Must We Define "Terrorist" Again?

Okay, you know, let's just clear a terrorist of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINE charges and just put the terrorist in jail for about twenty years. Possibly for life. But possibly for just twenty years. At which point the terrorist will be fully "rehabilitated" and the liberals will launch a campaign to integrate all terrorists into society. They seem to already play a big role in our society, so I don't see why we need to give them more.

Perhaps he would have gotten a more harsh sentence had a key witness been allowed to testify in the trial. But no. Oh, no. Because the witness had been uncovered under harsh interrogation techniques. So any evidence gleaned from those interrogation techniques, including a key witness, is invalid because we're mean.

We're mean to the people who plot to kill us daily, and would give their lives to end ours. And we're "mean" to them. It's "mean" to do what's in our best interests as a nation because that offends possible future allies (by that I mean terrorists who the liberals stubbornly insist can be rehabilitated).

Honestly? This terrorist is a prisoner of war. He has no place in civilian courts. None whatsoever. Of course, Obama has no place whatsoever in the White House... So I guess there's a trend going on here. (Just wait, there'll be terrorists in the White House before... you... know.. it... oh. Right.)

But back to the issue at hand (the innumerable other issues will have to wait). I think that it would be helpful to pull up the definition for "terrorist," just to clarify for the seemingly massive number of people who still don't get it. (Dictionary.Com)

ter·ror·ist   
[ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Under this definition, Obama would, in fact, be a terrorist. He advocates terrorism. Don't try to tell me that giving a terrorist the rights of a U.S. citizen is not advocating terrorism. Don't tell me closing Gitmo and prohibiting "mean" interrogation techniques isn't advocating terrorism. And don't tell me that Obama hasn't terrified you. Because, liberal or conservative, he probably has. It's just his thing.

Of course, it's all right to discriminate against Christians, the unborn, the elderly, and, you know, patriotic Americans... BUT LOOK AT A MUSLIM THE WRONG WAY AND YOU COULD BE JAILED FOR LIFE FOR HATE SPEECH! Whereas an actual terrorist faces a minimum sentence of twenty years.

Once again, I don't see what is at issue here, or how we constantly, continually defend the indefensible. Airplane security, interrogation, trials, the Ground Zero Mosque: As much as I love debating, these shouldn't even be debatable. Some things are, by nature, taboo to a society. And yet here we are. We kill babies. Our government takes our money and does with it what they please, and when they run out, they take more. On airplanes, we frisk two-year-old boys and ninety-year-old women, but if an airline has more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, it gets fined. We are at WAR with Muslim extremists. There's no getting around it. You can't deny that we're fighting a war. But we're not winning the war on terror, because half of elected officials refuse to admit it exists! We have a description of the suspect. It's not "discrimination" if you take a suspect into custody. It's called justice. If they're innocent, they'll get their due. But if they're guilty, we have to make sure they also get their due.

I feel much, much worse for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 than I do for an Arab who gets some extra screening at an airport. You fly on U.S. airlines, you understand that we have a problem and are addressing it. Otherwise, take a boat.

We aren't allowed to interrogate terror suspects for fear that we're offending them and that they'll hate us. Their hate and offense are both caused by one thing: our existence. And unless Obama wants America to stop existing (maybe he does), then we should stop walking on eggshells when we have national security at stake.

And terrorists? As citizens? Really, who do they think they're fooling. CITIZENS are those whose deaths terrorists are responsible for. Terrorists are war prisoners, and should be treated as such. Except that's mean.

Mean? Mean is killing 3,000 people in the space of a few hours. Mean is murdering people in cold blood, for no other reason than that they're American and you're a psychopath. Mean is refusing to take the measures needed to avenge the dead and ensure that as few more as possible die. Mean is refusing to take control and protect your country.

Mean is being insensitive to the tears of your countrymen and building a mosque near where Muslim extremists killed THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE. THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE! They can move their mosque. We don't owe them anything.

We're not at war with all Muslims. But the people we are at war with are almost all Muslims. If you feel uncomfortable acknowledging this, I suggest you step down from any position of power you may hold and hand it over to someone more sensible and capable. Like my cat, for example.

Hitler Campaigns For The Right Of Jews!

Hitler campaigns for the rights of Jews!

Oh, never mind. It's just Cuba and China campaigning against the United States for "human rights." The "against the United States" part is the only thing that really matters, of course. If human rights were really at issue, they'd be hypocrites.

This is obviously nothing more than an anti-American stunt, much like, say, trying terrorists in civilian court. Anti-American hate will be spewed, some regulation will be passed, and we will continue down this road of insanity. Just watch.

The Obama administration has decided to join the convention, unlike the Bush administration. Is anyone else sensing a pattern?

Under the guise of "taking the process seriously [which] contributes to the universality” of the human rights process. Newsflash: you don't take JOKES seriously.

Pause to entertain a conspiracy theory:

All the liberals in the world are conspiring to bring the United States down. Well, yeah, that's obvious. But what devices are they using? Let's just say, for the sake of my conspiracy theory, that they have employed the following:
1. The UN
2. al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
3. various elected officials
And what use would they have for each of these? Well, each one can somehow bring the U.S. down. Terrorists, of course, can bomb us, which not only shakes our security (both our sense of and the actual), but can cause financial problems and political and ethnic divisions. The UN is great at screwing with things, and they're also powerful and well-known. They are a great device to put pressure on our government, spread propaganda about us, and pass universal regulations. And, of course, having people on the inside (elected officials) is great for them, too. They also use newspapers, TV and radio shows, and any medium they can to spread propaganda, or at least hide the truth. I don't think we've realized how far they've got their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Even without employing terrorists.

America honestly has much better things to do than deal with these bogus claims. Especially by Cuba and China. This makes it even more obvious that it's just a cover-up. All this will do is make us more lenient toward terrorists and illegal immigrants.

Does this sound suspiciously like the liberal agenda? Yes. Yes, it does. So you can see where I'm coming from.

Although it seems like everything that is evil in the world sounds suspiciously like the liberal agenda.