Gitmo and Liberal Shame

Have a leg up on America

http://www.amazon.com/s?keywords=0307353451&index=books&tag=anncoulter-20
from JoeUser Forums

After being captured fighting with Taliban forces against Americans in 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Guantanamo, where the one-legged terrorist was fitted with a special prosthetic leg, at a cost of $50,000-$75,000 to the U.S. taxpayer. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Massoud would now be able to park his car bomb in a handicapped parking space!

Remember now he is supposed to be tortured according to the Far left, while American veterans cannot get a new pair of glasses this terrorists gets a new leg, is released and then goes back to Afghanistan to wage war against the same people he got his leg from, his new leg did not stop him from kidnapping Chinese dam builders and killing Americans, actually it made him a folk hero, this "brave man, this freedom fighter" fighting for freedom against the very people that so cruelly gave him a new leg. What beasts we Americans are for doing that!

Natuarly no mention of his new leg was seen in Americas papers or the main stream media as it would go against Bush as the monster, it might actually show Bush and his right on decision to detain some terrorist was GASPPPPPPP!!!!! the right thing to do!! Well now the left and its supporters the MSM cannot have that can they?

politics
24,596 views 44 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Natuarly no mention of his new leg was seen in Americas papers or the main stream media as it would go against Bush as the monster, it might actually show Bush and his right on decision to detain some terrorist was GASPPPPPPP!!!!! the right thing to do!! Well now the left and its supporters the MSM cannot have that can they?
End of quote

I'm not across this story, but which news outlet did release the information about his artificial leg?

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

The "article link takes us to Amazon.com' marketplace for an Ann Coulter book.

 

Further Googling revealed the story posted on Coulter's blog.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting cactoblasta, reply 1
Natuarly no mention of his new leg was seen in Americas papers or the main stream media as it would go against Bush as the monster, it might actually show Bush and his right on decision to detain some terrorist was GASPPPPPPP!!!!! the right thing to do!! Well now the left and its supporters the MSM cannot have that can they?I'm not across this story, but which news outlet did release the information about his artificial leg?
End of cactoblasta's quote

Ann Coulter revealed the story.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Sodaiho, reply 2
The "article link takes us to Amazon.com' marketplace for an Ann Coulter book. Further Googling revealed the story posted on Coulter's blog.
End of Sodaiho's quote

Sorry about that I really thought the link was to the story, not to some sales pitch.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just one of the untold stories that dont fit the agenda.

Unless Obama decides not to close it immediately.

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 5
Just one of the untold stories that don't fit the agenda.Unless Obama decides not to close it immediately.
End of Dr's quote

Just another example of how the MSM has kept America blind to anything Good done by the Bush administration, even the most avid Bush hater could see this was a kindness repaid with American blood in the end, but will the farleft ever admit it? hell no!

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Just wish their prisoners (US and coalition soldiers) were treated as well, wait that's right, they're usually not prisoners for long... before they are killed and mutilated. Now I'm all for being "better? than the other guy, but when the MSM makes our troops out to be the monsters, encourages the embellished victimization of enemy combatants and fails to report almost any positive news, they nullify any of the "winning of hearts and minds" in the Middle East for the sake of politics at home. I'm totally disgusted about it. Not too long ago this would be considered treason now it's called change.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

As an old Marine would say, "Hell, we don't take no prisoners." Much cleaner that way.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ann Coulter revealed the story.
End of quote

Right, and then you plagiarised your opening paragraph.

I haven't been able to find a reputable news site with this story, nor could I find the articles quoted on Lexisnet (which I assume is where you got your opener).

Still, the American government clearly didn't have a case, or they would have tried him. As it happens, they stuffed up somewhere and he's returned to his rabble-rousing ways. But the least they could do for keeping him imprisoned for years without charge is give him a new leg.

They're lucky they can't be sued. A US criminal would have the right to do so.

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

As an old Marine would say, "Hell, we don't take no prisoners." Much cleaner that way.
End of quote

Geeze, using Napalm bombs and now  "taking no prisoners"

Are you sure youre a liberal? :)

Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Anthony, reply 10

As an old Marine would say, "Hell, we don't take no prisoners." Much cleaner that way.
Geeze, using Napalm bombs and now  "taking no prisoners"

Are you sure youre a liberal?
End of Anthony's quote

 

whats wrong with napalm?

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 7
Just wish their prisoners (US and coalition soldiers) were treated as well, wait that's right, they're usually not prisoners for long... before they are killed and mutilated. Now I'm all for being "better? than the other guy, but when the MSM makes our troops out to be the monsters, encourages the embellished victimization of enemy combatants and fails to report almost any positive news, they nullify any of the "winning of hearts and minds" in the Middle East for the sake of politics at home. I'm totally disgusted about it. Not too long ago this would be considered treason now it's called change.
End of Nitro's quote

Sadly the MSM has America painted as monsters world wide. while America treats her prisoners far better than any other country on the planet, you would not know it to read about it in the MSM,.

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting stevendedalus, reply 8
As an old Marine would say, "Hell, we don't take no prisoners." Much cleaner that way.
End of stevendedalus's quote

I am an Old Marine and Use to take prisoners.

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting cactoblasta, reply 9
Ann Coulter revealed the story.Right, and then you plagiarised your opening paragraph.I haven't been able to find a reputable news site with this story, nor could I find the articles quoted on Lexisnet (which I assume is where you got your opener).Still, the American government clearly didn't have a case, or they would have tried him. As it happens, they stuffed up somewhere and he's returned to his rabble-rousing ways. But the least they could do for keeping him imprisoned for years without charge is give him a new leg.They're lucky they can't be sued. A US criminal would have the right to do so.
End of cactoblasta's quote

Obviously if I sent you a link to the site I was not trying to hide the fact I took a paragraph in total, why did you feel it was necessary to point it out?

He was a terrorist and finally was killed for his acts of terror. that in of itself is proof enough.

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

whats wrong with napalm?
End of quote

It's now a banned weapon.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 15
whats wrong with napalm?It's now a banned weapon.
End of Nitro's quote

When did that happen? I thought it was still ok to use it in a field of war.

Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 15

whats wrong with napalm?
It's now a banned weapon.
End of Nitro's quote

 

Really? thats to bad. I guess its to "inhumane"

Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting watertown1978, reply 17
Nitro Cruiserreply 15whats wrong with napalm?It's now a banned weapon. Really? thats to bad. I guess its to "inhumane"
End of watertown1978's quote

yup there is nothing like the smell of roast pig in the morning air to let you know there are no enemy in this area for now anyway.

Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Moderateman, reply 18

watertown1978comment 17Nitro Cruiserreply 15whats wrong with napalm?It's now a banned weapon. Really? thats to bad. I guess its to "inhumane"
yup there is nothing like the smell of roast pig in the morning air to let you know there are no enemy in this area for now anyway.
End of Moderateman's quote

 

at least they are already cooked.....

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

When did that happen? I thought it was still OK to use it in a field of war
End of quote

It happened back in the 70's. Stockpiles are being destroyed. You might recall the photo of the little Vietnamese girl running down the road naked and burnt (which I agree is a horrible thing). So media attention helped get an effective weapon removed from service (for the US anyway). Funny nobody objected to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese fatalities from the same weapon (Used since WWII). It shows just how one photo can change things. Will Napalm be missed? Not sure, there are other ways to kill with fire, that are more effective, fuel/air explosives (FAE) comes to mind. It has intense heat, just being close to the device when it explodes will sear the lungs, closer and your a crisp, but it is not sticky like napalm, in fact they is little fire left after the explosion, due to the explosion using up oxygen. Near by combustibles might catch fire though.

The MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) is one such device. Info is here for your viewing pleasure.

Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 20
When did that happen? I thought it was still OK to use it in a field of warIt happened back in the 70's. Stockpiles are being destroyed. You might recall the photo of the little Vietnamese girl running down the road naked and burnt (which I agree is a horrible thing). So media attention helped get an effective weapon removed from service (for the US anyway). Funny nobody objected to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese fatalities from the same weapon (Used since WWII). It shows just how one photo can change things. Will Napalm be missed? Not sure, there are other ways to kill with fire, that are more effective, fuel/air explosives (FAE) comes to mind. It has intense heat, just being close to the device when it explodes will sear the lungs, closer and your a crisp, but it is not sticky like napalm, in fact they is little fire left after the explosion, due to the explosion using up oxygen. Near by combustibles might catch fire though.The MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) is one such device. Info is here for your viewing pleasure.
End of Nitro's quote

Thank you for this informative answer!!!!!

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

yet white phosphorus and flame throwers are still allowed, white phosphorus can melt a tank. Flame throwers use a liquid mixture that sticks to people much like napalm. I cannot for the life of me see the difference between napalm and the other two I mentioned.

Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top

Thank you for this informative answer!!!!!
End of quote

Your welcome, no problem.

yet white phosphorus and flame throwers are still allowed, white phosphorus can melt a tank. Flame throwers use a liquid mixture that sticks to people much like napalm. I cannot for the life of me see the difference between napalm and the other two I mentioned.
End of quote

WP can be nasty too, however it was initially used as a smoke screen (because the smoke is very dense). It was also weaponized, as you mention, but is not currently used in that manner because of public outcry. IMO its use would be limited in recent battles anyway because of close proximities to the enemy (we don't want our guys breathing that stuff in if the wind changes).

MM as you stated Napalm is similar to flame thrower fuel, I think the big difference there is with a FT you have to look the target in the eyes, so it's a remote chance you'll light up a civilian accidentally, unlike that which might occur in an air strike.

Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top

MM as you stated Napalm is similar to flame thrower fuel, I think the big difference there is with a FT you have to look the target in the eyes, so it's a remote chance you'll light up a civilian accidentally, unlike that which might occur in an air strike.
End of quote
Nitro Cruiseron Dec 04, 2008
End of quote

So in essence it's ok when you can see the whites of their eyes, but not ok when you are at 1500 feet zipping along at 450 MPH.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

So in essence it's ok when you can see the whites of their eyes, but not ok when you are at 1500 feet zipping along at 450 MPH.
End of quote

Unless you are Bill Clinton and the target is a Chinese embassy.