« picture day | Main | coming to you live from...my mom's »

Monsters, Inc. [Updated]

bq. Even ABCNews’ anchorman Peter Jennings was philosophical about the animalistic act. “Simple depravity is inexcusable under any context,” he said. “This outrage certainly puts the Iraqi prisoner abuse story in context. ABCNews will henceforth better endeavor to keep a sense of proportion when reporting certain stories, even when reporting those stories we believe can be used politically against the American military or to Republican administrations.” Haha. Kidding. I want to make mention of the fact that Nick Berg was a Jew, just like Danny Pearl was a Jew. Which leads me to make the assumption that Berg was handpicked to be slaughtered, just like Danny Pearl. Which means that his beheading -as we all know anyhow - has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. By the way, have you seen any news outlets give room to the story that Palestinian thugs opened fire at the funeral of Meirav Hatuel and her four small children - you know, the ones that were shot at point blank range by Palestinian terrorists? No, didn't think so. I only saw it at the Jersualem Post, thanks to Meryl. Interesting note here, too. MSNBC moved the Nick Berg story to third most important, giving the private viewing of abuse photos and a story about Afghanistan prisons top billing over the brutal murder of an American by Islamofacists cretins. Yea, WaPo moved it down also, under a bunch of headlines about Abu Ghraib. Reuters gives it top billing, but only a story that plays on the blame of the U.S. in Berg's killing. ABC news has Berg as the top story, but uses it to explore Berg's own blame in his death. CBS - same thing, and same with the Guardian. The LA Times sinks it even further - their lead story has to do with the wife of the Madrid bomb suspect from Oregon. USA Today gives it room below a story about heart disease. What am I getting at? Read Cox & Forkum today to figure it out, if you haven't already. In my eyes, Nick Berg is not just one person, but 3,000 people. His murder is another 9/11, on a lesser scale, but not on a less important scale. He was murdered because he was an American. Just like the two towers and the Pentagon represented America to those bastards who flew the planes that day, and to those that planned the attacks, and to their followers, Nick Berg represented America. Why is this being downplayed by the media? Why, once again, are people seeking blame everywhere but where to find it? Blame the people who drew the knife. Blame the people in the video. Blame their followers, blame those who bastardized the religion they follow, blame the hatred that spewed from the mouth of bin Laden, Saddam, al Sadr, Arafat and his thugs and all those who wish harm on this country. How hard is it to understand that the terrorists are to blame for their actions? Why are people always looking past the details right in front of their faces? We did not turn these people into terrorists. They have been terrorists for ages upon ages. They kill Jews. They kill Americans. They kill with glee and with righteousness and they shout their chants of god is great as they slice heads and put bullet holes in little children. Their god is not great because their only god is themselves. I am wandering very close to a dangerous ground here, where visions of nukes dance in my head. bq. The West doesn’t have the power to change Islam; it only has the power to destroy it. We have a lot of nukes. We could kill everyone. We could just take out a few troublesome nations, kill millions, and irradiate Mecca so that the Fifth Pillar is invalidated. The hajj would be impossible. Every pilgrim a martyr. I don’t think we’ll do either; God help us if we do, but inasmuch as we have the capability, it’s an option. But it would be a crime greater than the crime that provoked such an act, and in the end that would stay our hand. They know we won’t do it. So we are pretty much stuck where we are. We can't kill them all; that's a profoundly horrible option. We can't change them. And if anyone suggests that we change ourselves, then I will suggest that the person who says that is an apologist in a place where apologies are not necessary. Don't forget, the apologists will die just as quickly at the hands of the so-called martyrs as do those of us who think we have every right to be proud of our freedoms and everything that comes with those freedoms. As of yet, the terrorists have not come up with their own version of a smart bomb, which will kill only the filthy American pig-dog capitalists and Jews and leave the sympathizers standing. In fact, their bombs consist of flesh and blood; every time they take out 3,000 of us, they take out at least one of their own. Personally, I don't think it's a good trade off. Then again, the less of them the better. Maybe their well will dry up some day. Maybe there will be less and less followers of Islam who view their religion as an excuse to murder and more of the kind who want peace and prosperity. Maybe they will kill themselves off in all their attempts to kill us. Maybe moderate Muslims will stand up and be heard and drive the terrorists out of their holes and into a hail of machine gun fire. Would I care about their deaths? Nope. Not at all. They aren't human. They are monsters. Die, monsters, die, as my son used to say in his sleep. So my son, an eleven year old who already knows too much about the world, happened to see part of the video yesterday as he watched the news. He was devastated and horrified. He took Nick Berg's death very personally. We discussed the matter, discussed about terrorists, about good v. evil. He asked can't we just drop a bomb and kill them all? And I realized, as I explained to him the best I could why we cannot do such a thing, that what he said is absolutely an eleven year old way of dealing with things. We are not eleven. We are adults. Ok, then how come I keep whispering die, monsters, die in my dreams? Update: Garrulitas is a live discussion between several people in the form of a blog. They are discussing this very topic today. Comments open. Update 2: Dave says: bq. The world has to wake up and realize that attempting to understand these people with our Western, Judeo-Christian mindset, is an exercise in futility. These people belong to a totally different culture. A culture that values death more than life. A culture that sees compromise as weakness, and force as strength. A culture that sees the desire to live as weakness, and the desire to die as strength. A culture that sees itself as the only valid way of life, to the exclusion of all others. A culture that justifies all kinds of atrocities in the name of Allah. A culture that is holding the world ransom. How should the world respond to these people? The answer is NOT to try and understand the "root causes" of their actions. The answer is NOT to constantly attack the one country in the world that has been dealing with this phenomenom since its inception. The answer is NOT to attack the men and women who are putting their lives on the line to ensure that these people do not get their way. Read the rest.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Monsters, Inc. [Updated]:

» Roundup on the murder of Nick Berg: from On The Third Hand
Paul at Wizbang is looking at what the antiwar sites and pro-war have to say (though he's calling them 'left'... [Read More]

» Wahabism Delenda Est. from Welcome to Castle Argghhh! The Home Of One Of Jonah's Military Guys.
I will take this time to thank Al-Qaeda. For snapping me out of most of my funk. What follows is, for me, a rant. You want more subtlety, nuance, and no ugly pictures, go read Michele. We both reach the... [Read More]

» Dan Rather update from House of Payne International
Journalists are political actors-- they need to understand this, and we need to understand this. American reporters who slant their stories to make American soldiers look weak and the occupation seem cruel need to know that they share in the guilt wh... [Read More]

» those hoods look awfully familiar from Auterrific
Peacefully, I left my home yesterday afternoon to go shopping. Upon return, I flip to the news online to find Nick Berg, dead. Immediately, I was filled with emotions remaining from Daniel Pearl’s death. Immediately, I left the page where... [Read More]

» Piling on the Media some more from Swanky Conservative
Michele at A Small Victory rounds up more responses from the Media's coverage of the Berg assasination: By the way, have you seen any news outlets give room to the story that Palestinian thugs opened fire at the funeral of... [Read More]

» Integration from Inoperable Terran
Michele's trying to put it all together.... [Read More]

» Still from Beth's Contradictory Brain
I'm still sick and outraged and sad and frustrated. I don't have the energy to write about this, but thankfully [Read More]

» More Than Two from Ilyka Damen
Jim Peacock noted yesterday that while five murderers gleefully sawed off the head of Nick Berg to shouts of Allahu Akbar, only two Muslims to date have signed his petition denouncing terrorism. Maybe Jim should send the petition link to... [Read More]

» Sharing the Pain. from The Beagle Express
My anger has been building for a very long time. This has pushed me over the edge. Others have similar thoughts concerning this murder, and the anger it brings. I was not able to competently do my job today, and... [Read More]

» Hey, did we miss something? from Silent Running
Well, the media seems to have - Berg was Jewish. So was Daniel Pearl. I'd point out that actually that's secondary. They were both Americans. They were both slaughtered on camera. And the murderers of both should be wiped from... [Read More]

» THE BATTLE OF IDEAS: REASON VERSUS FAITH from EGO
The Guardian sums up the overall attitude in the Middle East in the article, Arab Media React Cautiously to Beheading. My personal reaction is more in line with the American tabloid newspapers. Here is an excerpt from Michele Catalano's post, Monster... [Read More]

» those hoods look awfully familiar from Auterrific
Peacefully, I left my home yesterday afternoon to go shopping. Upon return, I flip to the news online to find Nick Berg, dead. Immediately, I was filled with emotions remaining from Daniel Pearl’s death. Immediately, I left the page where... [Read More]

» MONSTERS from trying to grok
I relate very strongly to Michele's story: Maybe their well will dry up some day. Maybe there will be less and less followers of Islam who view their religion as an excuse to murder and more of the kind who... [Read More]

» The Rundown from Bendomenech.com
The first official challenge for the Defense of Marriage Act was filed in Florida yesterday. Most activist groups on the left have tried to squelch this lawsuit (because it obviously will look very bad), but to no avail. The best... [Read More]

» Beheading.. Not Just For Jews? from Nuclear Beef
Michelle over at A Small Victory I want to make mention of the fact that Nick Berg was a Jew, just like Danny Pearl was a Jew. Which leads me to make the assumption that Berg was handpicked to be slaughtered, just like Danny Pearl. Which means that his... [Read More]

» Due to Technical Difficulties, the "NEWS" has been somewhat delayed.... from Who Tends the Fires
Looks like in the wake of all sorts of stuff, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has become the Vast Depressed Wing in Therapy. Yeesh. Ya'll quit that. It's unbecoming. [Read More]

Comments

I am at the point now where I feel no mercy. If these islamofascists want to behave like animals, then we should eradicate them as such. We cant win a war with our hands tied behind our backs. Vietnam should have taught us that.

Enough kid gloves. Go in full force and take care of it as we can easily do.

Why does it appear that, to you, outrage about our actions means we can't also have outrage about theirs?

Why aren't all the news agencies leading with the Berg story, but instead the prisoner abuse? Probably because, as you mentioned, the killing of Berg is something that terrorists do, something they strive for. The prisoner abuse (which did lead to deaths by the way) by American soldiers IS NOT something WE do. Are you suggessting that "terrorists are bad" should be the top headline everyday? Is it necessary for this universal truth to be reported on strongly every single day? Should CNN also lead with the fact that the sun came up today?

Terrorists didn't need the abuse as a reason to do what they did to Berg. It was just convienent. That isn't the point though, the abuse causes moderate citizens of Iraq to question the occupation. It causes moderate citizens through the Middle East to question the occupation. That is why it is a big deal. Your son say the Nick Berg video and asked why we couldn't bomb the people responsible. An Iraqi citizen's son saw the prisoner abuse videos and probably asked the same thing.

Michele, I blogged just now that no one should be shocked or surprised by this. It's what they do. Radical Islam, indeed mcuh of Islam, is formulated on the premise that non-muslims live to be slaves, and that most muslims themselves live only to serve. Their culture is mired at 1300 A.D.

Their god is not great because their only god is themselves.

Pretty damn close. Mahamoud said that even he didn't know what Allah was going to do with him, but every terrorist is sure he's going directly to heaven, and that a place has been reserved for their families.

I remember one Islamoid who pretty much admitted that the prophet was a sinner, but he thought his terrorist friends were purer than that.

They're above the damn prophet in their own minds.

Not that I respect the prophet.

As for what it takes...
The people in that society have a responsibility not to turn out monsters and they're not living up to it - partialy because their afraid of the own monsters and partially because they don't think of non-muslims as human and deserving of life, hell they don't think of women as human and deserving of life.

What I'm getting at is that we do have much more of a duty to protect our kids and our future than we have any duty to preserve the lives of enemies and their families.

Oh oh, here comes the Norton's wagging finger, any minute now.

There is true evil loose in the world. And it is not America.

NOPE. We know who the real enemy is and it is warmonginger right-wingers like you.

On March 7, 2004 an "enemies list" composed of signatories to an anti-war petition was posted on the Free Republic website. The introductory and subsequent comments on that list suggest that the purpose of the posting was to encourage people to harrass the individuals on the list and to circulate their names to agencies and individuals that might take action against them.

Nick Berg's father, Michael Berg was on that list and he named Prometheus Methods Tower Service, Inc. as an affiliation. According to his family on March 24, 2004 -- approximately two weeks after publication of the enemies list on the Free Republic website -- Nick Berg was detained by Iraqi police who handed him over to US forces, he was then held until April 6 when he was released, the day after his family had filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court. Nick Berg was not heard from again after April 9.

Read more here, before it is surpressed:

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000449.html

"The world has to wake up and realize that attempting to understand these people with our Western, Judeo-Christian mindset, is an exercise in futility." But only 50 years ago, very similar things took place in a country at the very heart of Western Christian civilization. I refer, of course, to Nazi Germany.

The enemy appears in different forms in different eras. Appeasement didn't work then, and won't work now.

Prancer – I’m surprised that my name isn’t on that list.

I like to take funny pictures of moonbats in their native habitat, (preferably hiding behind colorful big-headed paper-mache puppets). But I keep missing ANSWER protests because of scheduling conflicts. So I asked ANSWER to send me email notifications of the protest schedule. They’re a very well organized group, and their protests always run on time.

I could be on a list! Oh, no. The Freepers and the VRWC are gonna come and get me. I’m so scared.

Back to the real world, there are an awful lot of similarities between the murder of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. The Islamists claimed that Daniel Pearl’s murder was ‘revenge’ for the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.

Islamists have a habit of targeting Jews and videotaping their deaths. When Palestinians shot an eight-months pregnant mother and her little girls. The Palestinians videotaped the children as they bled to death:

IDF officials continue to investigate yesterday’s terror attack on the Kissufim Road leading into Gush Katif that claimed the lives of Tali Hatual and her four children. They were gunned down in cold blood as they drove in their family vehicle.

Preliminary reports indicate that an army patrol vehicle passed the scene ahead of the Hatuals, and was even hit with gunfire. The two soldiers in the non-armored vehicle sustained light shrapnel injuries from the gunfire. The question being asked is why they did not stop and return fire, and engage the terrorists in a shootout as is the standard response. Instead, they continued traveling to the Kissufim Checkpoint. The preliminary response appears to be they were injured in their hands and therefore, were unable to return fire. It was also learned that the terrorists not only murdered the 34-year-old mother of four who was eight months pregnant along with her children, but then ran up to the vehicle and took a video of the results of their actions, filming the young victims as they bled to death.

I wonder why this hasn't gotten more publicity?

Michele, I checked the USA Today home page and the video is THE prominent story along with a story about troops fighting in Iraq. If you're going to complain that the media, which has incessantly talked about this since it surfaced yesterday, is downplaying it, then don't a) cherrrypick your media; and b) cherrypick your internet page.

Prancer,

If this really was the country you believe it is, you would already be silenced. Not posting conspiracy theories at will. Think about that.

Not all thinking people are card carrying members of the VRWC. Try using a smaller brush.

Here's what we do. We catalog all the holy sites in Iraq. We rank them from most holy to least holy. We start at one end of the list, I don't care which. Then we rain enough MOABs on each mosque until there is not one brick left upon another. We do this to the first five or ten on the list just for starters, just to show them we are serious. Then we say, "Any more signs of rebellion and we do the next one on the list. We will keep proceeding through the list until this stops. Enough is enough."

Michelle says: "We can't kill them all; that's a profoundly horrible option."

I'd just like to note that that is not strictly true. We can kill them all. Root and branch. What is true that it is a profoundly horrible option. But it remains an option. There are many other options we can take before we reach that one. One might be making them believe, through demonstation, that we can exercise the last horrible option.

It was said to me and to many in the days after 9/11, "You can't kill them all. Killing them only makes more terrorists." I reflected that, strictly speaking, we can make bullets at a much faster rate than terrorists can be made. You will, strictly speaking, run out of terrorists before you run out of bullets.

I have been saying for several months that the only answer that these people will understand to any attack on the US is the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock and sending a suicide bomber in to destroy the Qaaba in Mecca at the height of the pilgrimages. Oh, I suppose a cruise missle would do. I would settle for napalm so that the suffering would be greater.

I have come to believe nothing will work here but the utter destruction of the islamofascists.

Conibear Trapp:

That worked soooo well for the Russians in Afganistan. PS: we're in Iraq to free the Iraqi people, the majority of whom are Islamic, remember?

When you are dealing with barbarians, and lets say it bluntly we are dealing with barbarians you have several choices.

You can kill them.

You can cower them

You can bribe them

You can surrender to them.

If you kill them then they are gone. I.E. The hanging of pirates in the 18th and 19th century. A pirate caught in the act could be hanged without trial.

If you cower them (this involves killing many of them to the point that the other do not want to die) Then you might actually have peace, once cowered they can either assimilate or fester hoping for revenge. The results against the Madi army is a great example of the cower idea which is why the media is currently ignoring it.

You can bribe them. Europe did this in the 17th & 18th century with the barbary pirates which is why an infant US navy needed to in the end crush them. There are two problems with bribary, first it wets the foes hunger for more (during that same era an Islamic leader demanded an extra years tribute from the US saying that since they used a lunar calendar an extra year had passed and more tribute was due) 2nd it makes your foes stronger and you weaker.

If you surrender to them then be prepared to be servents and to live the way other choose. Remember unlike some of the "Nazis" of the right that hold nasty signs at anti gay marriage rallys these people will kill those who stray.

The choice is ours.

So we are pretty much stuck where we are. We can't kill them all; that's a profoundly horrible option. We can't change them.

You're right. We don't have the will. Yet.

That's why we need to bring the entire conflict to a victorious conclusion quickly. Because in a year, or five years, or forty years of atrocities we will have the will. And it won't seem nearly so horrible.

You said:

what he said is absolutely an eleven year old way of dealing with things. We are not eleven. We are adults.

Yes, we're adults, but once more, like it or not, we're adults on the frontier, exposed to dangerous barbarians. When you're in that situation, your responsibility TO YOUR CHILDREN is to kill the barbarian whenever you find him, before they do the same to your little boy.

This doesn't form part of our code of respectable adult behavior because none of our great-grandparents, except maybe in Apache country, lived on the frontier. We had the luxury of refining our code, so that lethal retribution, even preemptive murder of a dangerous tribe, was no longer considered "adult."

But it is morally required to remember that part of the code of civilized behavior. To do any less is to violate our sacred duty to our children, not to mention the great civilization that has sheltered us for so many generations. Civilization is not a suicide pact.

well said. I'm done debating this with people as I am now a war-mongerer, but well said.

All you "kill the barbarians" people need to go buy a clue. We're trying to root out a small portion of a population that is trying very hard not to be found. If they were all standing around in uniforms or segmenting themselves into a seperate village so we could go for just them, then your arguments would be valid, but that's just not the reality.

If all we want is death, the easiest thing to do would be to leave now and let them have a civil war. That's not what we're there to accomplish. Anything less than the establishment of a secular democracy in Iraq at this point is a loss.

I too have those visions of nukes dancing in my head. Yesterday when I saw the video, I no longer had care for sensitivities toward the Abu Ghraib terrorist detainees, or the Arab street for that matter.

The screams coming from Nick Berg let me know he felt every sawing motion of that killer's not-so-sharp knife. I was/am so enraged by this incident, Baghdad would be glowing right now if I were in charge.

Maybe we should look back at how we defeated the dangerous and encroaching Japanese military. Iraq could easily be the world's biggest desert.

Those terrorists didn't care about the Abu Ghraib prisoners, they killed Nick Berg because he was a Jew, just like they selected Daniel Pearl, which means they would have killed him if there were no Abu Ghraib scandal.

I'd strongly disagree with anyone that believes that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free.

Prancer peddles bullshit:

"On March 7, 2004 an "enemies list" composed of signatories to an anti-war petition was posted on the Free Republic website. The introductory and subsequent comments on that list suggest that the purpose of the posting was to encourage people to harrass the individuals on the list and to circulate their names to agencies and individuals that might take action against them.

Nick Berg's father, Michael Berg was on that list and he named Prometheus Methods Tower Service, Inc. as an affiliation. According to his family on March 24, 2004 -- approximately two weeks after publication of the enemies list on the Free Republic website -- Nick Berg was detained by Iraqi police who handed him over to US forces, he was then held until April 6 when he was released, the day after his family had filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court. Nick Berg was not heard from again after April 9."

Except Mr. Michael Berg was not mentioned on the list(fairly horrible comment though) until after his son was killed. But hey he's on the list, so it must be FreeRepublic. It doesn't matter that the company didn't have contracts with any government officials. It doesn't matter that there is very little likelyhood that Freepers knew the guy's son was actually in Iraq. He's on their list, therefore they did it. I am not crazy about Freepers but you are accusing them of serious stuff.

And irony of ironies, the enemy list was a shitty way of quashing free speech through intimidation. So in your own comments section SullyWatch calls for DOS attack against FR.

Why so desperate to deflect attention to mute reaction? Are we not allowed to be pissed at the guys who sawed an American's head off becuase som yahoos on the internet had his father on an enemies list?

As for killing or cowering the barbarians I submit that we are already using the cower method, as best illustrated by the entry from Amy Ridenour's blog here:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/05/commons.html

If we stick with the cower method we will win without having to go with the Den Beste option.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/11/Threeconjectures.shtml

Can someone explain something to me?

Nick Berg killed by a handful of terrorists with no particular connection to any group except al Qaeda and the Wahhabi Islamic cult, and people are saying things like "I was/am so enraged by this incident, Baghdad would be glowing right now if I were in charge."

Can you even prove these guys are in Baghdad? It would be pretty pathetic if we start launching cruise missiles and we still miss the majority of the responsible parties, but kill millions of the people we are trying to save from the axis of evil.

Soli notes: "We're trying to root out a small portion of a population that is trying very hard not to be found. " That's correct for now. Right now that is certainly what we are trying to do. Today that is the policy.

But there is always tomorrow. People get to the "enough" moment. People change there minds. Policy is changed. New goals are announced.

Islam, and not just "radical" Islam, is a religion in love with death. In time, we will help them to consummate their love. As was said in the movie, Lawrence of Arabia: "We are here. Akaba is there. It is only a matter of going."

Surely soli is being disengenuous when he states:"Nick Berg killed by a handful of terrorists with no particular connection to any group except al Qaeda and the Wahhabi Islamic cult, " Surely he cannot be ignorant that these cults he named do not exist as only full grown aduts that live on the dark side of the moon. Surely he is not unaware that these "items" resembling humans come from and go to and exist through the tolerance of entire neighborhoods, towns, cities, nations and society. As I indicated above we are currently using a benign therapy to extract this cancer from the body of Islam: a bit of chemo, a small bit of surgery in a couple of infected countries to see if we cannot eliminate or at least put the cancer into remission. Some say that it is working and that this slow and careful therapy will prove successful. I certainly hope so. But cancer is an subtle disease and it often works its way around benign therapies. At that point, the method is usually to start remove whole body parts and organs followed by a long dose of radiation. Radical therapy to be sure but it can work and the infected body can be saved to live a long and fruitful life.

But what it we were to determine that this particular cancer were not only immune to our entire selection of treatments, but was also highly communicable? Would we allow those so infected to continue to walk among us?

If you cannot cure a cancer; if you cannot stop a cancer; if that cancer can leap from one infected body to yours without direct contact; if it becomes, as they say, air-born; what, exactly do you do with those infected? What will be your policy to keep those with the disease from killing you?

I was wondering where the heck all the delightful A Small Victory traffic was. Then I clicked on your link, and found, to my horror, you'd linked Cold Fury, who had in turn linked me.

If anyone wants to read the full article about Zarqawi's apology, it's at Ace of Spades HQ.

To all y'all with an itchy finger on the MOAB trigger, your ambitions are way too low.

There's about billion and a half muslims in the world (with a plurality of them in Indonesia, by the way). So if you're going to be "serious" about this holocaust, you'd probably have take out a good fifth of the human race. Not counting fallout and bio-weapons of course -- just good old fashioned John-Wayne-style direct kills.

You might also have to dip the sights a little and take out another half-billion who got uppity about all the killing, but Europe was looking pretty shifty anyway, right? And finally, tack on maybe another billion some-odd bonus deaths to disease, starvation and other such collateral, which just rids us of that many of the sick and poor, and you're finally getting to a nice safe Islam-free world.

I guess my question is, what kind of death-focused religion would actually look forward to such a hideous scenario?

When bad analogies attack, a Fox docudrama based on the postings of Gerard Van der Leun. A cancer analogy with nuclear treatment? Please, spare me. Can I dose Baghdad with iodine and x-ray it?

"But what it we were to determine that this particular cancer were not only immune to our entire selection of treatments, but was also highly communicable? Would we allow those so infected to continue to walk among us?"

I'm sorry, let me try to map back to reality here. Are you saying you'd turn into a terrorist if Osama blew in your ear? And there is no cure?

"If you cannot cure a cancer; if you cannot stop a cancer; if that cancer can leap from one infected body to yours without direct contact; if it becomes, as they say, air-born; what, exactly do you do with those infected? What will be your policy to keep those with the disease from killing you?"

We have a sayin' here where I come from about folks like you who get a little "down the rabbithole" as it were with your hypothetics. It goes like this: if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. Look, lets get back to reality here.

The reality is that the "anti-Zionist" faction of Islam is a recent developement (in the last 100 years), and there's no absolutely no evidence that it's incurable in non-radical Islam. The reality is that any "faith" meme can be subverted by evil on a cult scale. The reality is that our enemy is Al-Qaeda and the radical Wahhabi Islamic cult, and our goal is to turn mainstream Islam opinion to our side.

"I am at the point now where I feel no mercy. If these islamofascists want to behave like animals, then we should eradicate them as such. We cant win a war with our hands tied behind our backs. Vietnam should have taught us that."

Can I borrow this sentiment? I'm too upset for words.

It is entirely possible that the least desirable option will be come the only one we have left. Let's face it we are dealing with an evil that knows no bounds. You have to understand that Tel Aviv is the reason we know they don't have a nuclear weapon. Why Tel Aviv? Because it's still there. We must approach this realistically. If they have a working nuke they will, without a doubt, use it. I don't think it is at all unreasonable for us to be prepared to do the same thing. I realize this really is an extreme idea, and damned ironic, but it may well be that killing them all is the only way to stop the carnage once and for all.

Soli – do you believe that the Wahhabis are motivated by intolerance and bigotry, comparable to what the KKK could be if they had billions of dollars of oil money to throw around?

Mary,

I'd say the average Wahhabi (the foot soldier who's deluded into strapping explosives to himself) has been taught since an early age to feel towards "The West" what a Jew would feel for Germany if they had won World War 2 and become the world superpower (substitute the crusades for the holocaust). Note: I intend no moral comparison here, I'm just saying that's how I think they feel.

The leadership of the Wahhabis (and their sponsors), by all appearances, just want to be facist dictators with token religious justification.

Andrew Sullivan is right; this was the worst possible thing to happen from the standpoint of the terrorists. A lot of support for the war was drying up on the basis of the photos from Abu Ghraib; this vile incident has stiffened a lot of spines.

There is an interesting book out that I've only read a review of, called "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill" where a Jewish woman speaks with top terrorists of ALL THREE MAJOR religions.

I too realized Berg was Jewish... but I'm not sure if any of you realized the interrogators we had in the Abu prison were ex-defense officers in the Israeli military who had much experience learning how to humiliate Islamists.

What did we expect to happen when we brought in people experienced in humiliating and torturing these people? Why didn't we expect these interrogators would push their experience down to the MPs, as they obviously did?

Yes the terrorists like to kill, but so do Israeli terrorists, and fundamentalist christian terrorists. There was a recent one found in Texas, a christian fundamentalist terrorist, who received next to no press. He didn't get to ACT with his chemical weaponry, but it was there, waiting to be used.

Yes, the anti-zionist faction is relatively new. But the Zionist faction of Israel is 'relatively' new in gaining power too. There are many Jews who are not militantly Zionist, and who would surely settle for peace. But this Zionist faction has gained control, and now anyone who is anti-zionist, or just non-zionist finds their paths blocked to gaining positions of power.

The Israeli's are the ones who trained us in our R2I, using experience they had when "dealing with" the Palestinians. I imagine having the Israeli's there helped us to mentally demonize all prisoners, no matter what crime they were brought in for.

The 4 deaths in Fallujah were claimed by a group called Martyrs of Ahmed Yassin, and they said it was because of our support to Israel when they killed yassin, a parapalegic in a wheelchair.

Lets just accept it - all three religions are using terror methods, are overstepping the bounds of fair play... its degenerating on all sides.

rawb,

No, religion has nothing to do with any terrorist, it's fig leaf covering for hateful people.

And WTF does it matter that the TERRORIST, Yassin, was a QUADripalegic.

"Yes the terrorists like to kill, but so do Israeli terrorists, and fundamentalist christian terrorists."

Yes. There are 3-5 Jewish incidents. 2-3 Christian. And thousands of Islamic. But they are all equal.

Soli - I'd say the average Wahhabi (the foot soldier who's deluded into strapping explosives to himself) has been taught since an early age to feel towards "The West" what a Jew would feel for Germany if they had won World War 2 and become the world superpower (substitute the crusades for the holocaust).

Odd comparison. If Germany had won WWII and become a world superpower, there would be no Jews left. Extermination was their goal.

The Wahhabi philosophy has always been a similar philosophy of extermination. They believe that anyone who does not share their beliefs is a polytheist. To them, the lives of polytheists (Christians, Buddhists, Moderate Muslims) are without value. Following these beliefs, they’ve always been comfortable with mass murder.

How do the crusades compare to the holocaust? Were the crusades a coordinated effort to specifically exterminate the Wahhabis? Exactly how is the average Wahhabi comparable to the average Jew, even in your alternate universe.

I know that you mean no moral comparison, but I don’t see any comparison here at all.

I think that, as part of a growing fascist movement, the average Wahhabi could be compared to the average German during the 30’s. If we had fought the war by trying to turn mainstream Germany ‘over to our side’, would have worked?

rawb:

Lets just accept it - all three religions are using terror methods, are overstepping the bounds of fair play... its degenerating on all sides.

Oh THANK YOU for that moral equivelency. I was wondering when we'd hear some of it.

Shall we compare numbers? How many have fundamentalist Christians killed, just in the last year? How many have Jews killed? And, most importantly, HOW MANY HAVE THEY KILLED IN THE NAME OF GOD?!?!? The numbers are NOTHING in comparison to the numbers of those killed by Muslim terrorists.

Right now, in Sudan, Muslims are butchering Christians. Right now, In Israel, Muslims are killing IDF troops and playing with the bodies. Right now Muslims are cutting the heads off American noncombatants while crying "God is great!" Right now, right now, right now.

I don't care about your excuses for their behavior. And, make no mistake, you ARE making excuses. I'm sick of this. I'm sick of them, and I'm sick of people like you.

rawb...you say: "I'm not sure if any of you realized the interrogators we had in the Abu prison were ex-defense officers in the Israeli military who had much experience learning how to humiliate Islamists."

Source? This isn't a "major media" company is which you can simply make assertions: you are expected to back them up with links or references.

Amen to that, Otto. When Billy Graham hijacks 4 planes and crashes them into the Sears Tower, the Chrysler Building, and Capital Hill then we'll talk about moral equivalence. When Jerry Falwell's followers kill 5000 Hindu while shouting "God is great!", we'll talk. And when Israelis start machine-gunning babies in their cribs, then we'll talk.

Someone needs to invent a time machine and erase Foucault and Chomsky, because modern politics would be in far better shape if nobody had spread post-modernism. The whole "murdering the infidel is the authentic cultural expression of the cute little brown people" thing is far beyond harmful.

Mary,

When you talk about motivation, it's a question of mental exercise. This is the exercise I propose: imagine you are a surviving Jew and the guys who killed the majority of your people are the world superpower. How do you feel? That's my interpretation of the Wahhabis motivation.

You want to twaddle about whether or not it's justified on the facts? They have schools to teach them lies. How many Wahhabis can read? Even the ones that can just say history is a lie written by the victor. They aren't comparable in reality. Read what I said!

You asked me about motivation, not reality, and then criticize me for answering your question. Do you really think guys who blow themselves up are rational actors? Please, get a grip.

Sigh.

Too many nuke em all posts on one thread, well meaning or not.

P. Ingemi made a good point about cowing our enemies.

So maybe all of this saber rattling isn't useless. If our enemies heard a bunch of saber rattling from us in the media. If they saw a united front, the would be cowed because we DO have the most awesome weapons in history.

It's just that, at the moment, we also have the most wimpy sounding media in history. We didn't manage to convince Saddam that we meant what we said, no doubt our media played a BIG role in that. If the media had sounded tough we probably wouldn't have had to invade at all.

Of course the minute that we elect a peacenik no one will be cowed. They have to believe that we will blast them in a minute.

"We can't kill them all;that's a profoundly horrible option"
-Yes. We actually can.Within a day or two at most, if we choose.And until 'they' fully recognize this-and fully means 'they' see that we are willing to start going down the list with an AK-47 and cease the idiocy of 'rebuilding' and 'bringing freedon-n-democracy'-we'll continue to have trouble from "the 'religion' of peace".

I'm surprised and saddened by how many people here are actually advocating a "kill 'em all" approach.

One day President Bush impugns the war's critics by implying that they must not think "brown-skinned people" are fit to rule themselves.

The next day, the war's supporters are actually considering the genocide of all Islamic peoples--discussing it like a PRACTICAL SOLUTION--because of the actions of a deranged, criminal handful.

I am as sickened and disgusted by the actions of those who murdered Nick Berg as you. But not enough to allow myself to become as sickening and disgusting as they are.

What is the moral distinction between the terrorists who wish to kill us all, and those who advocate killing all the citizens of their part of the world? Indeed, how do you explain the paradox between declaring this to be a war for the liberation of the Iraqi people, and this apparent desire to destroy them all when some terrorists from somewhere else kill a man? (While we're at it, how long ago did the civilian death toll of Afghanistan and Iraq exceed that of America on 9/11? And WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE, when all were innocent civilians?)

Those of you who expect the rest of the world to believe--as of course I do--that the abuses of Abu Ghraib do not represent America, must show the Islamic world the same respect: The terrorists do not represent the balance of citizens in their religion or in any single country. Those who advocate the conscious, wholesale killing of citizens in countries infected by terrorists do not deserve to live in freedom and democracy. Our principles--principles for which we have fought many wars, ostensibly including this one--forbid this thinking.

I am not saying we must not defeat them. We must. But citizens of a democracy must be and deserve to be held to a higher standard. This is a difficult enemy to fight. I think we're up to it. Those who advocate simply bombing them all clearly don't. They have let their fear, chauvinism, and xenophobia run roughshod over their American decency.

PK: I think you need to read Joshua Scholar's post about 2 above yours. I don't think anyone here advocates pushing the red button and killing them all now, but it's critical that they THINK we're ready to.

http://counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html is an article about the Israel connection to our civilian intelligence gatherers.

Also, I do think every person in the world has within themselvse a capacity to torture another. What I don't believe, however, is that everyone would know the most effective ways to torture a specific group without assistance.

We engaged in humiliating the Iraqis, that much is known, but most of the pictures and anecdotes point to a specific type of humiliation, specifically involving nakedness, women, dogs, etc. Among Arab men, fear of homosexuality, a distinct distaste for being dominated by women, these are all things that are very effective levers against Arabs. Arabs also believe dogs are unclean.

I do believe given an unclear chain of command, as was provided, we would have degraded into some form of unacceptable behaviors. I do NOT believe, however, that we would have hit all three things that would be the most powerful levers. I am convinced the Israeli civilian contractors helped our MPs along that path.

Now imagine you're an average Iraqi who gets picked up for yelling at a marine, or perhaps throwing a rock. Some less-than-imperative crime... and then you find yourself in Abu Ghraid. We're using unclean types of humiliation... for a common civilian who's disgruntled. Our WASHINGTON MONUMENT is almost an exact replica of that thing they all circle and throw rocks at to symbolize Satan, and we use methods, such as handcuffing to furniture, that the Israeli's have been using against the Palestinians.

Is a lot of what I say circumstantial? Perhaps. I admit I'm not an interrogater so I don't know if this is standard fare or not. My impression, however, is that it is not standard fare.

The ability to demonize some group, see them as less than yourselves, is a pre-requesite for torture like this to happen. It's happened in Gaze. It happened in Germany, though to a much worse extent. But perhaps more telling, it happened in the 1970s stanford psychology study where 9 people were chosen as prisoners and 9 as guards.

So while being able to dehumanize is a pre-requesite, having a black and white view of the world, pitting 'us' against 'them', helps you to dehumanize them, and then, helps things like this to happen. They're all the same. They're all terrorists. Anyone who was in the prison must have been a terrorist. There's no way our MPs picked up an innocent, or a disgruntled person who's brother was killed. No, thats not possible.

Oh, holy shit.

Our WASHINGTON MONUMENT is almost an exact replica of that thing they all circle and throw rocks at to symbolize Satan,

The WASHINGTON MONUMENT?!?!? rawp, go
here and look at this thing, which is somewhere on the order of 3500 years old. It's called an obelisk, and mankind has been building them for a lot longer than there was even a religion called Islam. If it upsets them (which I'm not sure it really does), it's THEIR problem, not ours.

War.Fucking.Sucks.

Period. This is the reality, regardless of which side you're on. There is terror, there is bloodshed, there are mangled bodies, and there are new gravestones.

"War is a racket."
- General Smedley D. Butler, United States Marine Corps, 1933

I don't think anyone here advocates pushing the red button and killing them all now, but it's critical that they THINK we're ready to.

Ian S, the subtlety of your distinction is pointless:
If these islamofascists want to behave like animals, then we should eradicate them as such.
...

We can kill them all. Root and branch. What is true that it is a profoundly horrible option. But it remains an option.
...

your responsibility TO YOUR CHILDREN is to kill the barbarian whenever you find him, before they do the same to your little boy.
...

I have come to believe nothing will work here but the utter destruction of the islamofascists.
...

Would we allow those so infected to continue to walk among us?
Maybe these are all just angry comments on a blog, but then there's this from the LA Times:
The only subject worthy of our national attention and the only pursuit that should be acceptable is total victory — no matter if others are offended or even destroyed.

It's starting to sound like red button time in America...

So why did we invade Iraq? If these monsters, these barbarians, these animals, these cancers deserve to be cowed with the belief that we are willing and able to slaughter every one of them? If the promise of liberation has now degraded to the barely restrained threat of holocaust?

This is becoming less of a rhetorical question every day: how is nuking Baghdad better than living under Saddam?

Bitter Mastermind,

The rantings of the author and commenters of this blog are expressing an anger, a release... "I want to kill by boss" is a similar response. The "red button" issue is a rhetorical response, BUT, if it worries Iran, Libya and North Korea, I'm all for it. Bottom line, it's why we should vote in leaders, not populists, as our presidents; we can vent, but, they are held and uphold a higher standard.

Yes, RED BUTTON time is near at hand. Maybe we can tone it down a bit and just try this for starters:

Wahabism Delenda Est

rawb, buy a clue please.

Christians haven't shouted "God is great" while torturing and killing people since the Inquisition.

Al Quaeda pukes did that a few days ago.

When are the moderates going to form secret societies and begin killing those who disagree. Let them infiltrate and destroy those who are responsible for this stuff. It is their religion and their militant compatriots see no sin in what they do.
Why should the moderates never take action on their own as the Shia are occasionally doing to Sadr and his thugs

Jim - Smedley Butler?? From 1933?? Give me a break.

Hey, fat cat, war is a racket that benefits bootleggers and underworld mooks. Vo-de-oh-do!

Smedley Butler’s diatribe was published in 1933. History has proven that he was completely wrong. Back in the old days, fear of war cost millions of lives.This doesn’t prove that war is bad, it disputes it. What a pitiful example.

What millennium are you living in?

When are the moderates going to form secret societies and begin killing those who disagree.

When I first read that sentence I parsed "moderates" as moderate democrats :)

If a bunch of terrorists hi-jack
a plane, and you know with
certainty that they're going to
crash it into a building, what
do you do? You shoot down the
plane to prevent further lives
(i.e. more than in the plane)
from dying (in essence the
country, that is, all the
individuals, banded together in
the form of government to issue
an order to shoot down the plane
in order to protect themselves).
But you just killed a bunch of
innocent civilians! So are you
in the wrong for doing what you
did? OF COURSE NOT! THE
TERRORISTS, THE INITIATORS OF
FORCE ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE DEATHS OF THOSE
CIVILIANS.

I give this example to point
out a very important truth that
people don't seem to understand
and don't want to accept. IF
INNOCENT, UNINVOLVED PEOPLE DIE,
ARE INJURED, OR INCUR OTHER
COSTS AS A RESULT OF SOME OTHER
PERSON'S OR PEOPLE'S SELFD
DEFENSE FROM AN AGRESSOR, THEN
THE AGRESSOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE DEATHS OF THOSE UNINVOLVED
PARTIES. This is a requirement
of the right to self-defense -
if people have the right to
defend themselves, then they
cannot be held as having done
something wrong if uninvolved
parties are harmed by their
actions of self-defense - and
it is INEVITABLE that there
will ALWAYS be some risk to
third parties when people
defend themselves.

Then there's the question, do
people defending themselves
have to worry about harming
third parties. The answer to
this question and a
requirement of the right to
self-defense is a resounding
NO!, since worrying about
harming third parties imposes
costs on that person defending
himself. A PERSON OR PERSONS
DEFENDING HIMSELF/THEMSELVES
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BEAR COSTS
JUST TO PREVENT THIRD PARTIES
FROM BEING HARMED - THIS WOULD
NEGATE THE RIGHT TO
SELF-DEFENSE.

If Jon starts attacking Bob
with a knife, that is if Jon
INITIATES FORCE/VIOLENCE, and
he's repeatedly stabbing him,
and Bob has a gun, does Bob
have to suffer a few more stab
wounds to take the time to
make sure he doesn't
acidentally hit Mary, who is
across the street? Of course
not. ---- You see people
always forget that you can't
be cautious about who you hurt
without imposing some costs on
yourself - IT WOULD BE NICE IF
WE COULD PICK OUT AGGRESSORS
AND MAKE SURE ONLY THEY ARE
HARMED - BUT THIS PROCESS
INVOLVES PUTTING ONE'S OWN
SELF AT RISK, AND NOBODY IS
REQUIRED TO DO THAT WHEN
DEFENDING HIMSELF - TO SAY
THAT PEOPLE MUST BEAR COSTS
AND RISKS (of ANY kind or
extent) TO MAKE SURE THAT THIRD
PARTIES AREN'T HARMED WHEN SAID
PEOPLE ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES
DIRECTLY NEGATES THE RIGHT TO
SELF-DEFENSE, AS THIS WOULD
MEAN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY NOT
FREE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND
MUST SACRIFICE FOR THE SAKE OF
OTHERS - BUT NO MAN IS MORALLY
REQUIRED TO SACRIFICE FOR
OTHERS, AS EACH MAN IS AN END
TO HIMSELF, HE DOES NOT EXIST
FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS ---- of
course if you can make sure you
don't harm third parties with
no or extremely negligible cost
then indeed you must make sure
you don't hurt third parties,
but this no-cost situation
rarely happens --- and of
course you have to target
only those involved in the
aggression--------

A good analogy for this is the
other rights- let's say the
right to freedom of speech - I
can say what I want, but doing
so might impose costs on other
people, I might hurt their
feelings, or impose costs on
people in some other ways -
does this mean I have to make
sure I never harm anyone, that
I never hurt anoyone's
feelings, in any way when I
speak? Of course not - I have
the right to speak my mind,
regardless of how other people
feel about it (of course, you
can't say something that would
violate other people's rights
such as revealing other
people's private information
(right to privacy) or
threatening someone (this is
a promise of aggression) -
but you get the point)

***************************************************

So you might be saying, "So
what are you saying, that we
should just bomb all these
countries?" To which I
asnwer YES.

"But that's crazy!"

No it's not, it's the
lowest-cost way we as a
country (a group of
INDIVIDUALDS banded together
for self-defense and other
purposes - remember only
individuals have rights -
just a reminder) can protect
ourselves.

"But you'll kill so many people!"

That's right, and it's a sad
thing, but we're not the
ones who started this war,
it's a sad thing that
innocents (or supposed
innocents - it's not like
I've ever heard a lot of
anti-terrorist sentiment
coming from the Middle East,
actually, it's the opposite)
would have to die just
because of terrorist assholes,
but that doesn't mean we have
to stop defending ourselves.

"But you could just send in
troops and do a normal ground
war."

Oh, so that they can die?
Why do we have to send in
our young men to their deaths
just to worry about
ininvolved parties (the
civilian populations in
those countries)? Why should
they have to die for your
squeamishness? Why do they
have to die when we the have
equiptment to end the threat
without any of our troops
(any of us) dying? You can't
use other people as your
slaves to die for you (you
could say they signed up in
the army and so knew they
were taking the risk of
death - but still the cost
of the death of even just one
troop far exceeds the cost of
any amount of bombings we
could muster). This is the
most disgusting idea I've
heard. How the hell can you
justify killing our own
troops just for your emotional
sensitivity? How would you
like to be a soldier in
combat and have your life
sacrificed to some pampered,
birkenstock-wearing fuck's
utopian ideals of world
peace and everyone singing
kumbaya in a circle jerk.

"But bombing all of them?,
I mean, that's nuts - you
can't do that!"

Why not? I've already
explained this to you, this
is the lowest-cost method of
ensuring our goddamnee
SURVIVAL, and we don't have
to bear costs just to worry
about uninvolved parties
when we're not the ones
who started this war. At
the root of it, all of
those arguments come from
one thing: emotion. The
though of war bothers you,
so you'll send as many
troops into that giant
blender that is the middle
east just so that you don't
have to face reality. But
that's just it, we live in
the real world. We can't
get everything we want. We
don't have the ability pick
out the terrorists and kill
just them like we're
sorting through M&M's for
the colors we want - this
is war. Sometimes in
life you have to kill,
sometimes you're forced
to be a do ugly things -
every creature needs not
only food, water, and
shelter but also defense,
every being has to be
willing to kill to defend
itself - the dog who
doesn't have the guts to
viciously attack anything
that comes near its puppies
is the dog who ends up
with dead puppies.

Liberals want to have their
cake and eat it too, and
then eat all the crumbs,
and then they want to go
to the store owner and ask
him if they can keep the
nice china plate for free,
and they expect 'Yes' as an
answer and will become all
huffy-puffy morally
outraged and indignant if
the answer if 'No'. But
that's not the way life is,
in life you don't even get
the cake - some fat hairy
chef heaves the heavy sack
of flour at you along
with a couple sugar cubes
and yells "Here, make it
yourself!" and then you
open the sack and you
find whole wheat flour
instead of normal cake
flour like it should have
been, and the water
coming for the faucet
(that you want to use
for the cake) has a
nasty brownish tinge
to it, and the only
butter you can find
has sort of a rancid
smell to it. - That's
life, deal with it.

I'm sure that you think
that massive bombings
is extreme (despite my
perfectly reasoned
explanation on the
right to self defense
above) - and indeed I
don't actually think
we should do this here
and now, in this
situation (I'm thinking
maybe we should have
done this right after
9-11 maybe), as the
world would freak out
(I don't think anyone
would attack us, as
they'd be too afraid
(and really have no
reason) - but our
"relations" would be
harmed - but I don't
think that really
matters much either -
only the threat of
countries stopping
their exports to us
would really matter,
and this probably
wouldn't happen
because of the huge
loss they would incur
from our counter-sanctions
and just general loss
of our consumers) - but I
do believe that this
should be the policy of
all legitimate, democratic,
rights-respecting countries
(and all countries in
general) - I won't fuck
with you, you don't fuck
with me, and I really mean
like I am just NOT going
to attack you under any
circumstances if you
don't attack me, but
if you do attack me,
I'll rip you and all
of your people to shreds

Furthermore, you might
not agree with any of this,
but believe you me, you
will - the liberals have
made it so that no
presidents (even Bush)
in the future will dare go
to war for fear of the
political repercussions,
and then the terrorists
will have all the time
and freedom in the world
to plot their attacks again
- and they will attack our
homeland again, but it'll
be an ENORMOUS attack - and
then you'll see just why
people need to be willing
to defend themselves

Here's my one sentence summary of Arabic/Islamic culture: "The worship of maleness at the expense of manliness."

"I want to kill by boss" is a similar response.

JFH, a better comparison would be if I were the boss, and I had a massive arsenal of weapons strapped to every limb of my body, and I were standing outside the doors to my building yelling at the top of my lungs: "I am going to kill every goddamn Islamic employee in the that entire goddamn building!!!"

However I agree with you about this: we should elect leaders. People who take responsibility for their actions and their rhetoric. People who have the balls to honestly admit when they were completely, disastrously wrong.

Not that any of this matters, since no one is going to be able to get past CriscoBoy's rant. (I guess you'd call it a rant? Something about puppies needing to die?) Although I suppose his is the clearest answer we're going to get as to why we invaded a country in order to liberate cancer.

It's not just the newsMedia that is the enemy...

Abuse of an imprisoned Ba'athist thug is exactly... identically... completely the same thing as sawing off an innocent civilian's head with a butcher knife...

The U.N. spokesman said, Annan “condemns all killings of innocent civilians in Iraq as he condemns all abuse of prisoners and other violations of international law. Now more than ever the secretary-general once again appeals to all parties to adhere strictly to the fundamental precepts of human rights and principles of international humanitarian law.”

See? They are exactly the same thing... because as Kofi says so... as one is only a White Jew and the Ba'athist thug isn't. One comes from a country that punishes crimes and one comes from a country that used to pay bribes to the UN... used to... to buy tolerance for attrocities.

Any questions about the fascist nurturing ideology of tyranny perpetuation by the UN now?

I wouldnt call the UN fascist - only ineffective and horribly structured, but certainly not fascist.

"I wouldnt call the UN fascist"

The general assembly is run by a plurality of despots. Why wouldn't it be facist?

They just put Sudan in charge of the human rights commission. Sudan has a tiny problem with genocide and slavery. Nothing worth noticing.

I think that says all you need to know about the UN.

I spent most of my adult life in the military. When I retired, I realized the military wasn't the same as when I enlisted in the late 70's...to that thanks Clinton; you f*cking smuck! F*ck the game playing of cat and mouse with these middle-eastern stink monkey sh*t smelling f*cks. Where the Hell is a President Truman when we need one? As far as all you rights activist and civil liberalist hard-ons, bang each other in the *ss and let that cocky SOB George W. give those islamic bastards what they deserve...a good ole' fashion TEXAS COWBOY REDNECK ASS KICK'N. Why not send some of America's "gang-bangers" to fight this war. Hell, "gang-bangers" would provide a better end to all the chaos than what the government is allowing our troops do! Re-open Alcatraz, gather all the islamic sh*t smelling f*cks here in America, DROP them on that little island, post guards on the water and shoot anyone attempting to escape or leave them to the sharks. Hell, Alcatraz can provide better living conditions than what these radicals have back in Iraq. They don't deserve anything more. Infact Alcatraz would be more than a generous offer from the United States of AMERICA. Kill'em all! God won't even sort them out. He will brush them off straight to th Hell they have earned the right to live in for enternity.

United States of AMERICA. Kill'em all!

Okay, Rocky. While you're looking for that green football that got kicked over here, remind me again -- redneck to redneck -- why did America invade Iraq?

Mary, can you see around your desire for revenge enough to actually see what the man has to say. If you really call yourself intelligent, why not at least make an attempt to hear all sides of the story. What was written in 1933 by this general holds true today. No one profits from this war except the big companies making money off of it. Democracy in Iraq is a pipedream. It is a rather arrogant and ignorant assumption that this time in history could not possibly apply these days. History does repeat itself, because we as a species are too bent on revenge to learn from it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana

Jim, what Smedley wrote in 1933 wasn't true in 1933. If we'd followed his advice, we'd probably be speaking German and Sieg Heiling our local Fuhrer. Smedley's theories didn't work then and they don't work now.

If we want to turn iron into gold, should we read the writings of the old alchemists?

If we want to make communism work, should we read Chomsky and Lenin?

If stupid theories never worked in the past, there is no reason to repeat them.

If we want to spread freedom and democracy, should we invade nations on false pretenses and engage in protracted guerrilla warfare?

Oh, wait...

Bitter - You could be right. If we compare Iraq to our other war against fascism, we could compare it to our invasion of North Africa after Pearl Harbor. If we had stopped at North Africa and tried to stop fascism by spreading freedom and democracy only in North Africa, would it have worked?

Let me see if I follow your analogy: Iraq is like North Africa in WWII, a region which has been taken over by an external form of brutal fascism, and America is only invading it by way of attacking the forces that put that brutality in place.

Which means, the real enemy are the ones who put the brutal fascist rulers in place in Iraq?

Hmm...

Above, I gave a thorough, reasoned analysis on the right to self-defense - I've never heard anyone give me a good counter argument based on REASON

You can scream and yell all you want - but you're just giving me EMOTION - can anyone give me a explanation based on REASON on how I'm wrong about harming third parties when defending yourself? Actually now that I think about it, seriously, I'd like to hear where my reasoning (on the general concept - not specifically on bombing the terrorsists - you fucknuggets are too emotionally sensitive to use reason when talking about war) might be wrong - i.e. what I might have missed. Remember, my general statement was that the right to self defense requires that no person or persons be required to bear costs and risks just to save third parties - that the agressor is the guy in the wrong in the first place and he is responsible for all collateral damage (and don't give me any "you can't go around shooting everyone just because you were attacked" shit - that's not what I'm saying, and you know it)

and of course bitter mastermind or some other dumb hippy (I was gonna say liberal - but there can be a difference) fuck is going to say something based on emotion - but seriously, I want logic-based analyses

Seriously, why doesn't anybody use REASON in philosophy any more? You people need to read Ayn Rand - (note: don't take my word as the word of Ayn Rand or Objectivists - they're for the war and defending America, but they're probably not as extreme as I am)

Bitter - your strategic brilliance is overwhelming - we've been attacked by a form of fascism, Wahhabism, that has been in existence for hundreds of years, and is currently gaining strength.

And your plan? Let's attack our government! That'll solve everything.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to agree with you.

Is it a coincidence that these are the same people who say that communism has never worked, but it's a very good idea in principle?

Mary, I was just extending your analogy to it's bizzare conclusion. Don't blame me for trying to figure out what you were saying...

And CriscoBoy? Peace, man.

You mean your plan is NOT to respond to the Islamist threat by attacking the current government?

I must have been misreading all of your comments so far. How odd.

Ok,
So we have to fight the war on terror. This is true. But if we're going to fight it, let's really fight it.
Saying we're in Iraq as part of the war on terror is complete and utter bullshit. All of the arguments for invading Iraq fell apart one by one. First it was a connection to 9-11, then WMD's, now Bush has settled on just the fact that Saddam was a bad guy.
Some one here please explain to me how fighting the war on terror brought us to Iraq. Instead we brought the war on terror to Iraq. Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq before, but they sure as hell are now.
Yeah, they were under a corrupt brutal regime. So fucking what... Throw a dart at a map and the odds are pretty good you'll hit a country run by some brutal regime. But we're not liberating them, are we? Chances are in many cases, we helped install the brutal regime (see Rummy/Saddam handshake, courtesy Reagan administration)

Hey Mary, you think this war is not about business? Get a clue. Just ask Halliburton about thier "No-Bid" contracts (awarded to them by an administration whose Vice President is their former CEO) I'm sure that Halliburton was the only qualified company IN THE WORLD to handle Iraq's oil fields, that's why they were just given the job without having to compete for it. I'm sure Cheney or his old pals haven't benefitted from that deal in the least. Pull your head out of the sand.
Instead Bush will go to congress and get 50 billion more bucks we don't have, to keep fighting a war they were incredibly unprepared for, but rushed into anyway. And by whom? Why is it that Bush can never make a decision without consulting with Cheney first, and ALWAYS alone. Why? Because he's not calling the shots. Cheney is. Cheney is today's Boss Tweed, pillaging and plundering the nation's coffers. Just another fat, bloated, incredibly greedy and corrupt white guy. The only good thing about him is that his heart is so bad he could probably be taken out with a hand buzzer...
So YES, if our government isn't looking out for the greater good of the people, ALL the people, then they should be attacked.
In Plato's Republic is says:
"If anyone should be permitted to lie, it should be the government, but only then for the good of the people"
Unfortunately this administration only lies for thier own benefit.
Yes, war is a business and business is booming. If we really wanted to effectively fight the war on terror, for starters, we'd go after their funding. We'd turn the screws on our buddies the Saudi's. The ones who say all the right things and shake our hands, and then shovel billions out the back door to fund terrorist movements. We'd crack down on everyone, even our "friends"...

i just want to say that i feel horrible for nick berg and i want all iraq ppl dead! *** God bless Nick Berg