 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Note: Questions have been raised concerning the identity of the victim in the video described in this story. See update below.
Warning: The following contains a graphic description of a brutal murder - probably exceeding what you imagine one human being could do to another. However, it is typical of the work of Islamic terrorists. Read on only if you want a bit of insight into the nature of the enemy in this global war. If not, please skip to the final paragraph.
Shortly after the bombing of the Samarra shrine, an Iraqi journalist covering the aftermath was kidnapped and murdered. Her story was mentioned briefly in the western media, but was covered extensively in the Middle East.
Now a video of the brutal murder has surfaced, apparently made with a mobile phone with video capability.
Two men drove up in a pick-up truck, asking for her. She appealed to a small crowd that had gathered around her crew but nobody was willing to help her. It was reported at the time that she had been shot dead with her cameraman and sound man.Other gruesome details from a family friend: She had nine drill holes in her right arm and 10 in her left, he said. The drill had also been applied to her legs, her navel and her right eye.We now know that it was not that swift for Bahjat. First she was stripped to the waist, a humiliation for any woman but particularly so for a pious Muslim who concealed her hair, arms and legs from men other than her father and brother.
Then her arms were bound behind her back. A golden locket in the shape of Iraq that became her glittering trademark in front of the television cameras must have been removed at some point — it is nowhere to be seen in the grainy film, which was made by someone who pointed a mobile phone at her as she lay on a patch of earth in mortal terror.
By the time filming begins, the condemned woman has been blindfolded with a white bandage.
It is stained with blood that trickles from a wound on the left side of her head. She is moaning, although whether from the pain of what has already been done to her or from the fear of what is about to be inflicted is unclear.
Just as Bahjat bore witness to countless atrocities that she covered for her television station, Al-Arabiya, during Iraq’s descent into sectarian conflict, so the recording of her execution embodies the depths of the country’s depravity after three years of war.
A large man dressed in military fatigues, boots and cap approaches from behind and covers her mouth with his left hand. In his right hand, he clutches a large knife with a black handle and an 8in blade. He proceeds to cut her throat from the middle, slicing from side to side.
Her cries — “Ah, ah, ah” — can be heard above the “Allahu akbar” (God is greatest) intoned by the holder of the mobile phone.
Even then, there is no quick release for Bahjat. Her executioner suddenly stands up, his job only half done. A second man in a dark T-shirt and camouflage trousers places his right khaki boot on her abdomen and pushes down hard eight times, forcing a rush of blood from her wounds as she moves her head from right to left.
Only now does the executioner return to finish the task. He hacks off her head and drops it to the ground, then picks it up again and perches it on her bare chest so that it faces the film-maker in a grotesque parody of one of her pieces to camera.
The voice of one of the Arab world’s most highly regarded and outspoken journalists has been silenced. She was 30.
Her funeral procession was attacked twice:
On Saturday two attacks targeted the funeral procession for Atwar Bahjat, the well-known Al Arabiya correspondent killed with two crew members Wednesday while reporting on the violence engulfing Samarra, where the Al-Askariya "Golden" Mosque was bombed.Like many Iraqis, Atwar Bahjat was half-Shi’ite, half-Sunni, and completely opposed to the violence destroying her country. As the London Times story notes, we may never know who her killers were.Two police officers were killed and five others wounded, as the cortege, led and guarded by Iraqi police and soldiers, entered the western Baghdad neighborhood of Abu Ghraib, Iraqi Emergency Police told CNN.
<...>
The incident happened near the home of Harith Al-Dari, the head of the Muslim Scholars Association, and along a road that splits, linking Baghdad with Syria and Jordan.When the shots rang out, security officers ordered people in the convoy to abandon their vehicles and hide behind nearby houses.
Later, as the procession resumed toward the cemetery, a roadside bomb exploded, causing an unknown number of casualties, including deaths, said al-Nasery.
Her cries — “Ah, ah, ah” — can be heard above the “Allahu akbar” (God is greatest) intoned by the holder of the mobile phone.The video was given to the Times by a "source linked to the Sunni insurgency" but that source claimed it had been found on the body of a Shi’ite Badr Brigade member killed during fighting in Baghdad. While Bahjat had received death threats from Sunnis, the Times says the Shiite Badr Brigade acted as protection for her family during the funeral. If so, they might have been the targets of the attack near the home of the head of the Association of Muslim Scholars - that group maintains "close ties" with the "Sunni resistance".
Regardless of which side in the conflict killed her (and I have my own thoughts on that - in the eyes of her killers her greatest crime was most likely being a woman outside of a kitchen) the London Times reporter can't resist a mild apology for their act:
Just as Bahjat bore witness to countless atrocities that she covered for her television station, Al-Arabiya, during Iraq’s descent into sectarian conflict, so the recording of her execution embodies the depths of the country’s depravity after three years of war.In truth, it represents a depth of depravity achieved over centuries. From the description, her killers hadn't just conceived or improvised their method of execution on the spot - they seem to have been well practiced. But such is the nature of the enemy in this war, and perhaps this is their most sacred and well honed knowledge: if a brutality can be inflicted that exceeds all human ability to comprehend, the humans will find a way to deny it.
Or excuse it.
Or simply look the other way.
Others who aren't looking away:
And those trackbacks below...
Update 8 May 1550 UTC:: Questions have been raised concerning the identity of the victim in the video described in this story. According to this wikipedia entry photos of Atwar Bahjat's body prove she was not decapitated. The photos linked from the entry, while gruesome, are not conclusive.
What's known at this time: Atwar Bahjat was kidnapped and murdered while covering the Samarra bombing. The author of the London Times' story has been with the paper for some time, and is self-identified as "a friend of Bahjat who had worked with her on a variety of tough assignments". According to that Times story, the paper received a video of an execution that concludes with a close-up of the victim's face. The author has seen the video. The video is "cell phone" quality. The author says the victim is Atwar Bahjat.
More (8 May 1930 UTC) Update: The Jawa report says the Times has been hoaxed. From the evidence, if this is the same video the Times has the reporter must have very poor eyesight, or memory. The victim is a dark haired man who looks nothing like Atwar Bahjat.
It should be noted the Times has not yet commented on the situation.
And it should be obvious that none of this diminishes the horror of either event - the killing of this man or the murder of Atwar Bahjat.
More: A comment from Jawa's Rusty Shackleford at Protein Wisdom:
Ansar al-Sunna (the guys doing the beheading) were once part of an organization called ‘Ansar al-Islam. These guys were around BEFORE the invasion and were busy fighting the secular Kurds before we bombed them into oblivion. Oh, and they were funded by ‘friends’ in Afghanistan (OBL). They also had a truce with Saddam since their main enemies were secular Kurds. They also once had a fellow by the name of Abu Musab al Zarqawi as one of their operatives before the invasion.Still no word from the London Times. It's late here in Europe - probably won't happen tonight.
Animals. Get 'um.
Posted by Rosemary at May 7, 2006 03:11 PMWhy isn't this vidoe on the evening news? It's inexcusable that the savagery of this murder is kept off the air because it isn't PC. Underwear on the head and naked photos are all over the world but this is ignored. I read this after reading about Pelosi's comments about the Democrats plans to "get Bush" after the November elections. I get so discouraged.....have we already lost?
Posted by Bill at May 7, 2006 03:24 PMMy trackback for my post did not work
It sounds like she was a good Muslim. I wonder if the men who killed her ever read Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93) which says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."
Posted by Don Singleton at May 7, 2006 03:29 PMIt makes one wonder if these people can even be considered human beings.
Posted by drjohn at May 7, 2006 03:52 PMHow long before the New York Times - if they mention this at all - blames Bush?
Posted by Old Soldier at May 7, 2006 03:57 PMRoPMA, what if we dropped religion from this dialogue? How would we handle this pathology?
This cloak of relgion will be the death of us.
Posted by Pamela at May 7, 2006 04:01 PMPIMF religion
Posted by Pamela at May 7, 2006 04:02 PMI have been trying to convince people that we don't want to burn down the barn to get rid of the rats. Now I'm thinking maybe we need a new barn, anyway.
Posted by Cannoneer No. 4 at May 7, 2006 04:19 PMThis is not "islamists in the global war". This is Iraqi militias that have fluorished in the environment that we have created. And, quite possibly, it is the work of the militias that are becoming the real governing force on the ground throughout much of the country.
Its part of our legacy to the Iraqi people.
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 04:30 PMRight on "Q," Observer Blames America!!
Ya forgot George Bush!!
I am disgusted by the PUBS inactions in Congress, but Observer illustrates why once again I'll go to the POLS, hold my nose, and vote PUB!!
"The Lesser of Two Evils" by FAR!! If the Dems should get control of this country I am Thoroughly convinced it will be the destruction of same!
Posted by mike at May 7, 2006 04:38 PMAnd the MSM will pay HOW MUCH ATTENTION to the Davinci code in comparison to this?
Posted by Doug at May 7, 2006 05:37 PMGood for you Mike. You get yourself to the POLS. Let your voice be HERD.
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 05:54 PMHorrible. Where's the MSM?
Does MSM mean "Muslim Sensitivity Muzzling?
It should.
After all the benefit of the doubt the MSM and the lefties (here and elsewhere int he blogosphere) gave Zarqawi in his video adventures, I would expect to see more comfort giving to her murderers.
Well, they did declare what side they were on.
Posted by capt joe at May 7, 2006 06:13 PMTo Mike,
I agree with everything Observer wrote, and I thank him for writing it.
If America's (or, more accurately, the Bush administration's) policies toward Iraq are so damn blameless, then why was this Iraqi journalist so brutally murdered? Why were 4,000 Iraqi civilians killed by sectarian violence in the last 3 months alone?
Here is the most central question of all:
Is this what it means to be liberated? The U.S. has liberated Iraq, right? They are breathing the fresh air of freedom now, right? So what's the problem?
Posted by Kathy at May 7, 2006 06:19 PMI am so sickened by this...the lack of interest by the media, is well typical on their part. I wonder why one missing girl in Aruba is so important but a young woman who walked into harms way daily to cover what is happening in her country is little more than a blurb. Shame on us all. Where has our backbone gone? When will we stand up as a whole nation and meet this head on? I fight with myself daily to stay optimistic and have faith in the American spirit but I wonder, just wonder.....
Posted by Carolyn Mangum at May 7, 2006 06:20 PMObserver, you are a fool. Rape rooms, torture chambers, murder, and genocide existed in Saddam's Iraq for decades, and you and the world knew about it and did nothing. The people who did this aren't enthusiastic amateurs created and driven by hate for the US, they are professional killers waging a terrorist war, and you are their ally. WE are their only hope of ending this centuries old conflict.
Posted by Kenneth at May 7, 2006 06:23 PM"Observer", you've chosen an apt name for yourself. And you are fortunate indeed to live a life sheltered from such events as described above. To kill someone, you simply put a bullet through their head. The murder of Atwar Bahjat was carried out by people with a purpose beyond a simple killing.
You, like many others, (those killers included) likely see it as an opportunity to score political points. As I've noted elsewhere recently, many people are heavily invested in victory for those killers in Iraq. But still, whenever I post a story like the one above I always wonder if someone in the comments will rationalize, justify, or apologize for the latest depravity of "their team" in Iraq. In this case, I thought it might not be so.
This is your que to make a feeble attempt at "moral equivalence". Somehow I doubt you'll let me down.
Posted by Greyhawk at May 7, 2006 06:29 PMWhat Kenneth and Greyhawk just said.....
Posted by Maggie45 at May 7, 2006 06:43 PMKathy - missed your comment. Usually I'm a bit tolerant of folks like who you wander in here, but while I know it's been going on for centuries this latest depravity from the folks I'm fighting has me a bit pissed. So let's just cut to the chase.
Orwell once said "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Do you think, in his worst nightmare, Orwell ever imagined someone like you cheering for the boot?
Greyhawk,
Do you think, in his worst nightmare, Orwell ever imagined someone like you cheering for the guys who opened the door and let the boot out?
Posted by Kathy at May 7, 2006 07:01 PMWhen was it ever contained? Since you've made the accusation, I really expect an answer.
Posted by Greyhawk at May 7, 2006 07:08 PMKathy -- the animals who did this are not controlled by George W. Bush or the United States.
We did not "let this out". They are the ones who picked up the knife, of their own free will, and committed this atrocity.
It is against human nature for someone who is motivated to fight for freedom, to deny the right to live to another in this way ... ESPECIALLY when the only threat she posed to them was exposure of their twisted ideology through her words.
They CHOOSE to commit these atrocities in the name of "resistance" ... just like Saddam, before them -- or along with them -- did in the name of "justice".
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friend
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind
Leftists will always look the other way, completely ignore real history and blame everything on Bush for the wars.
Leftists like observer and kathy are what's wrong with the USA. They're not dissenting, they're just looking the other way, ignoring history and typically blaming Bush, as if they have nothing else to goes on.
Iraqis, whether they're Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christina, secular or atheist, must learn to stop fighting and hating each other and starting rebuilding their country for the future's sake.
But American leftists would not care a whit for it. They're happy the "war" is going badly for Bush and demonstrate their hateful bile in their messages.
Posted by bobar at May 7, 2006 07:29 PMGreyhawk, you're wasting energy on those blinded by their own hate, for anything good America has and continues to do. Their self induced choices of ignorance, due to their inherent worship of moral relevance, prevent them from recognizing any sense of decency, even in death. They can't even bring themselves to decry the horrendous actions of the Islamic abomination. Any sane person would, at a minimum, deem the evil action of those cowards in it's disgusting unadulterated form, as just that, evil. Blame the victim, Bush and America, but never once even consider the horrific historical facts, established by the Islamfascist haters of freedom and all things good, long before President Bush (either one) ever stepped into the WH.
The only thing more disgusting than the reason and why she was brutally murdered, are the words of support that the "Observers and Kathy's" of the world continue to provide, while they enjoy the freedoms granted to them long before they were hatched.
The Muslims will be the ones who will pay the greatest price for the actions of the Islamic pukes, that have been bent on destruction for many, many years, of all who are not as twisted as they are.
Posted by forest hunter at May 7, 2006 07:33 PMWhen was it ever contained? Since you've made the accusation, I really expect an answer.
By "it" you mean the terrorist, sectarian, militia violence, right?
The answer is, the terrorist, sectarian, militia violence did not exist before the U.S. invasion. The U.S. invasion did not, in that sense, open the door and let it out; it actually created it.
This is not to say there was no terrorism before the U.S. invasion, obviously. But it was limited to a handful of well-known organizations, and they were not in Iraq. What the U.S. invasion did was metastasize the terrorism. And now we have dozens, if not hundreds, of decentralized terrorist groups; terrorist attacks are coming from the very militias that the U.S. encouraged in the beginning, and they're coming from the Iraqi police, and from all kinds of other sources that weren't there before the invasion.
The U.S. invasion has not liberated Iraq. It has not reduced terrorism. It has made everything worse. And that Iraqi journalist's unspeakable suffering and sadistic murder is partly on our heads.
Posted by Kathy at May 7, 2006 08:15 PMNo, by "it" I meant Orwell's boot. I've been actually fighting "it" for over two decades.
While you may bear some responsibility for the torture slaying, I do not. Had I been there, I would have killed her killers. Had you attempted to stop me, even while explaining their behavior was "our fault" I would have killed you first.
Posted by Greyhawk at May 7, 2006 08:20 PMForest,
Now that you have (hopefully) indulged yourself sufficiently in self-congratulatory self-righteousness, perhaps you could come up for air for a second and contemplate the reality - that these monsters are not global jihadists, they are Iraqi militias, aligned with the parties that we have helped put into power. They are not part of the forces that are seeking to establish sharia in Kansas, they are fighting for control of their own country. And this level of brutality, and yes, evil, fluorishes in particular enviornments.
And, unfortunatly, we have now spent three years defining the environment in Iraq and doing so in an utterly clueless manner, based on the total disregard for, and lack of thought about, what the consequences of our actions would be. The war and occupation were planned amidst the same gungho, shout-down-the-skeptics, "we are the grownups who know what we are doing", attitude that prevails to this day, in a shrinking number of places on the political landscape.
You can hurl all the invective you want, and reference all those dishonest slogans (apologist, defender, relativist) that are so popular amongst the ranting clases, and you can pretend to be such an intellectual that you can comment about philosophical undercurrents pervading the thoughts of others, blah blah blah, but in the end it comes down to taking responsiblity for the mess that people like you have created. Or not taking such responsibility.
Sure, we all mourn the horrible death of innocent people. But it was you people who present this story in a political context - by purposely misidentifying the guilty parties and trying to use this incident to further confuse the issue of how this Iraq war relates to the war against jihadists (how it relates in the real world that is, not in your head).
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 08:21 PMIn 1855 the British soldiers reported back what they observed by this Islamic plague. These savages have not changed for the better Kathy. Not one iota. Their extermination is the only hope for the free world, from these soulless ghouls. Civilization is not on their wish list. Your extermination is, as well as those of us who have and would defend us all from their insane desires.
Posted by forest hunter at May 7, 2006 08:26 PMKaty, you are not 100% wrong, but you are not correct, either.
Yes, we bear some responsibility for what's going on in Iraq. However, we also bear some responsiblity for everything that Saddam did to Iraqis in the years between GWI and the invasion. Which is worse? To act and be responsible or to not act and be responsible?
We're also _not_ in Iraq for just tactical reasons - something the Left continually ignores. Look at a map!
No one expected this to be easy. We're going to be in Iraq for a LONG time - we're still in Germany and Japan.
These people are making their own choices - which _IS_ our fault. Saddam would have executed them, their families, and gassed their city. There's a reason police-states are peaceful - the dissenters are dead.
These people CHOSE not to just kill someone who was in their way but to torture her first. We are in NO WAY responsible for their actions, just for giving them the ability to choose. I can live with that.
Posted by mrsizer at May 7, 2006 08:26 PM"Sure, we all mourn the horrible death of innocent people." But...
Thanks, for a minute there I was worried this thread might remain free of cliches.
I'm not so convinced we all mourn, Observer. Some of "us" are a bit too quick to seek some political gain.
But Paris is worth 200,000 dead, right?
Do forgive my exercise of the "rough men" rule stated above - I'm more than a little weary of you people rushing to defend the killers of Atwar Bahjat, Tom Fox or Marla Ruzicka, or cheering the comments Jill Carroll made with a gun to her head.
Posted by Greyhawk at May 7, 2006 08:53 PMThese are hardcore, evil men we fight. To be able to do something so vile without emotion speaks of their determination. How do we beat these people?
Posted by associatecontributor1 at May 7, 2006 08:59 PMKathy,
Terrorists murder Israeli Olympic Team - Munich - 1972
Terrorists Kidnap US Embassey Personnel - Tehran - 1979
Terrorists Bomb Marine Barracks - Beirut - 1983
Terrorists Hijack TWA 847 - Beirut - 1985
Terrorists bomb PanAm 103 - Scotland - 1988
Terrorists drag US peacekeepers thru streets of Somalia - 1993
Terrorists Bomb US Military Complex in Riyadh - 1995
Terrorists Bomb US Military Barracks in Dharhan - 1996
Terrorists bomb US Embassies in Jakarta,Nairobi and Kenya - 1998
USS Cole Sinking - Yemen - 2000
Terrorists attack New York City and Washington - 2001
Terrorists attact Madrid Subway System - 2004
Terrorists attact London Subway System - 2005
Richard Nixon was president when this Global War of Terror started.(That is as far back as my memory goes). The US is on it's seventh president, each one, for whatever reason, decided to "Turn the Other Cheek", until Bush Jr.
Posted by Soldier's Dad at May 7, 2006 09:07 PMKathy and Obsever refuse to hold the Iraqis responsible for choosing to indulge in the sectarian violence that is a time-honored tradition in the middle east. When the Iraqis were liberated from a regime that inflicted inhuman violence on them, some of them used their newly acquired free will to continue that pattern.
Yet this is somehow the fault of the U.S.
Every day is a new opportunity for free people to change. Kathy and Observer need to begin holding the Iraqis to the same standards of behavior to which they hold westerners. With freedom come responsibilities.
Posted by Tom W. at May 7, 2006 09:27 PMGreyhawk,
This was funny, I'll grant you:
"Thanks, for a minute there I was worried this thread might remain free of cliches."
And this is refreshingly honest of you:
"I'm not so convinced we all mourn, Observer. Some of "us" are a bit too quick to seek some political gain."
But then you really lose it. You are not being a "rough man", just a dishonest one with this:
"I'm more than a little weary of you people rushing to defend..."
Don't y'all ever get tired of this BS? This is playground level analysis, and I get the sense that you actually aspire to something higher. Yet you just cant help yourself, can you? Is it like a drug or something? Does the fact that it is repeated over and over again by the ranters lead you to somehow believe that you are making an impression with it?
Here is a hint. IF someone says something that is in no way a "defense" of something, nor is there any desire to defend the thing, then when you come along to claim that it is a defense of something, people think you are either illiterate or just a boring ranter. And when the "defense" meme gets used constantly in these inappropriate situations, then you build your reputation as an unimaginative illiterate or ranter. Now, thats not your goal, is it?
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 09:28 PMThey are pigs. Downright nasty mud slinging pigs.
Posted by Art at May 7, 2006 09:34 PMThe answer is, the terrorist, sectarian, militia violence did not exist before the U.S. invasion.
Really, Kathy? Then how did all those bodies get into the mass graves in Iraq? It wasn’t sectarian, militia violence? Do you know that for certain? It seems that even the CIA didn’t know what was going on in Iraq, what makes you, Kathy, so certain that you do know? And if it wasn’t sectarian violence that produced those bodies, are they still dead?
The U.S. invasion has not liberated Iraq. It has not reduced terrorism. It has made everything worse. And that Iraqi journalist's unspeakable suffering and sadistic murder is partly on our heads.
Old Jewish joke: Two men are on a train to Treblinka. One says “let’s try to escape.” To which the other replies: “Hush, you’ll make things worse.”
Tom W,
On what basis do you make this claim the I "refuse" to hold Iraqis responsible for what they do? Where does that come from? I point to the responsiblity that we have - that in no way detracts from the responsibilities of others.
Do you think that it is some great revelation to point to the fact that the ultimate responsiblity is with the monster who drew the knife? Does his responsibility for that act mean that the conversation is over? That there is nothing left to discuss? That any or all actions that we do or do not take, or have or have not taken are somehow off the table for critical discussion?
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 09:35 PMKathy and Observer will use anything -- including the death of this innocent woman -- to advance the Bush-bashing. There is no use in trying to reason intelligently with them for they are too wrapped in their own folly. When Orwell's boot approaches them, they will still be pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Whether international terrorists or domestic, militias and mahdi armies -- whatever you call them -- they are terrorists with the intent of advancing their own [allegedly religious] agendas and undermining the duly elected government. They're not "insurgents". They're terrorists.
Posted by You Must Be Kidding at May 7, 2006 09:40 PMIt seems to me, Observer, that making the our actions in Iraq the driving force behind whatever animates people who kill their fellow human beings in this inhuman way is letting them off the hook, right?
After all, if the US made them what they are, are they to blame?
Are you trying to wiggle off that little hook, you worm?
"The answer is, the terrorist, sectarian, militia violence did not exist before the U.S. invasion."
The victims of Saddam's rape rooms and plastic shredders would disagree, I think.
Or does the Iraqi Republican Guard no longer count as a militia, and the Baathists no longer count as a sect?
The Islamofascists started this war. Fighting to create positive change in the Mideast will not be easy or pretty, but we have no choice. I'd rather see the US open a thousand cans of worms or disturb a thousand hornets nests, rather than make believe that the cans of worms and the hornets nests either aren't our concern or too dangerous to be disturbed.
The left ignored and made excuses for the atrocities committed by Stalin and Mao. Now they take great pleasure in the fact that the US is trying to fight against an evil ideology and things are getting "messy". Post apartheid South Africa is a mess, but I don't hear anyone on the left complaining about that.
Posted by The Fop at May 7, 2006 10:03 PMUnspeakable bastards (them, not you).
I have made a button to post on the blogs in her memory. I didn't know her but everyone must hear her story.
Feel free to copy it or post it from it's source.
SRC URL is http://www.combateffective.us/images/atwarbahjat.JPG
Posted by Rob at May 7, 2006 10:08 PMKaty, this is the source of the disconnect with this group:Do you think that it is some great revelation to point to the fact that the ultimate responsiblity is with the monster who drew the knife? Does his responsibility for that act mean that the conversation is over? That there is nothing left to discuss?
Yes. It means exactly that. We - humans - are all responsible for our own actions and no one elses. Awfully simple isn't it?
Posted by mrsizer at May 7, 2006 10:09 PMIs your ignorance of history an excuse for your lack in judgement, O and K?
Folks like you are welcome to have opinions as you do, but if these Islamopukes were in your front yard, doing what they're doing in theirs, your chances for seeing the next sunrise are about as good as understanding the big picture that was established long before all of us were born. They wish for death and we need to grant it for them. Gassed like rats, were his own people. What chance do you dreamers in your utopian fog think you have?
Posted by forest hunter at May 7, 2006 10:16 PMObserver
I recognize the "rough men" bit can cause discomfort - everyone likes to believe they could be "rough" if the conditions were just so, or if a real threat appeared.
So let's try this one - but like the rough men bit it's not my original thought: The world is divided into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs of various breeds. It's difficult for the sheep to determine the difference between the other two. In your eyes I may appear to be a wolf, so it goes. But here on this blog I will do my best to expose the real wolves. Out in the real world I will kill them, hopefully before they butcher you.
It's not in my nature to consider the sensibilities of the sheep in this equation.
Posted by Greyhawk at May 7, 2006 10:20 PMForest Hunter,
I don't believe that they are dreamers in utopian fogs. Dreamers would be horrified at this slaughter. They are ideologues for whom human suffering is a tool.
I believe the technical term is "moral eunuch."
Posted by moneyrunner at May 7, 2006 10:23 PMMoneyrunner,
"It seems to me, Observer, that making the our actions in Iraq the driving force behind whatever animates people who kill their fellow human beings in this inhuman way is letting them off the hook, right?
Right. Thats why I would never make such a claim.
"After all, if the US made them what they are, are they to blame?"
Good point. Your logic is impeccable.
Your reading skills are another matter however. Why not deal with what I actually said, rather than what you may have wished I said - wished, so that you could end up justified in hurling a little insult at me?
Shall I give you a hint?
I wrote that brutality of this type emerges in certain environments. This is a statement about human nature. Its actually an insight that most conservatives share, on a philosophical level. Thats why conservatives are usually so interested in establishing conditions of law and order in society - they know what people end up doing in anarchic situations (that would be - compete for power in ever more brutal and unconstrained ways).
And, I pointed out that we have been, for three years now, the force that has assumed responsibility for defining the environment in Iraq. You break it, you own it - but even more than that. You invade a country with 150K troops, overthrow the government, and voila - you bear responsibility for the environment that emerges - especially three years later.
So,,,I never claimed that we did the beheading, or that we forced the monsters to do the beheading, or that we are the "driving force" that causes people to do that. I claimed that we are responsible for the environment in which this type of activity takes place.
And I see around me all these "responsible' types, who are expending a lot of energy trying to escape responsiblity for their own decisions.
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 10:32 PMGreyhawk,
With all due respect, I don't see you as a "wolf" or a rough man. I see you as someone who, probably with the best of intentions, makes dishonest arguments, using gross mischaracterizations of political opponents, in support of narrowly-drawn and basically mistaken policy alternatives. Thats all.
Posted by Observer at May 7, 2006 10:36 PMI believe the founding fathers believed Truth and Democracy would live as a syllogism.
Maybe that can happen only in a country "free" enough to let "civilized" not be implied to be "Fundamentalist Christian."
I find it galling that the President can say things like, "they are against the 'civilized' world." Is that the "civilized" world where one of your top Homeland Security Agency officials is caught in a FBI sting picking up child predators/pedophiles? Or is that the "civilized" world where you execute a retarded man with the IQ of an 8 year-old who has no idea what he did? Or the "civilized" world where you force-feed psychiatric medications to a paranoid schizophrenic so that he is "legally lucid" enough to be put to death? Would this be the same "civilized" world that has yet to REALLY prosecute any of the pedophilic acts committed by Roman Catholic Clergy in the Archdioces of Boston? Would this be the same "civilized" world that believes a 40+ year-old man can be forgiven for drug abuse, drinking and driving under the threat that his wife will leave him if he doesn't because he found God but he can execute a woman who after a drug-induced killing, found God and ran a prison ministry for years?
Is this the same country that is so "civilized" it cannot honor the men and women who have died in the service of upholding its principles? They have to be loaded like illegal quarry, in the dark of night, and unloaded the same at Dover Air Base; wouldn't want anyone to know how many are dying to keep us so civilized.
I have two brothers. Both were "civilized" enough to have made it back from Mosul and N.E. of Baghdad (tanks). I'd hate to think they were defending people so civilized as to kill an 8-year old.
MJ
prairie waif
I think he means not just against America, MJ, but against anyone, anywhere that abhors such things as chopping someones head off with a knife while chanting "God is great!"
The pedophile examples you list are damning and short of the Roman Catholic clergy, I don't think you'll find anyone defending a single one of them. The capital punishment ones, I think we could debate, but I would ask - without hostility and in open query - what are you driving at?
That the US is not perfect? Agreed. Long way from it. Here, though, there remain people who would act to help Atwar Bahjat.
Also, it seems to me that the folks on this board would not hesitate to prosecute the pedophiles above...especially if not checked by morally flexible defense attornies and a victimization mindset prevalent today.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by Rob at May 7, 2006 11:05 PMRob,
If "the folks on this board would not hesitate to prosecute the pedophiles above..." Then, why haven't they?
You want to talk about "morally flexable defense attornies [sic]?" What were the morals of the Enron defense attorneys prior to receiving their retainer? Tom Delay's? Jack Abramhoff's? Texas Rangers' Owner/Drunk Driver George W. Bush's (granted a long time ago, but did money change his morales or proximity to power?)?
My point with my first post and this one:
In war, defining "your side" as the "civilized" and the others as "less than animals," gives cause for the "civilized" to get burned by their own magnifying glass of "civilization" (Abu Ghraib, Camp X, Rendition, Patriot Act, etc.) and the "less than animals" with no rules to live by or justify their action accorded to them.
Because we have "called" the high ground on civility, all we can do is fall. And as Christian writer/philosopher G.K. Chesterton said, "one see many small things from the mountain top but many great things from the valley."
George Washington knew that at Valley Forge. If only George W. Bush didn't want to be King of the Mountain so badly he didn't care who or what he had to climb over to get there.
(Would somebody shut-up about, "And Saddam Gassed his own People!!! Right. In 1988, during the reign of George H. Bush. If it is so important NOW, why wasn't it then?)
MJ
prairie waif
O- With all due respect, how you see Greyhawk is not surprising and seems to be the same as how you see the rest of reality, in relation to the historical facts these Islamic savages have/and are perpetrated/perpetrating on the innocent. I for one wouldn't bet on Greyhawk not fitting into the sheepdog's roll- in a heartbeat.
As I don't know you personally, I don't regard you as one who would make stupid comments intentionaly. So when I ask you if you think it's time to eliminate (as in eradicate) the vile Islamofascists from the face of the earth, do you know what I mean? Are you aware of the difference between the Muslim faith and the Islamic cult? It's a serious question and not meant to be a provoking one, other than thoughts.
Posted by forest hunter at May 7, 2006 11:59 PMDid you catch:
Two men drove up in a pick-up truck, asking for her. She appealed to a small crowd that had gathered around her crew but nobody was willing to help her. It was reported at the time that she had been shot dead with her cameraman and sound man.
There were only two men - but the crowd was willing just to watch and not intervene. Until people are willing to stand together and say enough is enough, we will stop these evil people even if it costs us our lives, Iraq can never be free. People have to stand up and actively fight evil. Evil often maintains power because of fear and intimidation. That is what this is all about, making people afraid to fight the evil in Iraq thus keeping them enslaved.
This woman was strong enough to stand up and fight evil. She deserves to be honored for her stand.
Posted by Pepperpot at May 8, 2006 12:01 AMOh how quickly the anything-bad-that-happens-in-the-world-is-the-United-States'-fault folks jumped into this discussion. It is safer emotionally to blame Bush and blame the actions of the United States rather than acknowledge that there are evil people in the world who want to terrorize and kill us for no reason other than that we exist.
Posted by Carol at May 8, 2006 12:03 AMForest Hunter writes:
"In 1855 the British soldiers reported back what they observed by this Islamic plague."
Actually Forest, the Mahdist Rebellion began by self-proclaimed "Mahdi" Mohammed Ahmed in 1881. He was the first, and only person known to have united all of the various Arabic tribes of the Sudan under his established theocratic state in the Sudan in 1882. The end of the Mahdist Rebellion came at Omdurman in 1898.
During this "Rebellion" the British Square, an extremely efficient military plan was defeated for the first time in hundreds of years.
The "savages" had a good strategy. Custer didn't do so well against strategy either. Maybe it's time our government worked "Smart" not just "hard." I can dig a hole all day long but if I don't take the dirt out of the hole...I worked hard but not so smart. Got it?
We need to start listening to the troops who have the guts to speak up. The ones on OpTruth.com who talk about the PTSD and Suicides trying to fight hard but not always smart.
We shouldn't be re-taking Fallujah. We took it once, that should be it. We shouldn't be going in and out and as we do so filling more coffins to put boots in the footprints they left the first time they were there. Fight smart, not hard.
MJ
prairie waif
Observer,
The environment for murder in Iraq didn't exist until we created it? Iraq didn't support terrorism? Get your head out of the sand. Your access to media with agenda has tainted your world.
Posted by Bill at May 8, 2006 12:45 AMForest,
"how you see Greyhawk is not surprising and seems to be the same as how you see the rest of reality.."
I dont really understand your point here. In some sense you may be right. I judge Greyhawk, or anyone else who speaks his mind, on the basis of whether I judge their arguments, or the policies they advocate, to be wise. Or not wise. I don't quite get the whole animal metaphor identity thing. This is a discussion about policy - I really don't care what animal someone thinks he resembles.
The more I think of it, the more it seems odd to me. To the extent that one wants to project this image of the guardian-warrior, I might, if anything be less inclined to respect their policy pronouncements. I should add that I would probably make an effort to overcome this inclination. But there is a reason for it.
I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the courage of the warrior, and I certainly respect their crucial role in our society - and I thank them for it. If the issue at hand were some tactical question about the conduct of some operation, I would defer to their expertise, and just shut up. But the issue is not that. The issue is policy questions at the highest level. Higher than the level of the soldier, or even the commander in chief. Way up there at the level of the real bosses - the citizens. What should we do in a given situation? What are all the factors at play? How do they relate to each other? What are the likely consequences in the long term, at the big picture level? What are the possible unintended consequences?
We the people argue and decide, and we dont stop arguing and forming opinions once elections are over. This is what free people in a democracy do.
At some point, decisions are made, and soldiers are ordered to carry them out. At that point, the soldier, for their own survival, has deep emotional inclinations to believe in the policy decision. One needs to believe in order to carry out the order. But this belief removes them from the position of being a valuable contributor to the high-level debate. Wise decisions are not reached by people who have a strong need to believe that one particular policy is right.
So I don't quite understand why one would enter a policy debate by emphasizing that they see themselves as warriors. All warriors are also citizens, so they certainly have the right to contribute to the debate, but their contribution is valuable only to the extent that they can set aside thier soldier mentality for the time being, and take up the citizen mentality. The citizen has no emotional investment in one particular policy, but can step back and assess them all critically. Thats the process that leads to wise decisions.
Posted by Observer at May 8, 2006 12:59 AMI really don't think some truly understand this. They have no trouble asking how much better we are then them, but don't stop to actually see the differences.
Sure, we have capital punishment, it may not be pretty, but we don't run around, or allow others to run around killing their own at will. Here you have an exact example of that where a group of people ran out, and for no reason, killed a woman. No one arrests them, no investigation, just left free to find another target and murder again.
Defending acts like this is stupid and pointless. Yes, we've had our moments of torture incidents and such, but those guilty were brought before the law and punished according to it.
With them, they kill, and nothing acts against them, and now people sit back and make excuses for it. I think that's why people like Observer and Kathy are despised quite a bit.
I'll in no way argue about how Bush has handled anything. Personally I think he expected a cakewalk, but none the less, things like this, that lived through the years, and now run loose, maybe a bit more then before, should not be excused or let go.
"We created an environment that made them do heinous things" That's kind of like Moussaeoui let 3000 be killed because he had a bad childhood.
This idea that we created the environment that forced them into this act is classically liberal. ( Its the "environment", not necessarily anything inherently bad in the person.) Conservatives, Observer, don't subscribe to that. They, and most people, adhere to a stable, moral code of principles and behavior that exists in the character of the person, independent of environment.
I don't know which is scarier, terrorists or Americans who "don't get it".
Posted by mrj at May 8, 2006 01:26 AMHey, this wasn't Jill Carroll! Why should Americans care about Muslims practicing human sacrifice?
Blaming this on Bush sounds a lot like blaming the cops for crime. It also sounds a lot like the echo from the rotten heart of the Democrat Party, where everything from the Fall of Man on down is Bush's fault.
Posted by AST at May 8, 2006 01:26 AMThis thread is amazingly rich in teachable materials.
I would love to grab it, take it into my philosophy tutorial, present it and have the students break it down into:
specious arguements
specious replies
circular arguements
illogical devices
etc.
I am sure some of them could write their honours papers on following blog postings for a week.
This is what freedom of speech is about.
Notice to mrj: I know what is scarier that Terrorist or Americans who "don't get it."
Americans that believe dissent is unAmerican. When you disagree with someone, it forces you to hone your arguement, polish the rough edges and make it logical and not just a regurgitation of invectives from right-wing demogogues and their terminologies (Islamofascists=Bill O'Reilly) and their acronyms (MSM=Convicted Drug Addict Rush Limbaugh). It forces you to think how YOU and YOUR words represent your thoughts.
It doesn't allow you to abdicate your responsibility as a thinking American to the media (right or left). It remains your responsibilty to educate yourself and develop your OWN philosophy, even if it is close to some of those I have mentioned, it won't be based upon being a trained parrot using their words for a philosophy you have swallowed like Cod Liver Oil, because they told you Good American's Take It from Them.
Happy researching...
MJ
prairie waif
Observer/Kathy/Prairie Waif,
"At some point, decisions are made, and soldiers are ordered to carry them out. At that point, the soldier, for their own survival, has deep emotional inclinations to believe in the policy decision. One needs to believe in order to carry out the order. But this belief removes them from the position of being a valuable contributor to the high-level debate. Wise decisions are not reached by people who have a strong need to believe that one particular policy is right."
--- Really? I followed many unpopular orders, including the ones which insisted that gays be granted special privilieges in the military, and that women be granted combat status in every branch of the armed forces, and never once did I waver in that support or in the execution of same. I would submit the decision made by Sir Winston Churchill to resist Nazi Germany in the face of complete isolation from any Allied support in 1940, the decision by FDR to wage war against the Axis after Pearl Harbor, the decision to keep the Union together by Abraham Lincoln after the rebels fired on Ft Sumter, Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs and hasten the end of the bloodiest conflict ever seen, and George Washington's and the Founding Fathers' decision to defy Britain and fight for freedom and birth of this country to rank upon the finest decisions made in this world. The decisions to support VietNam and Korea, and now invade Iraq are only slightly less noble and less well thought of by "historians" solely because the country failed to find the nerve to finish the job it began (thanks to apologists for our enemies, who prolonged the war and allowed many more to die because of their vacillation in the face of danger). 25 million Chinese died in the cultural revolution under Mao, 20 million Russians died in WWII from Stalin's "incompetence", and 25 million died at his hand before that war ever began. Communism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. And all that smart Westerners ever did was say "We can't save everybody, so we will save no one". Observer, you make me sick.
"All warriors are also citizens, so they certainly have the right to contribute to the debate, but their contribution is valuable only to the extent that they can set aside thier soldier mentality for the time being, and take up the citizen mentality. The citizen has no emotional investment in one particular policy, but can step back and assess them all critically. Thats the process that leads to wise decisions."
--- Let us know the next time your daughter is raped, your son murdered, your parents beheaded how that non "emotional investment" pans out regarding your ability to bring killers to justice. I remember the deaths of 3000 of my neighbors on Sept 11, 2001 as an "unemotional event" which required some "reasoned" response and action to change a culture which has been killing Americans in the name of Islam, since they are merely infidels, since 1972 as listed above. Let me know the next time you need a soldier to defend or support you. I'll be looking the other way while you are getting your ass kicked.
"The answer is, the terrorist, sectarian, militia violence did not exist before the U.S. invasion. The U.S. invasion did not, in that sense, open the door and let it out; it actually created it."
--- Ma'am, you don't know what you are talking about. The militias and sects existed and fought Saddam for 35 yrs. They also lost for 35 yrs. When we eliminated Saddam, they didn't spring to life from nothing inside of a year. Otherwise, we truly would have been greeted as liberators. And, of course, you don't think that actually happened, do you?
"This is not to say there was no terrorism before the U.S. invasion, obviously. But it was limited to a handful of well-known organizations, and they were not in Iraq. What the U.S. invasion did was metastasize the terrorism. And now we have dozens, if not hundreds, of decentralized terrorist groups; terrorist attacks are coming from the very militias that the U.S. encouraged in the beginning, and they're coming from the Iraqi police, and from all kinds of other sources that weren't there before the invasion."
--- That handful of organizations was completely in Iraq, fighting Saddam. None of the militias has been supported by the US. We tolerated them, nothing more, because "we can't kill them all". Those outside Iraq were fighting America and the Jews. And we all know how much America and Jewry had to do with the misery in Iraq under Saddam, don't we? Especially since the only 60 Jews left in Iraq were living in a ghetto in Baghdad and avoided saying anything to anyone for over 35 yrs for fear of their own heinous deaths.
"The U.S. invasion has not liberated Iraq. It has not reduced terrorism. It has made everything worse. And that Iraqi journalist's unspeakable suffering and sadistic murder is partly on our heads."
--- The only thing on our heads, in this case, is the burden that must be borne of listening to your insufferable apology for Evil men who kill women, children, and old men just because those innocents wish a better life for themselves and their families. You recoil at the carnage before you, but when it was done under Saddam, you simply pass it off as "none of our business, they are a sovereign country". Either humans deserve to live under any regime, or they don't. Your support (and if you don't oppose them, then you DO support them) for the enemies of freedom and justice are beneath what any rational, thinking human being should espouse. Evil men kill because it is in their nature. American soldiers defend because that is their aim. If you can't see the difference, then join the Evil, because it is the only thing strong enough to get your attention, or shut up and join the defenders of liberty in their fight to protect you and the innocent Iraqis from that Evil.
"The "savages" had a good strategy. Custer didn't do so well against strategy either. Maybe it's time our government worked "Smart" not just "hard." I can dig a hole all day long but if I don't take the dirt out of the hole...I worked hard but not so smart. Got it?"
--- It is always easy to blame the dead for their failures to fight smartly or bravely, isn't it? We routinely do it in aircraft crashes (pilot error), accidents (operator error), etc.... A fight against overwhelming odds can still be bravely fought and lead to Victory. I suppose your sons made you feel that this was a useless and misbegotten war which was being poorly fought and needed additional troops to win and win quickly. However, with attitudes like those printed here against the war, how will we ever raise the Men to fight a war to crush the insurgency? Would you send more sons to fight if you (which you so obviously do) thought this way? They are adults and their own Men. We can certainly be more ruthless than Saddam. But must we be? Anything that deluded nimrod could do, we can certainly do better. But should we? If the Iraqi people decide through their legitimate government to kick us out and then kill each and every able bodied male in Iraq until one emerges victorious, then that is certainly their priviliege. But must it be so? Either you support eliminating radical Islam as a force against us, or you don't. There is no middle ground in that question. This is the path chosen. Follow it to Victory, or leave it and die, divided and outnumbered.
"We need to start listening to the troops who have the guts to speak up. The ones on OpTruth.com who talk about the PTSD and Suicides trying to fight hard but not always smart."
--- That would be the ones who can tell us a better way to win the war, or how to treat them for PTSD? The ones with a superior military strategy to win in Iraq which doesn't involve surrendering to the folks who drilled 19 holes in Bajat's arms and drilled into her eye, then halfway sawed through her neck, then stomped on her chest to increase the pain and force out more blood, and then finished sawing through her neck while she writhed in pain the entire time. Imagine that is your son. Now tell me how they weren't fighting against an enemy that needs to be fought. Even against overwhelming odds.
"We shouldn't be re-taking Fallujah. We took it once, that should be it. We shouldn't be going in and out and as we do so filling more coffins to put boots in the footprints they left the first time they were there. Fight smart, not hard."
--- Again, sir. I will say that I respect your opinion and your chagrin that we aren't able to hold the terrirtory we take permanently. That we need another 300,000 troops to adequately hold and pacify Iraq. I just wonder if you have an answer to where we get those Men. Since the refrain that Iraq is a failure has been trumpeted so loudly by the MSM, the Muslim apologists, and the disgruntled Republicans and Dhimmicrats who aren't getting their way, what 19 year old in his right mind would follow that call? You and the people you defend here have made it impossible politically to ask for more Men. They wouldn't come to the call because of your claim that Iraq is not worth it, our Men are dying needlessly, and the war is not winnable unless we kill them all. I value you children's service and contribution. And I think you should as well and support the completion of their mission, however long that may be. The Life you and they save, may be your own.
"It doesn't allow you to abdicate your responsibility as a thinking American to the media (right or left). It remains your responsibilty to educate yourself and develop your OWN philosophy, even if it is close to some of those I have mentioned, it won't be based upon being a trained parrot using their words for a philosophy you have swallowed like Cod Liver Oil, because they told you Good American's Take It from Them."
--- These are my opinions. Passed down through the raising of my father who served in WWII, my stepfather who also served, and my experiences facing down Soviet forces for over 10 years, and the myriad of oppressor nations who took their place for the next 10. I learned them. I polished them. And I cling to them like anyone my age would, whenever an idiot who teaches philosophy for a living tells me that Evil Men don't exist and it is useless to try to face them down. I've been there. I know what I'm talking about. And your sons do as well. And I won't apologize or change my opinions because you think I'm an "emotionally invested" military man. You're damn right I think this is the most important conflict since WWII, and this country is the most important foxhole in the world. I'm in it.
O/K/PW, I am sorry if my responses offend any of you. But you are wrong in your thinking. When you so obviously intend to support those who would do anything in this world to kill you and your families, then you no longer possess a rational side in the argument of Life. Our parents and grandparents did not defend America through the Great War, survive the Depression, win the largest World War ever and face down Communism through sheer force of will and determination not to knuckle under, only to have their children and grandchildren die under the yoke of Islamic oppression and terrorist triumph because their children "lost their nerve". They were made of sterner stuff than you. And you should learn from their example that appeasement and surrender are the surest paths to your own Death ever. Because all that this struggle has to offer in support of Victory is "blood, toil, tears and sweat".
GreyHawk,
I support you in your battle to display the Evil we face. And I hope you will continue your posts of this nature. Press on. To Victory.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at May 8, 2006 02:54 AMGreyhawk,
This was a brutal and senseless murder of an innocent person by an enemy that must be defeated at all costs.
Thank you for bringing attention to this story.
I wrote about your post at Palmetto Pundit but like Don above, my trackback didn't work.
Thanks for doing the job the mainstream media won't do.
Posted by Barry at May 8, 2006 03:00 AMI wrote that brutality of this type emerges in certain environments.
Can we agree that people, in a state of nature, can become brutal? For example, they will either steal or kill to survive. That is natural, and human.
This is a statement about human nature. Its actually an insight that most conservatives share, on a philosophical level. Thats why conservatives are usually so interested in establishing conditions of law and order in society - they know what people end up doing in anarchic situations (that would be - compete for power in ever more brutal and unconstrained ways).
But to suggest that the people who tortured, stripped, cut the victim’s throat – partially – then pushed on her diaphragm to force blood through her throat, them finished her off by cutting her throat again, while having previously tortured her with electric drills, did anything that is done by people who behave brutally in “certain environments” is stretching the limits of credulity beyond the breaking point.
And, I pointed out that we have been, for three years now, the force that has assumed responsibility for defining the environment in Iraq. You break it, you own it - but even more than that. You invade a country with 150K troops, overthrow the government, and voila - you bear responsibility for the environment that emerges - especially three years later.
And here is the perfect example of what I spoke of, and which you denied, but are now admitting in your own words. You claim that WE are responsible for the torture, humiliation and foulness that is committed by our enemies.
You really are a worm.
So,,,I never claimed that we did the beheading, or that we forced the monsters to do the beheading, or that we are the "driving force" that causes people to do that. I claimed that we are responsible for the environment in which this type of activity takes place.
Bullcrap, there is no environment that we, or the Devil himself creates that can make people behave in the depraved manner that these murderers did. In case you did not notice, Worm, the outrage is not about the death of a reporter, it is about the manner of her death – it is about the bestiality of the people who killed her.
And I see around me all these "responsible' types, who are expending a lot of energy trying to escape responsiblity for their own decisions.
I will accept responsibility for decisions I make. But neither you nor any of your acolytes will be able to transfer the responsibility of the brutality that was exhibited here to anyone on my side. That is strictly yours and the people you defend.
Posted by moneyrunner at May 8, 2006 03:04 AMDear Kathy,
Please explain why no-fly zones existed in Iraq prior to our invasion.
Thank you.
Posted by Aaron at May 8, 2006 03:13 AMI'm amazed at the parocialism of some commentators.
The US is not the world.
The people (and I use the word loosely) who did this are hostis humani generis, Enemies of Humanity.
That some USAians are so wrapped up in navel-gazing, partisan politics and points-scoring when we have a war to fight is, I guess, just one of your cultural peculiarities. In a country of 300 million people, there must be a lot of Idiots, after all, many of them relatively well educated.
Sometimes it's simple. Sometimes it's not nuanced. Putting panties on someone's head is not the same as drilling their eyes out.
This is Evil. Like the rape chambers and killing fileds that existed before, this must be stopped.
But then, I'm Australian, and we're a simple bunch. See Unmitigated Evil, Prevent it.
It would be nice to have the US along to help, it would make our lives a lot easier, but if you wish to engage in political wanking like the EU, go ahead, your country. We'll do what we can anyway.
Maybe if we were a Hyperpower, afraid of ourselves and what we might do if we let ourselves become tyrants, we too would be paralysed by the fanatical self-criticism that is unable to tell the somewhat imperfect from the absolutely Evil.
But we're not, we're a minor power isolated at the ass-end of the world, and that gives us some sort of perspective, the trivial details get blurred, and we just see the essentials. This Evil must be prevented, and the only way appears to be by both encouraging the reform of Islam in the long term, and killing those responsible in the short term.
All else is obfuscation. Or as we say here in Oz, Wankology.
Posted by Zoe Brain at May 8, 2006 03:20 AMI am not surprised at Observer et al's arguments. There are the same ones that Noam Chomsky made while the Cambodian genocide. First he denied they occured and called it US propaganda and said we should give benefit of the doubt to the Khmer Rouge (sounds like the water carrying that the MSM and the left have for that video of Zarqawi). Second, when the geneocide could not be denied any longer, he blamed it on US provocation. All teh time ignoring that the genocide was part of a grand plan cooked up by the "brave" Khmer revolutionaries, that Chumpsky (sic) admired, when they studied at the Sorbourne years before. Those selfsame "speaekers of truth to power" believed that the failure of communist states was due to leaving the bourgious alive after the revolution. They believed that if you could kill everyone that had knowledge of a previous condition you could remove the threat of counter revolution. This became the concept of the year zero. This was widely known at the time and widely ignored by the left so that they could attack the US.
I see all the same elements here. Our resident lefties see no horror, no madness in the actions of these evil men. Rather they see an opportunity to attack the "corrupt" state they hate so much. I am not sure who is worse, stupid brutal evil men or those who should know better.
Posted by capt joe at May 8, 2006 03:22 AMObserver ... you put much emphasis on being responsible.
Are you ready to accept responsibility for the 40 years that thugs like Saddam, the Iranian mullahocracy, Arafat and his associates, and even bin Laden were left free to foment terror, and become stronger and bolder in doing so ... since it is people like you whose "analysis" ad nausaeum led to our INACTION against these clear threats to peace-loving civilization for so long?
That is something that was totally under your control ... in stark contrast to the "environment" in Iraq, where no matter what we do or how many boots we put on the ground, the enemy still gets a vote -- and this time, chose to mark his "ballot" with a knife, and punch chads with a drill.
We have seen the alternative to your course of action ... an alternative that was much villified by so-called intellectuals ... an alternative, when it was implemented, led to the liberation of millions, reductions in nuclear arms, and the preservation of peace ... a record that simply is not matched by the results of your "analysis", applied or not.
That alternative: to confront those who perpetrate evil, in a timely, prudent, and decisive manner.
When were you and your ilk going to end the analysis, and start applying your knowledge to liberate the oppressed?
PrarieWaif -- no one is disputing the right to dissent. What we tire of is low-quality dissent, that spouts off the conventional "wisdom" of the theoretician, while ignoring even the simplest principles of human nature that are evident in history.
That kind of dissent gets people killed for no good reason ... or gets them to snatch defeat from the jaws of a principled and prudent victory.
We know why y'all yelp when we dissent about your dissent ... y'all got used to being the only voice in the public square on these subjects, and therefore assumed you were right.
Bad assumption. It is also a bad assumption to believe that we are all mind-numbed robots under the control of a Rush or a Hannity ... when in actuality, their popularity is derived from their reinforcement of what we already have determined, through principled analysis, is truth ... but is not seen as such by "sophisticates" like you, Kathy, and Observer -- because to you It Just Can't Be That Simple.
Even when it IS that simple.
Your monopoly of the debate -- both its content, and its timing -- is over.
We won't be fooled again.
Subsunk ... thanks for the point-by-point analysis ... an analysis that, in stark contrast to the critics, will not lead to the paralysis of principled action.
Posted by Rich Casebolt at May 8, 2006 03:34 AMI suspect there is a special place in hell in for those like Observer, Kathy and Prairie Waif who exploit the indefensible and extraordinarily brutal murder of a female Iraqi journalists by terrorists (any proof they are "militia" rather than terrorists??) to make gratuitously cheap political points against Bush and the U.S. Where else does such hatred lead?
Posted by Tim at May 8, 2006 03:47 AMGreyHawk,
Please accept my apology. It seems you have misconstrued the meaning of my posts.
My history:
My Dad's 15th birthday was December 7, 1941. He and his best friend, Orville Wolfe, enlisted after high school graduation. They were farm kids who had walked to the one room school prior to going to the high school in town. They were brothers. They were 17 years old when they shipped out with the pacific fleet in the spring of 1944.
Orville was sent into Hiroshima 4 days after they dropped the bomb to document the effects of the explosion and aftermath. He died less than one year later of "Radiation Sickness." He never saw 20.
He was his parents only son. My father never got over it. Every year on Memorial Day we met Orville's parents at his gravesite in a tiny cemetery in Beaver Creek, Minnesota. Every year my stoic father tried to hide the tears that had followed him since he was 19.5 years old.
He was a fleet appointee to Annapolis but Orville's death devastated him and he went on to the University of Minnesota to study history and law.
My uncle, Dad's brother (2 years younger) fulfilled his duty to country in Korea. He has had one son in the Air Force and numerous Grandchildren serve overseas in OEF and OIF. One has rotated through twice.
I have two brothers who have been in the sandbox. One with the Army Corps of Engineers in Mosul and the other as the Commander of a Tank Battalion, Northeast of Baghdad.
I was Delayed Entry into the United States Navy with Recruit Training Command in Orlando, Florida. I was called home to take care of my Dad who became very ill and had no one else to take care of him.
Another Uncle is a "semi" retired Flight Surgeon who was a representative to Nato and worked on the safety of the Space Shuttle at Cape Canaveral. I say he is semi-retired because although he retired a Lt. Colonel, they want to bring him back at a significantly higher rate of pay for his expertise in his field of dealing with pilots and assessing them for safety in flight.
I KNOW how it feels to know that someone is trying to kill you and it's you or them or get the hell out of there before you have to kill them and alert the rest of the troops. I know the sickening feeling of watching the results of those who didn't escape.
My Dad spent the last five years of his life at the Walter C. Johnson Veterans Administration Hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and, so did I.
I know what it is like to see the Vietnam vets from 2 South (psych ward) on the elevator with their thousand mile stares and the ones going to physio with a leg or two missing. I often volunteered and took them about their appointments at the hospital. I saw the vets from WWI slowly dying of old age and the ravages of alcoholism that had helped them forget what they had endured in the trenches.
My Dad was 57 when he died in 1984. Despite being shot on some Japanese Island, losing a friend and dying from some "experiment" done to soldiers in the pacific radiation zone, he never was bitter about his country. He just hated dying so young when he wanted to live forever.
When you read my post you misconstrued what I said. What I said was, "Think about the war and develop your own philosophy. Don't just swallow the "easy" jive talk of "talking heads" like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken or anyone else; your responsibility as an AMERICAN CITIZEN is to educate yourself.
Did you know the government lifted the deficeit cap by 90 billion dollars so they wouldn't go into default on their loans that are paying for the governance of the USA and funding the mission overseas? Do you know who holds the loans backing our Government?
Did you know that the US Defense Department had to go to South Africa to purchase vehicles with armour that would meet the upgraded standards and give our troops a better chance against ied's and rpg's?
Are you aware that families are purchasing night-vision goggles and other militarily deemed "essential" equipment because the military budget has no room for it? When I was in boot-camp we got issued writing paper. These guys would like to have safety equipment.
I know my brothers worked hard, but if they don't have a good leader they may not be working smart. You and I know what Fragging is and I don't think it came to an end in Vietnam...
As Dad very proudly crowned me Poppy Queen of VFW post 2757 Luvewrne, Minnesota for my knowledge of the history of the poppy and the depth of heart each service member felt each time he heard, "In Flander's Fields the poppies blow, between the crosses row on row..."
You'd better take it up with my Dad if you want to quesion my knowledge of the historical reasons to the mid-east conflict, the philosophy behind it, and why people like Forest Hunter need to learn and develop their own knowledge and philosophy instead of buying "war by the television station."
Mary Jo Welch
prairie waif
a statistically independent event
Moneyrunner,
I don't buy your argument. If your town had a mayor that instituted a new policing policy, and three years in great brutalities were taking place on a daily basis, you would hold that mayor responsible for the environment created.
Obviously you wouldn't hold them responsible for the individual acts themselves. But its rather dead obvious that in such a situation you would have no problem whatsoever making the distinction betwen responsibility for the individual crime, and responsibility for the environment in which the crimes took place. These arguments are made in almost every local election.
And so your refusal to see the distinction here, and your continued utterly dishonest attempt to claim that I am assigning blame for the specific crime, is totally bogus.
Posted by Observer at May 8, 2006 05:31 AMMary Jo,
I just read what you wrote, above. I was very moved. I want to say more, but everything seems inadequate. Thank you for sharing some very painful family history.
Posted by Kathy at May 8, 2006 05:44 AMSubsunk,
You write two long paragraphs in response to me. I'll just focus on the second.
I think your argument makes my case for me. You reference 9/11 and make the case how your emotional reaction to that has led you to the positions you hold.
My "emotionless analysis" after 9/11 was fully capable of causing me to support, unambiguosly, the actions against the Taliban. Would that had been carried out to the end (Taliban still controls a healthy chunk of SE Afghanistan, as I am sure you know). But my analytical perspective then helped me to see through the fact that the Iraq war would probably make the GWOT worse, not better.
Not being able to control your emotions long enough to think things through completely leads one to be easily swayed by authority figures who push one policy over another. If you want to tell me that in summer 02, the wisest decision as to how to proceed against the enemy was to start the ball moving on an invasion of iraq, well, I think you have a very difficult case to make. Iraq was not a central front, or any front in the war against al-Q until we made it so. Probably were fewer al-Q in Iraq than in any other country in the region. Now they are there in a place that we have never managed to secure. Thats dumb policy.
And the only way to avoid dumb policy is to resist the urge to let you emotions get you led around by leaders who know how to play those emotions, to rally unthinking support for poorly thought out policies.
Posted by Observer at May 8, 2006 05:58 AMRich,
You are arguing with someone who may resemble me in some ways, but is not me. You put words in my mouth, attribute positions to me that I do not hold. You have a right to make your speech (I certainly have gone on at length) but if you use my name, please speak to the points I actually make.
I fully supported prompt action against the perpetrators of the evil on 9/11. (as did, y'all probably need reminding, almost everyone in this country - senate vote was 99-0).
The question of iraq is a wholly different question. The president pushed the argument that it was a valid new front in the war against the jihadis, even though there were no jihadis there. Anticipating that they may then flock there, once we invaded, they sent enough troops to take Baghdad, but not to secure the country or to quickly suppress the newly arriving terrorists.
That might have made sense to you, but it didnt to me. This argument has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a willingness or a lack of willingness to confront the real enemies of this country. It has to do with whether that move - making Iraq a front in the WOT, in the manner we did, was a wise move or a stupid one. As you well know, there a many people, not just lefty ideologues, but including career military officers of the highest and most knowledgeable status who also agree that it was dumb.
You write: "Your monopoly of the debate -- both its content, and its timing -- is over. We won't be fooled again."
Thats pretty funny. I can't imagine a better way to summarize my feelings about your end of the spectrum.
RE: "This is not to say there was no terrorism before the U.S. invasion, obviously. But it was limited to a handful of well-known organizations, and they were not in Iraq." by Kathy.
There indeed was "terrorism" in Iraq before the invasion. It was run by Saddam, Qusay, and Uday. They were every bit as brutal and sadistic as the insurgent/militia butchers are today. And they are no more. Thank you, Dubya.
Posted by Jack at May 8, 2006 06:30 AMIt isn't on the world wide news because it hits home to journalists who side with these animals that they can turn on them. Her crime was not just being a woman, but that she dared to raise her voice against the powers that are trying to be. If we are not going to have unrestrained immigration, then we need to keep our guns. Damn them all.
Posted by Cricket at May 8, 2006 07:13 AMNo, observer. The only way to avoid dumb policy is to rationalize, pontificate, debate, ponder, stall, hem and haw until you've backed into a policy of taking no action AT ALL, since to take action, even well-reasoned action requires...risk.
Doing nothing = no immediate risk. Instead merely our prostrated surrender to the ones who would inflict such abhorent injury/death on a fellow HUMAN BEING, and over time the eventual dhimmitude of us all.
Go ahead, observer, and keep watching from that safe emotional distance that you prize so much. Continue to argue and impress some with your self-congratulatory superior intellectual position on, well, everything.
While you continue with that, the rest of us will be out taking action, or supporting wholeheartedly those that are, and DOING that which you theorize ought not be done, cannot be done. Sure, it's messy, but we've had to clean up after ourselves in past wars; we can do it again.
Will every action ever be perfect? Nope. Will it be painful? Yes. Should we still go ahead and fight this evil with everything we've got?
Oh HE!! YEAH.
Posted by Beth* A. at May 8, 2006 07:31 AM
Beth, thanks! My reply got wiped out into an electronic oblivion, but you've succintly summarized the content my long-winged, point by point riposte.
This one quote says it all re: your position on Iraq, Observer.
The question of iraq is a wholly different question. The president pushed the argument that it was a valid new front in the war against the jihadis, even though there were no jihadis there.
Not a war on jihadis ... a War on Terror.
Saddam fomented terror ... and was a major supporter of jihadi terror.
Taking him out, in the context of the War on Terror, was the equivalent of bombing a munitions plant in WWII.
Your apparaent inability to recognize this enemy for the threat it was, much less act (now, or in past years when the cost would have been much lower) to end it, puts you squarely within the boundaries of my earlier descriptions ... your statements to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your analysis has led you to see the trees ... but not the forest ... just as their years of analysis led a few like you to believe that "stability" produces peace, when the only peace that it produced was the peace of the mass grave ... and led others to believe that the deployment of massive amounts of military force (aka the Powell Doctrine) was the only acceptable way to fight a war, when in fact it does little to stop asymetrical warfare -- but does provide that kind of enemy more targets.
As for the "monopoly" -- it is people like you who had hold of the MSM "bullhorn" for years. You did have a monopoly ... and now it is broken. Your dissent is not suppressed -- but challenged, and found wanting.
We won't be fooled again.
Posted by Rich Casebolt at May 8, 2006 12:09 PMMore proof that Islam is a Death Cult.
The Islamists worship their Prophet as a god,
They celebrate brutal murders such as this.
This type of inhuman cruelity was state sponsored under Saddam.
Posted by Marvin at May 8, 2006 12:47 PM"My "emotionless analysis" after 9/11 was fully capable of causing me to support, unambiguosly, the actions against the Taliban. Would that had been carried out to the end (Taliban still controls a healthy chunk of SE Afghanistan, as I am sure you know). But my analytical perspective then helped me to see through the fact that the Iraq war would probably make the GWOT worse, not better."
--- Since your analysis would insist that the Taliban be removed, but that radical Islam be left in place everywhere else in the Middle East, I can assume you would have known that it would then require a twenty year presence of American troops in Afghanistan to ensure the Taliban are defeated. And your strategy does nothing to eliminate the number one threat to the US which is WMD smuggled into America and used by radical Islamists. Since you (and W in this case) can't define the enemy correctly, I'll assume you would never address the latest 34 yrs of hate and killing by Muslims against the West, or how you would prevent WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists without military intervention. Perhaps you think bombing the bomb factories is the right way to stop WMD production and research. Perhaps you just don't care.
Intelligence and military assessments are supposed to be about what capabilities and intentions our enemies possess. If you would rather we ignore their own language and rhetoric, and forget what capabilities our enemies have, then I wonder how you would decide to defend America. Would you sit on your hands as we did for 25 years? Would you ignore the threats printed daily in the newspapers of Iran, North Korea, and Iraq? Would you call that forward thinking? To ignore the words of our enemies? To do nothing to stop radical Islam? To allow Evil people to kill innocent people so callously simply because they aren't white or black Americans? To allow anyone and everyone to have nuclear weapons?
I frequently find myself uncaring about anyone else but me or my family because it doesn't seem to affect me personally. And then I remember how my country's every intention has always been to be fair and bring hope to oppressed people everywhere, especially those I saw while in the Navy overseas. And I remember that the sailors in the Cole did nothing to irritate radical Muslims. The Israeli athletes had hurt no one to deserve their fate, the hostages in Iran were there to do their jobs to help Iranians every day to get visas and support from the US government, and the passengers on four flights on 9-11 were just going to see family, friends, and earn their living. What criminal foreign policy did they put in motion? What nefarious purpose did they support? As long as you can support a position that radical Islam deserves to be left alone, with ineffectual actions the only thing allowed to be used against the Evil, then you better stay away from national defense. It's not your strong point.
How do you figure the war in Iraq has made the GWOT worse? Because there is more fighting? That is exactly the effect we desire in the GWOT. The Evil must show its face and be confronted and killed ruthlessly and effectively. To fail to attack them allows them to continue to grow and nurture their resources and ideology until we are too weak to overcome it. You may not have been paying attention over the last 25 yrs, but I sure as Hell have. I've seen this Evil rear its head time and again, and it isn't getting better with appeasement and ineffective actions. And you support them by your vacillation and criticism of the only effective course of action left to us by leftists who make panties on their heads a worse crime than cutting off our heads.
If you won't insist they change, then you will deserve the Death which awaits you, the tendons of your neck raspingly sawed in twain by a dull knife, your blood choking off your last breath and your cries of pain. You have no clue whom you are supporting or whom we are fighting if you don't think this fate awaits you unless you stand up and support this phase of the war, and the next. The evidence is all over this article and countless others.
Grow up, open your eyes, and start supporting the only people in the world who are working for your existence. You think your "analytical perspective" makes you superior. I think you will sit all day trying to come up with a perfect plan and then won't ever do anything about it because there are too many unknowns in it. You fiddle while Rome burns. I put on an Oxygen Brething Apparatus (OBA) and rush to the fire.
You are not in charge. Sit down and contemplate your navel while the Men who know their job are fixing the problem you are too timid to address. And, no I'm not telling you that you can't speak. I'm telling you that your ideas are too stupid to be supported.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at May 8, 2006 01:29 PMFor the life of me I don't know how Observer, Kathy, et al can be so certain Atwar Bahjat's death had nothing to do with Jihadist Islam. Is it because she was a journalist and not a stewardess? Or was there something about the way "God is great" was said that gave them away. Did they have a funny accent? Or is it because they didn't use box cutters?
I am a Marine mom...I read things like Kathy Observer wrote, the "terriorist did not exist" "we bred the terrorist" etc, before we went to Iraq and I feel disbelief that people can really believe that. Wake up!
Sometimes I struggle because I hear and see the way people act using the freedoms our military defends for them. To be sure, there are days I do not want my son risking his life for them, they don't appreciate it and they seem to have no clue that if it werent; for them, they would not even be able to say such things. But then I think, my son is risking his life for good, the the values we were founded on, and even for these people who do not have a clue, and he is the better man.
There is a man standing outside our postoffice who has a pociture of Chenney with horns and Bush looking like Alfred E Newman. I questione dhim about it and told himit was an insult to me as a MArine mom. He told me he supports the troops. I hear that allt he time, but the truth is, no matter what you say you loose respect if you chose this way to get your point across. And personally, I don't buy the "I support the troops" line. Especially when in the next breathe or in demonstrations you exploit them and call the us murderers etc.
The media can spend weeks on prison abuse, (which is terrible ) but none on this brave woman who sacrificed herlife....they can show every suicide bomb but none of the good that is happening, etc etc. In the end, the truth and goodness will prevail no matter how hard people will try to cover it. we may not see it, but I know it is there, even as it was in Nazi prison camps and the life of this brave woman.
I would rather die for that then be one of those who are blind or hide. To say terrorist are doing this because of us is the same as saying an alcoholic drinks because of his wife. Yea right!
Funny thing is, if we get attacked again, they will be the first ones looking for the military to defend them....and these brave mena nd women will be there because they have chosen to defend our country.
Proud of my son and all the men and women who are giving their lives to serve us.
Posted by TB at May 8, 2006 01:36 PMSunsunk - "Taliban still controls a healthy chunk of SE Afghanistan, as I am sure you know"
Um, not quite. Their remanants OPERATE in a part of the SE. They do not CONTROL territory inside Afghanistan, or for very long if they set up. Ops occur from across the alleged border with Pakistan. A difference, to be sure.
Posted by Major John at May 8, 2006 03:07 PMObserver, Kathy, et al.
Cowards.
Islamists, terrorists. Kill them all and let "God is great" sort them out.
Posted by triffe at May 8, 2006 05:18 PMCommon criminals use any excuse to unleash their warped minds. These are common criminals - not terrorists, not Islamic believers, not ANY kind of believer. Believers know what God will have to say to them about such actions.
From a retired vet of 34 years service.
Posted by Gene at May 8, 2006 08:30 PMOutstanding Subsunk and thanks for the update on the Afghanistan situation Major John.
As I have no TV, MJ/PW and even if I did, I rely in no small part, on those I trust, who have and are made/making the trek through the time honored traditions of knowing and DOING what it takes. Honored by those who KNOW the cost and UNDERSTAND the sacrifices, that is. I have direct communication with those who are in the know and I understand histories lessons.
You can nit pick my recollection of the timing, when the Brits reported what I referred to in an earlier post, but the point is and was then, that Bush did not create these Islamic asshats, in spite of the empowerment the moronic have granted our President. Whether it was 26 or so years earlier than I remembered, it was still as I said earlier long before ANY of us were born(about 150 years back in time), ergo, we did not create this twisted, disgusting Islamic plague. Good luck with your philosophy class, BTW.
Rich Casebolt, Zoe Brain and capt joe my thanks to you as well, for your insight and plain and simple wisdom.
Posted by forest hunter at May 8, 2006 09:04 PMprairie waif
Somewhere far above you addressed me in a comment, but for the record you've mixed me up with some other commenter - I never responded to any of your previous comments here. (Though I found them very thought provoking.)
Posted by Greyhawk at May 8, 2006 09:08 PMKathy, Observer, et al,
Saddam brutalized the Shi'ites as well as the Sunnis. If you weren't in the Ba'athist Party you were a target. Not only that, evidence of his
cavalier attitudes toward women under his regime
is overwhelming with just the crap his sons were doing...it starts at the top. Terrorism existed before, during and since Saddam. Saying that 'we' the US did this is like saying that since Hitler knew the Americans were involved in WWII that he
became anti Semitic.
Can I remind you people that the American govenment did not invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people - it was part of the US govt's long running policy to protect their own interests.
What do I mean? Oil. It's running out - if you control the oil, you can keep your status as a superpower for a little longer, earning trillions in the meantime.
If you do a little research, you'll find out that this is true. The pipelines are being built. The government stands to gain - SIGNIFICANTLY. This truth of US foreign policy is not widely accepted, as Bush would never want anyone to know - the mainstream media have been trained to keep their mouths shut about anything related to this, and critics have been (mostly) silenced.
This is why (I feel) you have to accept a little responsibility (or the government does, at least) for the continuing hostile environment in Iraq, and soon: Iran. The govenment (Bush or probably WHOEVER ELSE replaces him) will be pulling your heartstrings ("look at what they're doing - we must intervene!") but the truth is: the invasion is essentially motivated by the greed and powerlust of the high echelons of American government.
Remember this, as your country turns into a facist state. It's already on the way.
Posted by AnotherRob at May 9, 2006 04:42 AMAnotherBoob- thanks for the moron lesson and lefty talking points. Gee, we never heard any of that before. BTW, this particular thread is about the savages who ripped the young life from a woman named Atwar Bahjat and the evil required for such heinous crimes.
Perhaps you can go back to the top of the page and have someone read you the highlights and some of the big words.
Posted by forest hunter at May 9, 2006 06:35 AMAnotherRob -- if this nation ever becomes fascist, it will be when you and your ilk take power.
One of the hallmarks of Leftism is control of the means of production by the state ... which is the centerpiece of fascism, no matter how soft and cuddly the Kumbyah crowd try to make it.
If we are on our way to fascism, it is only because you and your ilk have been conditioning this nation for the soft, cuddly kind for 30 years.
Another reason why this off-year election is so important ... we must keep those like Pelosi and Reid from continuing said conditioning.
If we really wanted the oil ... we'd have stayed there in 1991. Many of our present leaders were in positions of power then, as well.
NOTHING America did justifies brutality like that illustrated on this thread ... or the brutality perpetrated elsewhere in Iraq by such as these.
NOTHING.
Major John,
Sorry, sir. You are quoting something I quoted from Observer, I think, in a post which I attempted to rebut him. I do not think the Taliban control ANY part of Afghanistan. Otherwise, you gents wouldn't be able to go anywhere you wished in the country at will. I think they are losing badly and the legitimate government of Afghanistan is winning, slowly but surely.
I think each of you gents is doing a fine job, and I recognize that nothing in war is easy. If it was we'd have the Girl Scouts doing it.
By the way, although they are ruthless and misguided, evil men, I believe the Taliban are pretty much backwards incompetent buffoons. If you want to rule a country, you don't do it by killing your own citizens for the least violation of someone's supposed religion, unless you want to be violently overthrown and dragged through the streets behind a jeep. Come to think of it, the Girl Scouts are probably a better matchup for the Taliban than the US military.
Thanks for doing your duty, sir.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at May 9, 2006 01:23 PM"Observer
I recognize the "rough men" bit can cause discomfort - everyone likes to believe they could be "rough" if the conditions were just so, or if a real threat appeared.
So let's try this one - but like the rough men bit it's not my original thought: The world is divided into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs of various breeds. It's difficult for the sheep to determine the difference between the other two. In your eyes I may appear to be a wolf, so it goes. But here on this blog I will do my best to expose the real wolves. Out in the real world I will kill them, hopefully before they butcher you.
It's not in my nature to consider the sensibilities of the sheep in this equation.
Posted by Greyhawk at May 7, 2006 10:20 PM"
That last line is the best line of the week. God, I love it here.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at May 9, 2006 01:27 PMY'all are doing yeoman's work, but you *do* realize you're arguing with folks who think it was perfectly fine for minority Sunnis who were only 20% of Iraq's population to forcibly oppress the other 80% of the nation?
That it was OK for Saddam to torture and imprison children, have the daughters and wives of dissidents gang-raped before their eyes to insure silence, that it was OK for his sons to have young girls brought to them as sex slaves to be used harshly by them and their men until he tired of them, at which point he shaved their heads and dumped them in the street?
There can be no reasoning with people who don't understand the difference between a government which subjects its people to these outrages and outlaws and brigands taking advantage of temporary chaos in a country that is trying to move towards freedom and equal representation for all citizens?
And the real irony is that we could deal with these brigands if the Left would shut up long enough about casualties, but it is their very insistence on fighting a sterile, perfect war that makes it so hard to stamp these people out.
We can't establish on occupation force because that would be imperialism.
We can't go after these whack jobs aggressively because we'd be "imposing our values" on the Iraqis - oh, and there might be some innocent casualties, as often happens in war.
The only thing we can do, according to them, is bring in the UN. Wunderbar. Then we'll have brothels with small children to service their new UN friends as has happened in every other place the UN has stationed "piece-keeping" troops. (and yes, that was an intentional pun)
Posted by Cassandra at May 9, 2006 11:22 PMArghh. I'm tired. That should have been "ensure silence".
Posted by Cassandra at May 9, 2006 11:24 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(97) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
