the same as a lose.
Besides we are just repeating ourselves here.
Ok Rev, watching a scary movie is scary,you can turn it off at any time, or walk out of the theatre.Someone breaking into your home at 1:00 a.m. ransacking your home, not knowing if they will kill you or your family is terror !
sparks
11-01-2007, 09:17 PM
Ok Rev, watching a scary movie is scary,you can turn it off at any time, or walk out of the theatre.Someone breaking into your home at 1:00 a.m. ransacking your home, not knowing if they will kill you or your family is terror !
I would have to agree with that.
Ok Rev, watching a scary movie is scary,you can turn it off at any time, or walk out of the theatre.Someone breaking into your home at 1:00 a.m. ransacking your home, not knowing if they will kill you or your family is terror !
IF the troops go into a home there is a reason, they just don't go in without a reason. And most likely you know what you are guilty of.
Saguaro
11-01-2007, 10:18 PM
I cannot believe that you just don't get it :gaah
I cannot believe that you just don't get it :gaah
Funny that was exactly what I was thinking
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 09:37 PM
IF the troops go into a home there is a reason, they just don't go in without a reason. And most likely you know what you are guilty of.
First of all, even guilty people feel terror.
Second of all, I feel confident that you know that the wrong people are sometimes raided.
The point is, and has been, that you can cause terror without being a terrorist, so Kerry did not attack the troops.
First of all, even guilty people feel terror.
Second of all, I feel confident that you know that the wrong people are sometimes raided.
The point is, and has been, that you can cause terror without being a terrorist, so Kerry did not attack the troops.
Hmmm I have read and reread this thread and (stand back) I would have to say that you might be right about the teoor part BUT I still believe that Kerry meant is as an attack on our troops due to the fact that he has a history of doing that.
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 09:55 PM
Hmmm I have read and reread this thread and (stand back) I would have to say that you might be right about the teoor part BUT I still believe that Kerry meant is as an attack on our troops due to the fact that he has a history of doing that.
BULLSHIT. HE HAS NO RECORD OF ATTACKING THE TROOPS. GO HMMM YOURSELF.
BULLSHIT. HE HAS NO RECORD OF ATTACKING THE TROOPS. GO HMMM YOURSELF.
Yes he does. It started during Vietnam.
TB I am done with you, God Bless and have a wonderful life.
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 10:18 PM
Yes he does. It started during Vietnam.
TB I am done with you, God Bless and have a wonderful life.
He defended soldiers, you are once again buying the talk radio bullshit.
That's why you don't know that the Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers and civilians.
That's why it never occurred to you that it matters what the top ten percent make, and not just what they pay.
You picked a good time to be done with me, now you don't have to say that you were wrong about the Geneva Conventions, and you don't have to find out what the top ten percent make, and you don't have to find out if Clinton ever forbid research on embryos scheduled for destruction. Saves you a lot of work, huh?
I have completely lost my temper with you, I admit it. You are just not reading the posts to which you are responding, and you are just recycling whatever you heard on the radio. When somebody makes a thoughtful point, you don't even bother to read it and try to understand it, you just say the same stuff again.
quiet man
11-02-2007, 10:24 PM
looks like they are attacking the wrong bush to me!
since when does showing respect for some one else make you an international butt kisser?
He defended soldiers, you are once again buying the talk radio bullshit.
That's why you don't know that the Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers and civilians.
That's why it never occurred to you that it matters what the top ten percent make, and not just what they pay.
You picked a good time to be done with me, now you don't have to say that you were wrong about the Geneva Conventions, and you don't have to find out what the top ten percent make, and you don't have to find out if Clinton ever forbid research on embryos scheduled for destruction. Saves you a lot of work, huh?
I have completely lost my temper with you, I admit it. You are just not reading the posts to which you are responding, and you are just recycling whatever you heard on the radio. When somebody makes a thoughtful point, you don't even bother to read it and try to understand it, you just say the same stuff again.
I don't listen to talk radio except for Medved on occasion. I like music to much.
You interpret Kerry how you wish and I will do the same.
As for the top 10% why does it matter what they make unless you want to take more from them. Is that what you want TB? Honestly is it? It is none of mine nor your business what they make and have.
As for Clinton read my post back to you on that. No I did not prove that he forbid it. Doesn't matter I was responding to the original accusation and only used Clinton because it was his law.
Also terrorists are neither civillians or soldiers. So the GC do not apply to them (yes it applies to regular citizens)
Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill non combatants may be shot by firing squads.
When somebody makes a thoughtful point, you don't even bother to read it and try to understand it, you just say the same stuff again.
That is the way I feel
Lone Laugher
11-03-2007, 06:38 AM
My keyboard is just fine thank you
http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-967234-0403-Keyboard-Elite-Black/dp/B00006FRUI
It was not a keyboard error but a human error, it is a poor man that blames his tools :wink
Yo Rev....did you ever look at the keyboard? Something tells me that you still don't get the point of it.......
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 08:13 AM
As for the top 10% why does it matter what they make unless you want to take more from them. Is that what you want TB? Honestly is it? It is none of mine nor your business what they make and have.
You keep missing the point. Drop the idea for a second that this is about philosophy, and consider that you are drawing a conclusion with only half information.
You know what they pay, but you don't know what they make.
Consider the mathematics of the issue for a moment. Not your idea of fairness, not my idea of fairness, but the actual math. Do the math.
As for Clinton read my post back to you on that. No I did not prove that he forbid it. Doesn't matter I was responding to the original accusation and only used Clinton because it was his law.
It does matter, because that is what got people upset.
Also terrorists are neither civillians or soldiers. So the GC do not apply to them (yes it applies to regular citizens)
You are factually mistaken.
Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill non combatants may be shot by firing squads.
Absolutely not the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all humans. It does not forbid terrorists from facing the consequences of their actions, but it still covers their human rights.
Furthermore, torture is forbidden by treaties to which we are a party, and those treaties carry the weight of federal law.
Wabash
11-03-2007, 02:36 PM
Like I keep saying, kill them on the battlefield and take NO prisoners, that eliminates the need for the Geneva convention!...and all the bleeding hearts out there won't have a bitch...you guys crack me up..if it was a member of your family that they butchered, you wouldn't be so willing to defend the Geneva Convention Treaty!
It's not really real, when it's about someone else, ...it's an abstract!
Lone Laugher
11-03-2007, 02:48 PM
"Like I keep saying, kill them on the battlefield and take NO prisoners" : Wabby
"It's not really real, when it's about someone else, ...it's an abstract!": Wabby
EXACTLY....you think killing is great....when it ain't you or yours doing the dying.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.