But unbeknowst to these three blockheads, they had blown their opportunity to show proper respect and credence to one of the most salient and important aspects of the entire subject, of the entire Gitmo dilemma:
Never once, during the entire incoherent, intellectual compost pile of a discussion did anyone mention the fact that a bunch of these "terrorists" are not guilty of anything.
Yessiree dad, did you ever consider that we are detaining a "bunch" of goat farmers and taxicab drivers whose only crime was they were "in the wrong place at the right time?" (Did you ever consider that you bitches in cell block 11!)This is where a normal rational person shrieks and throws up his arms. Not only does one of the queen bees of the lefty blogger-hood (Digby) believe it's a "fact" that we are holding a "bunch" of harmless innocent hairy people at Gitmo, she can't even bring herself to say the word terrorist, as if there wasn't such a thing in reality, or was an invention of the diabolical Neocons.
1 comment:
harmless innocent hairy people"People" is a given. "Harmless" and "innocent" have yet to be determined. But "hairy" is arguable based on fairly objective criteria.
Certainly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one hairy dude (one would think that all that waterboarding would have killed off some hair follicles). However, some of the photos of (faceless) Gitmo detainees reveal men of normal hairiness. If anything, photos of their shackled ankles reveal rather smooth and hairless calves.
So all things considered, I think "hairy" should be deleted from your description.
Post a Comment