Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Platform for the Planner

Scruff the Madman Terrorist got some press time today from his soon to be closed cell down at Hotel Gitmo, grumbling out a lot of propaganda and embarrassing a bunch of 9/11 troofers and Rosie O'Donnell again.

CNN didn't publish his six page manifesto but provided a few cuts, which are worthy of review on a slow news day. Here's KSM deriding Bill Clinton:
Answering another accusation, hijacking and/or endangering a vessel or an aircraft, the five said, "if you do not respect the innocent in our countries, then we will do the same, by exposing you to danger and hijacking in the air, at sea and at land."
OK, he didn't name Clinton hut most of his grievances seem to have been accumulated during Slick's reign, back when he planned the Bokinka and 9/11 plots. To be fair he also mentioned the atomic bombs on Japan, so he didn't spare Truman, either (apparently he's hated America since being here to study engineering in North Carolina back in the 80s). But mentioning Clinton always seems to froth up liberals who think the 90s were an era of near-utopia. Anyway, here's KSM on the religion of peace:
"Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians and pagans. With God's willing, we are terrorists to the bone."
That'll froth up the liberals even more. Of course, like everyone else he had to throw in a financial prediction as well:
It also predicts that the United States "will fall, politically, militarily and economically."

"Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day," the court filing said.
The crazy markets went up anyway. And no word on what happens to the millions of Muslims living in America after our downfall.

As to KSM's fate, he belongs in hollowed out cell down the hall from his nephew Ramzi at the Supermax. Or perhaps the winner of a special hunting trip with Cheney. Instead he'll probably get his grand martydom wish due to the 'torture' thing nullifying any evidence in a civilian court (despite his multiple confessions). But before they fry him it might be interesting to let him explain how a small clan of Baluchi natives almost singlehandedly brought down America. And why.

20 comments:

Mustang said...

Fry him?

Are you kidding?

This guy's in line for a cabinet post.

PS. Is "proondat" really a word?

A.C. McCloud said...

proondat

It's a gardening term, right?

LASunsett said...

Like Obama did during the campaign, he is telling us what he wants to do. We elected Obama anyway. Would we let this guy go, knowing full well this is what he wants to do?

Talk about anxiety triggers, this is one of them.

LASunsett said...

Off Topic:

Did you see this story, AC?

A.C. McCloud said...

Did you see this story, AC?

Sorry LA, not good enough. The science is settled. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Why are keeping this inhuman filth alive?

johnrj08 said...

So this is really less about Islamic extremism and terrorists than it is about a few grumpy conservatives who lost the last election and need excuses to make crappy comments about other Americans.

Anonymous said...

For all of you that want this wackjob dead, he wants to be killed, why else would somebody in their right mind talk that sort of shit, other then to encite the reaction to kill him, what we the people need to do is igore that dumbass, commit him and dope his ass up..reduce him and the rest of them no to raving loonies on drugs. Those five must be fucking crazy to say they are happy thousand so people died, what kinda evil fuck says they are happy to of kill all those people? This scripted just like all the other dumbasses that brag about killing. You gotta figure they want to die because they themselves couldn't do it, so the coward want the Americans to do it. Drugs will solve their ranting and a padded room five miles underground. --Joe

LASunsett said...

//So this is really less about Islamic extremism and terrorists than it is about a few grumpy conservatives who lost the last election and need excuses to make crappy comments about other Americans.//

No John. It's about people who understand the mind of an enemy more comprehensively than you apparently do. It's about what we need to be considering as a viable option for people like this, who still wish to see many of your fellow citizens die.

Contrary to what many may believe in this country and in this administration, these people housed in Gitmo are still a threat to the safety and security of the US. And if they are not handled correctly they will end up trying to kill Americans again, like this bozo.

heidianne jackson said...

i'm certain his manifesto will be dismissed as the ramblings of one who has been "tortured" by the mean american soldiers. we all know he's innocent and won't hurt anyone because islam is the religion of peace.

just ignore all those references to death in the quaran and the haditha (sp?).

johnrj08 said...

"No John. It's about people who understand the mind of an enemy more comprehensively than you apparently do. It's about what we need to be considering as a viable option for people like this, who still wish to see many of your fellow citizens die. Contrary to what many may believe in this country and in this administration, these people housed in Gitmo are still a threat to the safety and security of the US. And if they are not handled correctly they will end up trying to kill Americans again, like this bozo."

So, just like the terrorists, you've concluded that you've got all the correct answers and have not a shred of doubt about your point of view. So much so, that you make assumptions about people whom you've never met simply because they don't agree with you. Your assertion that the "people in Washington", i.e. President Obama, are just too stupid to have the same concerns as you about these people and the danger they represent seems driven more by politics-as-usual than logic. Apparently, you feel that unless these detainees are handled exactly as you prescribe, they will be released. You forget that several detainees who were released during the Bush administration were actually arrested later in the Mideast for terrorist activities. And you really believe that you're smarter about this than Obama? That's either monumental cynicism or just partisan crap.

Anonymous said...

I’m not quite sure what your point is, John. On the one hand, you apparently think that the Jihadist point of view is twisted and intolerable. On the other hand, you seem convinced that the facility at Guantanamo Bay is an affront to civilized society. Exactly what is your point of view about prisoners at Gitmo?

While you’re at it, perhaps you can explain how the Geneva Convention applies to stateless persons, and tell us, how would you have preferred these “lost souls, beyond redemption, and on a path to self-destruction” handled? For example, do you think it would have been better to take no prisoners? Should we have turned them over to the government of Saudi Arabia, where there would be no doubt about their ultimate fate? Should we instead have transported these people to the States and turned them over to a federal judiciary?

Eric

johnrj08 said...

Eric, the Geneva Convention was written in the late 1920's, in the wake of the atrocities of WWI. At that time, there was no such thing as "stateless persons". But the focus of the Convention was to address the behavior of nations, not outlaws. It involved the certainty that all wars end and that there will be justice and retribution for atrocities. It also provided a measure of confidence that a country's captured soldiers wouldn't be mistreated--a quid pro quo.

Today, you either have to throw out the Geneva Convention as a whole, or abide by it whether it's comfortable or not. A lot of it has to do with how we want to view ourselves as a nation and how willing we are to resort to the same tactics people use whom we've characterized as inhuman. I would agree that there is a fine line between a country's moral integrity and self-destructive naiveté. As a super-power and the largest democracy in the world, we have to find a way to strike a balance between those two states.

With regard to how I feel about the detainees at Gitmo, I think it would be best if we found a way to deal with them that didn't damage our image in the world at the same time. We don't live in isolation. The world watches what we do and responds accordingly. If we're acting the same as the people we're fighting, it won't make it any easier to gain world support for the things we need to get done. The world doesn't trust a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

gitmo is a modern day torture camp designed to test out new torture techniques for the coming caos..like in the movie v for vendetta...its so sad how after 8 years people don't realize that 9/11 was an inside job...do some real research not cnn or any controlled media..our country is the #1 terrorist of the world thanks to bush for allowing 9/11 and for taking over iraq only for oil profit..wake up sheeple..obama is worst prepare for martial law and a new world order..money has become god

LASunsett said...

//So much so, that you make assumptions about people whom you've never met simply because they don't agree with you.//

What assumption have I made? Point it out to me. Seems to me you took one look around here and YOU made an assumption about what OUR motives were.

//Your assertion that the "people in Washington", i.e. President Obama, are just too stupid to have the same concerns as you about these people and the danger they represent seems driven more by politics-as-usual than logic.//

When we see stupid moves made by these people, we have a right to call the moves stupid. Period. Putting these jerks into the federal judiciary IS a stupid move and you'll have a very difficult time showing me it isn't.

//Apparently, you feel that unless these detainees are handled exactly as you prescribe, they will be released.//

Again, where did I ever say that? For someone that wants me to believe you know what you are talking about, YOU are certainly making your share of assumptions. And you are not making your case any better by doing it.

//You forget that several detainees who were released during the Bush administration were actually arrested later in the Mideast for terrorist activities.//

I didn't forget anything like it. So, what? Bush isn't President anymore. We aren't talking about Bush. But yes, just so I can keep you believing you are still in the game, yes he was an idiot for letting them go. No argument from me, there. We know it now, so how does it make sense to allow them to have free reign in the courts? Risking an acquittal and subsequent release?

//And you really believe that you're smarter about this than Obama?//

There is not one doubt in my mind.

//That's either monumental cynicism or just partisan crap.//

It's called confidence.

LASunsett said...

//A lot of it has to do with how we want to view ourselves as a nation and how willing we are to resort to the same tactics people use whom we've characterized as inhuman.//

John, let's think about this for one second. Do you really want to use that argument?

Because I cannot find any evidence that any of these Gitmo prisoners were beheaded and the videos placed on the internet. Do you remember such a thing?

Anonymous said...

...Gitmo torture camp...9/11 an inside job...Who let out the loonies? A good shot of Risperdal should take care of their Schizophrenia for about a month.

A.C. McCloud said...

We don't live in isolation. The world watches what we do and responds accordingly. If we're acting the same as the people we're fighting, it won't make it any easier to gain world support for the things we need to get done. The world doesn't trust a hypocrite.

You actually had me until this paragraph, which flew your argument right off the rails, as LA pointed out. I think most sensible people in the world understand the difference between a beheading or thumb screws and loud rock music or even a water episode. They aren't dumb.

Is there a better way to handle this problem? Well, some brilliant minds have been pondering it since the 90s and haven't solved it yet. It's so bad the brilliant Obama folks are basically going back to the pretend-world of the 90s, right down to the rendition (outsourcing) program, mind you.

A.C. McCloud said...

its so sad how after 8 years people don't realize that 9/11 was an inside job...

So KSM and friends are what, CIA agents?

You tell the sheeple to do some research but where is your research proving this one very key point?

Mustang said...

Discounting “Anonymous” for what he or she is—totally incredible—I suspect that John has a enjoined a worthwhile dialogue on important issues. We ought to wonder about the kind of national character actually serves to discourage terrorist acts. I note, for example, that once Israel began taking a no-nonsense approach, there were suddenly far fewer attacks upon their aircraft.

For the record, I’m one of those “victims have rights, too” people. I do not believe, for example, that the family member of any victim to a serious crime ever “gets over it.” And I’m speaking of serious emotional issues that carry themselves forward into the next generation. And having said that, I believe that there is but one all encompassing duty our government has to its people and that is to keep them safe and free to the best of its ability. It is never a zero-defects program, however, and if there is a global war on terror, then there will be casualties; but in my view, it was criminal neglect to ignore the precursor attacks upon our embassies and naval shipping. Doing nothing did no more than encourage activities that were more brazen. If we have not learned anything from this history, then maybe we deserve what will ultimately befall us.

Nevertheless, it would seem to me that if the U. S. government must err, then it should err on the side of its own people. Presently, there are large European neighborhoods where police officials may not safely enter . . . a result of non-confrontational policies. We might conclude that whatever happens in Denmark, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom has nothing to do with our domestic policies, until you realize how many American cities have become sanctuaries for thoroughly bad folks. So we should decide whether it is appropriate to implement enlightened policies that protect bad people, at the expense of the safety of our own citizens. And if we think that Kalid Sheikh Mohammed and others have a greater right to our constitutional protections than our own citizens, a view I would find ludicrous, then I would have to conclude we do not deserve a land free of terrorist or criminal behaviors.