Once again proving that the humanitarian anti-war left are neither humanitarians or anti-war, and that theirs is an ideology strictly contrarian to President George W. Bush as well as American and her allies interests.
More disturbing, but of no surprise, is the open support they demonstrate for our enemies, or as Laura Ingraham recently accused Alan Colmes, of "holding water for the mullahs".
How else can you explain their short term memory loss about their favorite legal document of the past five years, the Geneva Convention.
Speaking of which, allow me to go off topic for a moment.
It seems the black guys in my office call the white guys "GC's". Through the use of an informer it has been suggested that it is code for the good whiteys, but the rat is extremely unreliable and untrustworthy, as rats are wont to be, and grapevine activity implies a more sinister connotation. If anyone in Auroraland has heard of this term, a heads up would be appreciated, as I would not want to be outsmarted in the ethnic slur department by a bunch of canadians.
Back to the GC.
There was a time not so long ago when a day would not pass by without some lib citing the Geneva Convention ensuring that suspected terrorists in Gitmo received prayer mats and three square halal meals a day. Okay, that is fine if you want to a pusillanimous peacenik, that is your right, but at least be consistent.
Article 3
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
I shortened the above section of the GC to that which applies to the current Iran/Brit situation. I have scoured the liberal blogs, newspapers, cable news programs, and shockingly nary a word is being said condemning Iran's blatant violation of the Geneva Convention.
Where is the front page NY Times article demanding Red Cross access to the British sailors?
Where is Code Pink with their criticism of the bangersnmashless Iranian prisons?
Where is John Murtha and his comparisons of the Iranian Navy to the shanghai happy Barbary Pirates?
Oh yeah. They are too busy rooting against their country.
Where is the consistency in their arguments?
11 comments:
Where is little dick durbin comparing the iranians to nazi's?
or soviet gulags, or pol pot?
BTW, hasn't the U.N. condemned the Iranian nuke build up? Isn't the U.N. the ultimate authority with the libs? Why aren't they condemning iran for that?
Oh that's right, W isn't the president of Iran.
He isn't the president of Iran yet...
GC must mean "good crackers" which I find offensive. Black people should know by now that they can say "cracka" but not "cracker".
as for code pink, a quick glance at their website can tell you why they're not saying anything about the british hostages: it's completely outside the scope of what they consider their mission.
they are an organization dedicated explicitly to criticizing US policy.
as for the times, it's disappointing that they haven't written an editorial condemning iran, but i'd expect one shortly. it's a bit premature to know what kind of action should be taken against iran outside of economic isolation.
i can't speak to murtha. again, disappointing that he hasn't said anything.
but here's what really worries me: first, people like you calling legitimate criticism of US policy "rooting for the enemy"(whether you agree with the critics or not, it's legitimate).
second: disgusting, vile regimes like iran using allegations of abuse at guantanamo as an excuse to violate international law. of course it's not a valid excuse--but we can prevent them from even trying to use it if we open the camps up a bit more.
I use Code Pink as an amalgamation of various groups for brevity and theatric effect.
I have no problem with legitimate criticisms, and as could be witnessed at The Aurora before we switched gears and became blatantly partisan polemic attack dogs, it could be found here as well.
Even you have to admit what a good majority of these groups do crosses the line. How can you not consider burning an American soldier in effigy, as but one example, as anything but giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Donsky how could we open up the camps any more? the red cross is there, the aclu is there, newsweek is there, the ny times is there! we give them fucking prayer mats and imams! Are you fucking kidding?
Also, what the fuck difference does it make what excuse these animals give???? They don't give a shit what we're doing, they don't give a shit about the GC, which by the way i'm sure they never signed, they don't need an excuse and they don't give a shit what the world thinks.
Get your head out of your ass.
Also, disapointing? you mean you expected the slimes and the scumbags like durbin and murtha to actually do or say ANYTHING and since they haven't you're disappointed??? Could you really be that naive?
You know what donsky.... Get your head out of your ass!
And you know what, tell the donkey to get His head out of his ass!
I think this will be my new saying for a while. You guys can use it as well if you want because i think it sounds good.
Now get your heads out of your asses!
Seems you have man's ass on your mind today Rhino.
Something you want to tell us sweaty guy?
I expected no such thing, my point is the hypocrisy of the false indignation of GC violations when allegedly commited by the USA, and the blind eye that is turned when said atrocities are against America and our allies.
burning an american soldier in effigy offends me, but you know, free speech and all.
disappointed was the wrong word. upset or mildly disturbed would be more appropriate.
i haven't had this much attention paid to my ass since i was molested by two desperate housewives on saturday.
You sure they were wives?
Sounds like you were bobbing for adams apples over the weekend.
All I know is, I would pick the lint out of George Bush's belly button with my teeth. With my teeth!
Post a Comment