If you think political talk radio is a brutal place, you should try sports talk radio. In the world of news talk, you have a biased hosed with a political agenda attempting to spin current events to make you see them his way. In the world of sports talk, you largely have a field of minds so jammed with statistics and dates that they are unable to form a point of view on anything other than a simple Vegas line, let alone manage to try to find a way to spin the event for the mindless masses who tune it. This can make listening to channels like Mad Dog Radio on Sirius and XM Radio an exercise in frustration. Yet it is an exercise that I perform almost daily, and occasionally I call in to try to straighten some of these guys out. My latest beef? The New York Knicks.
Robert Gibbs in a CNN interview on January 31, 2010
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," Robert Gibbs said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. "He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed."
In response to this statement from Mr. Gibbs, Ramzi Kassem said it was "highly unusual" for a White House spokesperson "to say something that so clearly cuts against the principle of the presumption of innocence, which is at the heart of our judicial system." Kassem acted as a defense attorney for several detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, "For someone like Mr. Gibbs to come out so clearly against the presumption of innocence is egregious to say the least," he told Al Jazeera. "This is what you get when you allow the politics of the moment to dictate your public statements."
What should I be more offended by? Mr. Gibbs saying it is “LIKELY” aka “possible”. Or that defense attorney Ramzi Kasseem used the word, “our judicial system” while speaking with Al Jazeera? Should I even mention the word, “egregious”? Why did Ft. Hood suddenly come to mind? Am I supposed to play “politically correct” Princess while I secretly question his thoughts and reasons for speaking to Al Jazeera? Is he “one of them”? Did he come here to win legal cases? If he did win his cases, would it mean he is freeing potential terrorist on lack of evidence or technicalities?
In the meantime, he lives on American soil and allows the “infidels” to pay his salary? Or is he paid by the infidels? Yes, it is the worst side of discrimination. It is a highly debatable and a curious case of paranoia and stereotyping. I am aware of this. However, let this “infidel” have her own views as I am hated by the extremist because I am American. Let those “sleeper cells” that wait in our midst under the disguise of patronage in America come forward with their identities and perhaps then “profiling” can desist.
Now that it is clear that, I am a skeptic of the “talks” of peace loving Middle Easterners. With no defense of my thoughts or writing, I can stand tall knowing that I am not compelled to apologize. My paranoid thoughts were created by the volume of violent acts aimed at anyone who is not Muslim.
Which brings me to my current preoccupation, internet rumor has it has that Mr. Gibbs may have jeopardize Khalid Sheikh Mohammed chance at a fair trial. I would really like to know who is concerned with whether those statements have threatened Mohammed’s right to a fair trial. This trial was reported as being held in New York’s lower Manhattan area. (Near what is known as Ground Zero) A criminal case in our judicial system reserved for the citizens of this nation.
The Mayor of New York and others in the Senate have come forward with pleas to have this venue changed. Put the Case back into the Military courts and out of Civilian territory. However, Obama has had his mind made up for a while it would seem. As I recall he mentioned something about “all the bells and whistles”…. Oh wait a minute, he said “Tribunal Military Trial” as a Senator did he not?
Now he is saying that Americans will not mind the costly trial or the security cost after Mohammed’s conviction. Really, which Americans did he ask? The man in question, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, helped plan (masterminded) and plotted to kill as many Americans as he could. The number of deaths resulting in 9/11 is estimated at 3,000 lives. The terrorist involved brought New York City to its knees as the Twin Towers toppled and crumbled onto the streets. Jet engines smoldering, papers, dirt and debris falling from the sky, people on the street filled with fear, bewilderment and uncertainty. Families searched for days looking for any remaining pieces of their family, loved ones and friends. Nobody knew exactly what had happened until the second plane made its mark.
They stopped showing video footage because it was too “traumatizing” to the awestruck, horrified people of America. It was mentally crippling to view the carnage repeatedly or so we were told. . They watched in slow motion and then in “real-time” as each jet flew into the towers. They zoomed in on the bodies that jumped from the buildings. People were jumping to escape the fires and as they went out the windows, they were caught on film flipping end over end. Like rag dolls tossed from the top off a cliff. President Obama thinks it is a good idea to have the trial a few blocks away. In poetic terms, it was supposed to mean “justice”.
Gibbs’ response that (Mohammed) “he will meet his maker”, are in conflict with Mohammed’s religious beliefs. In Mohammed’s mind, he will be given “peace” and “courage” to stand before the “infidels” and that alone will make him worthy of standing before “his maker”. He is told not to fear or worry. He can die by a death sentence or he can die with a bomb strapped to his chest and in his mind, he will still be rewarded for it. This jihadist is not concerned with our laws, our lives or our taxes that will be paying for the security and the trial. The man willing to "murder" in the name of jihad is not afraid of what Democracy is offering.
On a side note, I found two entries for “jihad” in the Encarta Dictionary: English version. The first is an “Islamic campaign against nonbelievers a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries, regarded as hostile to Islam. The second entry was a, “relentless campaign against somebody or something”. It is not "murder" to jihadist. It is removing an enemy or the threat of an enemy in the name of Islam.
On September 11, 2001, nobody in the Towers knew that jihad had been declared, nobody at the Pentagon (who could have known) had time to do anything about it. The passengers of the hijacked United flight 93 are the only ones who had an opportunity to do anything about it. They reacted to the threat with equal force and although it took the lives of everyone onboard, the plane did not hit its mark. Yet Obama’s positive assertion that justice will be served and his belief that the man responsible will pay is ironic. He is plagued with the inability to prove that he has been the man of “Change” and “Yes, we can” while his “Let me be clear” is echoing in the chambers of my mind like a bad song! I understand that there might be another city named as a potential place for the trail of KSM. Yet, what city has its hand raised for hosting this potential disaster in the making?
Obama did a grand job of getting the Olympics to Chicago. His “home” State and let us not forget to consider his reasons for Chicago being a great place to host the Olympics. It is a City that rebuilt itself after a fire that devastated it. (Can I hear a, “yes, we can” anybody? No?) Well, wait; there might be something in that speech. How about “and opportunity for multicultural diversity” Perhaps, HIS terrorist relatives and fellow jihadist will have a place that says “WE’LL LEAVE THE LIGHT ON FOR YA".
Still a no go, Chicago? Well surely we can all agree that if we see someone wearing a jersey that says, “FREE KSM” we will find common ground and suddenly beat the @#$%#@ out of them?? Yea, “Let me be clear”, I think I heard the sounds of agreement. Thanks Obama you just burned down the City of Chicago with a victory celebration.