Welcome to the compassionate right:
Kill Them All:
(Subtitle later added after complaints)
So, the adminstration says we can hold prisoners at Gitmo "in perpetuity." Senators are appalled. I have a solution.
Let's kill all the prisoners. I say that in jest, but let's think about it. We have at Gitmo sworn enemies of the United States. They will do what they can to kill us if (and when) they are released. Though you would not realize from hearing about it in the media, we have actually released a good number of the terrorists who we determined were no longer a threat. The Senators would have us release the rest into the world so they can carry on their plots.
We have three options it seems: (A) release them, (B) keep them, and (C) kill them. Given the three choices, "B" is most preferable for most of the terrorists. But, since the Senators will not stand for it, nor will the media or the left or most anyone else for that matter, we will not keep them.
Let's kill them before they kill us is the logical conclusion, but it is not really the right answer. Know it all and holier than thou types in the Senate would suggest we let these murderous terrorists out, which is
even more the wrong answer.
Perhaps we should let them out. Then Joe Biden can explain to people why that was more brilliant than having these terrorists listen to Christina Aguilera while eating well in Gitmo in perpetuity when next they bring down more of our buildings and take away more of our mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters.
[editor's note, by Erick] Based on comments herein and a few emails, I believe I've made a few lefties cry. Therefore I added a subtitle so the literacy and comprehension challenged understand that I'm not actually advocating killing people, but rather think it best, given the three choices and variations on those choices, that we keep the terrorists locked up in Gitmo
OK, that was an inspiring bit of writing. The author states that he wants to kill them all several times, says that it is not a serious statement, then argues why killing them is the best solution. Good Job. What do the other compassionates have to say? Here's a few:
This just feeds into Sen. Durbin's bigotry By: hunter
Ignorant Senators and other anti-American bigots who lack perspective or reading comprehension or historical literacy will not understand what you are saying, and will misinterpret what you are saying as still more proof of how the VRWC/religious right/conservatives are wanting to kill all those poor innocent illegally held people in Cuba...er not Cuba but Gitmo. Except for the food, and the medical care, and the couseling, and the excercise, and the safety from the police of the nations they are wanted in, Gitmo is obviously the worst thing since the crucifixion....wait we can't say that it is religious.....it is the worst thing since Hitler thought Jews would like cmaps in Poland.
Obviously.
Lacking perspective? More neo-con broken record non-arguements. The dark side is strong with this one, Used the patriotism card, the perspective card, and managed to end in Hitler and crucifixion ramblings nowhere near a coherent answer to anything. A good neo-con, might be rove himself.
He was talking about killing everyone By: corky
Not just the Arabs. How is that racial? Oh, because all of the "enemy combatants" happen to be Arabs? Actually, I doubt they are all Arabs. Maybe Moslem, but not Arab. I don't think Nazism or racism is in anyway connected to this post.
Race or religion By: sandbox
The article makes a valid point.
Since the goals of a radical islamist is to kill or convert the rest of us, how can we just let them go free to continue their violence and mayhem? The only legitimate issue is whether a particular individual is a radical islamist. If they are, then they are an enemy combatant.
Also, what's with the racist, racist, racist talk?
We are talking about a radical sect of a "religion".
Look in the mirror, jackasses!