What I Thought Was Impossible Has Indeed Happened
I honestly didn't believe that democrats could sink any lower. I was wrong! We've all heard of those two American soldiers who were kidnapped and killed, well, I guess there is some evidence they were beheaded. So, what do democrats think of all this? Just check out this headline over at Daily Kos.
So our boys were tortured - how quaint
I don't have the stomach to copy and paste any of this democrats vile and vicious hatred of the United States but you can read it by clicking on the link. I just can't imagine using the death of two brave soldiers who were tortured and beheaded as propaganda against our very own government.
Can we question their patriotism yet?
Hat tip: Little grenn footballs
So our boys were tortured - how quaint
I don't have the stomach to copy and paste any of this democrats vile and vicious hatred of the United States but you can read it by clicking on the link. I just can't imagine using the death of two brave soldiers who were tortured and beheaded as propaganda against our very own government.
Can we question their patriotism yet?
Hat tip: Little grenn footballs
posted by Capitalist Infidel at Tuesday, June 20, 2006
10 Comments:
Once again their true patriotism is being made obvious. This left
wing idiocy has no heart. They much prefer to use this tragedy for their political purpose. Can you believe, in bold type yet, the caption of "HOW QUAINT". Won't they ever wake up? Won't they ever quit trying to see just how much lower they can sink? It's enough to make one sick.
Linda and CJ, I think you're reading into this a bit too much. The "how quaint" statement is a reference to the following quote from Gonzales' memo regarding the inapplicability (in Gonzales' opinion) of the Geneva Convention in the modern age of terrorism:
"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders QUAINT some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments."
Click on your link again, CJ. The author of that story added an update explaining his intent. Did he use a poor choice of words to make his point? Absolutely. However, I don't think his intent was as malicious as you believed it to be.
Just my opinion, of course.
Les
That's exactly my point. Not in my wildest dreams would I think that even an America hating liberal would use the mutilation and beheading of 2 brave soldiers as a propaganda tool against our very own government. It's sickening beyond words.
Fair enough, CJ. I understand the point you're trying to make, and I can't say I completely disagree with you.
That said, I think you and I simply disagree about which issues are "untouchable", so to speak, when debating the mother of all nightmares - war. It's easy for you and I to sit back on our sofas, watch Jack Bauer torture some prisoner on 24, and say to ourselves, "Well, that makes sense." Meanwhile, al-Qaeda tortures and kills a couple of our soldiers, and we react in horror. The big difference, of course, is that our guys were tortured and killed with such brutality that we, as civil people, naturally react with outrage.
But think about it. Why do so many folks think torture should be allowed when dealing with terror suspects? To get information, right? If that premise is acceptable, then one must concede that such methods are, in essence, a means to a noble end. As hard as it may be, now put yourself in the terrorists' shoes. What's their objective? To defeat us, right? From their perspective, they think these horrific acts of violence will psychologically discourage us from maintaining our resolve in the War on Terror, yes? Again, a means to an end - albeit an end with which we obviously disagree.
In a roundabout way, I think that's what the author was trying to get at, although not in so many words. Essentially, that by disregarding Geneva, we ourselves are helping to rewrite the "rules of engagement", so to speak, in this new era of global terrorism we live in today. I don't exactly agree with him, because I think al-Qaeda would be pulling this kind of sh-t ANYWAY, but I see what he's trying to say here. I guess I just don't get as offended as you do by all that leftist "propaganda".
Peace.
CJ, I'm not equating panties on the head to real deal torture. I'm talking about the mindset that exists in many Americans who support the notion that torturing terror suspects to glean information should be an acceptable practice. Hence the 24 allusion. The ambiguity of Gonzales' memo opens the doorway to such behavior, and I'm not willing to give carte blanche to our military organizations with regards to such matters.
No moral relativism in this case, CJ. Just trying to see the issue from all possible angles - not just one.
CJ you are telling it like it really is. Les, what is wrong with you? Can you not see past your nose? Are you blind, or what?
Or....are you so far to the left that you agree with all they say and do when demoralizing our country and our service men and women?
Go, Linda and CJ, you are right on top of the issue. Anyone with a brain knows how wrong this original statement was by a democrat. When we speak of a dead military man, one who was tortured and beheaded, we should use the proper language or keep our stupid mouths shut. I'm having difficulty believing this dastardly language was used.
CJ,
"Since you like looking at 'all angles'..."
Are you expecting me to play devil's advocate and defend the Holocaust or something? C'mon, man. The issue we're discussing, as I see it, is two-fold:
1. The question of whether or not the disregard for Geneva warrants any concern as to how far we, as a moral nation, are willing to allow ourselves to go when dealing with enemy prisoners.
2. The question of whether or not referencing a situation like the tortured and murdered soldiers to make a political point is appropriate.
I already mentioned in a previous comment that I personally thought the author could have chosen his words more tactfully. Heck, he admitted it himself in his update. However, as I also mentioned previously, I don't think this case - or ANY case - is off limits when debating issues relevant to war - a brutal and tragic ingredient of humanity by its very nature.
Linda,
"Les, what is wrong with you?"
Well, that answer could literally go on for hours on end, so I'll stick to politics. ;-)
"...you agree with all they say and do..."
With all due respect, you couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think you know me well enough to make that kind of judgement. As much as we disagree politically, I think even CJ can vouch for me on that one. Yes, I'm a liberal fellow, but I don't subscribe to ANYONE'S dogma but my own. If I disagree with someone of any political stripe, I'll let them know about it.
Then I'm sure you know that the Geneva Convention was written with the terrorists in mind. They were not to be afforded those privelages. So, since we both know that is the case what could possibly be your arguement?
The irony of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand them, is that they essentially aimed to codify and sanitize war. Warfare, of course, is an end result of the breakdown of civil interaction between human beings. When words fail, swords prevail, so to speak.
Here's where Gonzales and I agree - Geneva's conditions are, indeed, "quaint". But not in the manner in which you may think. While I sincerely believe the intentions of the scribes who forged the original conditions were just, I don't believe they created the proper scope. By limiting POW privileges to "lawful combatants" alone, they were essentially saying they were willing to acknowledge the proverbial "high moral ground" exists - but not for everyone. To me, that's the fatal flaw in their logic. True, terrorists do NOT play by the traditional rules of war, but that's precisely why the high moral ground MUST be maintained if civilized humanity is to prevail - it separates us from them! That's why there's frustration with Gonzales' attitude in this matter. He wants to use the "by the book" approach to the Geneva provisions in order to undermine a concept that I, and those like me, believe was one of Geneva's primary objectives - namely, positive movement toward a more civilized international community. Even - no, ESPECIALLY - during wartime.
Post a Comment
<< Home