American hostage decapitated by al-Qaida--I hope Dan Rather is happy

[B-Man]

Video on Islamic militant Web site shows beheading of American
By Associated Press | May 11, 2004

CAIRO, Egypt --A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site showed the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq, and said the execution was carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit -- similar to a prisoner's uniform -- who identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" -- "God is great." They then held the head out before the camera.

Berg was a small-business owner from the Philadelphia suburbs, his family said Tuesday.

Berg's family said they knew their son had been decapitated, but didn't know the details of the killing. When told of the video by an Associated Press reporter, Berg's father, Michael, and his two siblings hugged and cried.

"I knew he was decapitated before. That manner is preferable to a long and torturous death. But I didn't want it to become public," Michael Berg said.

The video tape included a statement by one of the executioners:

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused."

"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

The video bore the title "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American." It was unclear whether al-Zarqawi -- a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden -- was shown in the video, or was claiming responsibility for ordering the execution.

The Web site on which the video was posted is known as a clearing house for al-Qaida and Islamic extremist groups' statements and tapes.

The family of Berg, 26, of West Chester, Pa., said they were informed by the U.S. State Department on Monday that Berg was found dead near a highway overpass in Baghdad.

Berg's mother, Suzanne Berg, said her son was in Iraq as an independent businessman to help rebuild communication antennas. He had been missing since April 9, she said.

"He had this idea that he could help rebuild the infrastructure," she said.

The U.S. military Tuesday said an American civilian was found dead in Baghdad, but did not release his identity. State Department spokeswoman Susan Pittman said she couldn't release the name of the dead American, but said she not aware of more than one civilian found dead in recent days.

The military said there were signs of trauma to the body. Suzanne Berg said she was told her son's death was violent but did not want to discuss details.

Berg, who was in Baghdad from late December to Feb. 1, returned to Iraq in March. He didn't find any work and planned again to return home on March 30, but his daily communications home stopped on March 24. He later told his parents he was jailed by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul.

"He was arrested and held without due process," his father, Michael Berg, told the Daily Local News of West Chester recently. "By the time he got out the whole area was inflamed with violence.

The FBI on March 31 interviewed Berg's parents in West Chester. Jerri Williams, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, told The Philadelphia Inquirer the agency had been "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military. The next day Berg was released. He told his parents he hadn't been mistreated.

The Bergs last heard from their son April 9, when he said he would come home by way of Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated.

Suzanne Berg on Tuesday said she was told her son's body would be transported to Kuwait and then to Dover, Del. She said the family had been trying for weeks to learn where their son was but that federal officials had not been helpful.

"I went through this with them for weeks," she said. "I basically ended up doing most of the investigating myself."

[andyfox]

I heard a commentator yesterday saying that showing the videos of the mistreatment of the Iraqis was endangering Americans.

But it's not the showing of the video that's the problem: it's the content of the video.

I hope Don Rumsfeld's happy.

Dick Morris (!) on Sean Hannity's show last night (see, I watch Fox) quoted John Adams who said something to the effect that when you quarter troops and break up one mob, you create two. (Anybody know the exact quote?)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's not the showing of the video that's the problem: it's the content of the video.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you show the video you are unpatriotic and are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.

[B-Man]

Andy,

I have no problem with the media reporting on the prison abuse scandal. It's wrong, and the people responsible need to be held accountable (not sure at this point how far up the chain of command we need to go).

That being said, we shouldn't be showing all of these pictures, and we certainly shouldn't be showing them over and over again. They are gratuitous and inflamatory; repeatedly showing them serves no purpose other than to evoke emotions.

I care about the 80 or so (I heard that on the radio, not sure if the figure is accurate) western hostages currently being held in Iraq. Every time the media shows these images, we're increasing the chances that something bad is going to happen to those hostages.

It's too late to change the content of the photos/videos. It's not too late to stop showing them.

[GWB]

To score political points and help Kerry get elected, Democrats and their liberal allies have exploited minor harrassment into encouraging the murder of Americans in Iraq. The blood is on their hands now.

To suggest moral equivalence between the US Military and the terrorists in Iraq is laughable.

Have they no shame?

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you show the video you are unpatriotic and are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so, but you are endagering our hostages, and for no good reason.

[elwoodblues]

The problem is that absent the pictures there isn't much of a story --- the visualization helps to put the description into context to such an extent that the same happenings described in January got very little press until the pictures came out. Not only do the pictures help give people (for lack of a better term) an accurate picture as to what happened, the pictures themselves are part of the story. Part of the story is that not only were these prisoners humiliated, but there were individuals who thought it was a good idea to pose for a picture with them to document the humiliation. The pictures might (I don't know, I stopped looking at them) show onlookers who are complacent --- that type of context can't be conveyed well in text. As the cliche goes, a picture is worth a thousand words and the public isn't willing to read a thousand words describing the situation.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
the visualization helps to put the description into context

[/ QUOTE ]

So are they going to show the beheading video as frequently as the embarrassed prisoners video?

If not, we will know that there is a definite media bias.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
and for no good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a very good reason. Citizens in a democracy (more so than in other forms of government) need to be aware of the actions of their government done in their name.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a very good reason. Citizens in a democracy (more so than in other forms of government) need to be aware of the actions of their government done in their name.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can easily be accomplished without showing the photos, and without showing them repeatedly.

Repeatedly showing these photos only serves to inflame emotions.

[B-Man]

There is no good reason to show them repeatedly.

What's more important--repeatedly showing these inflamatory pictures, or doing what we can (within reason) not to provoke harm against our hostages?

[Chris Alger]

You supported the war who's opponents told you repeatedly that it would lead to atrocities -- Abu Ghraib being one of many -- and inevitable retalliation. If you can't send note to Berg's family apologizing for your support for the war, then you should admit that you believe that acts like these are a foreseeable and worthwhile price instead of faking shock and outrage over something you had every reason to believe would happen yet helped bring about.

[elwoodblues]

I think I can safely say that nobody on these boards is happy for this loss.

[jokerswild]

Jesus will not forgive him. He is doomed to the lake of fire for eternity (his own religious convistion).

[MMMMMM]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who murderously victimize innocents in order to make political points or to "avenge" someone else's death, don't deserve to inhabit human form. They are the antithesis of what it means to be human, spiritually speaking, and would better have been born in some lower realm or among the animals.

Things like this event are my principal complaint about humanity and about the universe. Why is so much of humanity so depraved and so stupid? 90% of humanity is not like me; we should have been born in a better world with similar beings rather than with animals like these.

[B-Man]

1. You're a fact-twisting liar.

2. [ QUOTE ]
You supported the war who's opponents told you repeatedly that it would lead to atrocities -- Abu Ghraib being one of many -- and inevitable retalliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arabs and Islamic fanatics commit atrocities against Americans and Israelis all the time. They did this before the war, and they continue to do this. The war was fought to prevent another 9/11 attack (or worse). Support for the war does not equal support for terrorism, actually, just the opposite is true, but leave it to Alger to twist the facts around.

3. [ QUOTE ]
If you can't send note to Berg's family apologizing for your support for the war, then you should admit that you believe that acts like these are a foreseeable and worthwhile price instead of faking shock and outrage over something you had every reason to believe would happen yet helped bring about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not faking my outrage or shock. The actions of Islamic lunatics are so outrageous that they remain shocking no matter how many times we see them.

It's people like you that should be apologizing. It seems your sole purpose in life is to to spew anti-American, anti-Israel propoganda. You are a worthless, terrorist-supporting piece of garbage.

[elwoodblues]

Alger suggesting you were happy about the murder is as asinine as your suggestion that Dan Rather was happy (or that Alger is).

[Chris Alger]

I didn't mean it seriously, but now that you mention it I think I disagree. The right word might not be "happiness" but there's obviously a lot of craving on these boards for evidence that "our" "enemies," defined quite broadly, are violent subhumans worthy of subjugation if not outright extermination together with an extreme disregard for our "collateral" victims. There's a sort of psychic thrill that comes from evidence that validates these instincts.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus will not forgive him. He is doomed to the lake of fire for eternity (his own religious convistion).

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.02brothers.com/cuckoo/cuckoo.gif

I suspect you think that I invited the terrorists to attack us at the World Trade Center and around the world.

The terrorists and those that encourage and support them, both domesticly and internationally, must bear the responsibility.

Sadly, the Democrats and the liberal media have been encouraging the terrorists for crass political purposes.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Alger suggesting you were happy about the murder is as asinine as your suggestion that Dan Rather was happy (or that Alger is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Rather is taking concrete steps which have the obvious effect of inflaming emotions. Do you seriously dispute that the repeated, gratuitous broadcasting of the prison photos is going to inflame emotions over there?

Everything in Alger's post was moronic. Usually his posts are just filled with lies and anti-American, anti-Israel propoganda, but today's was just moronic.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Everything in Alger's post was moronic. Usually his posts are just filled with lies and anti-American, anti-Israel propoganda, but today's was just moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alger's mind is warped, roughly like the stairs in an Escher woodcut. No further explanation needed.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan Rather is taking concrete steps which have the obvious effect of inflaming emotions. Do you seriously dispute that the repeated, gratuitous broadcasting of the prison photos is going to inflame emotions over there?


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact same thing can be said about the CONTENT of the pictures. Do you think that the military (or at least those who were involved with these prisoners) were attempting to inflame the enemy? You are spending more time worrying about the distribution of the photos instead of worrying about the content of them. I'm full of cliches today, but Don't Shoot The Messenger --- Dan Rather (and the rest of the liberal media) wouldn't have jack to report on if those idiots didn't behave in the way they did.


I've said this before, but conservatives are always talking about personal responsibility (or at least they were during the Clinton years). Why deflect from the real issue(s) here? There's plenty of things to be pissed off about in this whole fiasco --- the media handling of it is about 756th on the list.

Was it media bias when over and over again we heard that Clinton bombed an aspirin factory? Why not? Why was saying that Clinton "wagged the dog" not unpatriotic but similar criticisms of Bush are? Why the double standard?

[B-Man]

Have you read my posts? I condemned the humiliation/abuse of the prisoners, and said we have to hold responsible the people who committed these acts.

That doesn't mean we need to broadcast the pictures every 30 seconds. That's unnecessary and inflamatory. It's clearly politically motivated.

[ QUOTE ]
Was it media bias when over and over again we heard that Clinton bombed an aspirin factory?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I don't think we heard nearly enough about the fact that it was allegedly just an aspirin factory, especially on a timely basis, and second, I have no problem with reporting on the prisoner abuse, it's the manner in which the reporting is being done that is outrageous. We should be reporting on the scandal; we should not be showing the photos over and over again.

Finally, I never said anything close to the things you seem to be attributing to me.

[elwoodblues]

I guess I really don't understand your position (I'm probably just being thick). Is this your position: It is okay to report on the prisoner abuse, but not put that report into context by showing the photos upon which your report is based because that might inflame people.

Is it news when new photos surface? Should those new photos be shown or just a description? "New photos surfaced today. They depict a man being sodomized by a glow stick with a female US soldier looking on..."

[MaxPower]

Can you honestly blame the Media for this?

Certainly these terrorists are using the media to try to turn opinions against the war/occupation. However, atrocities like these were bound to happen whether or not CBS broadcasts this story.

[B-Man]

OK, let me try to clarify.

1. It is definitely o.k. to [/b] report [/b] the abuse story. Hell, it's more than ok, it's the media's duty.

2. I'm not sure if the photos should have been shown at all. Personally, I think the benefit of keeping them under wraps while we have hostages in the hands of lunatics outweighs the benefit of broadcasting the photos, but I also see that there is an argument to be made that the initial showing was newsworthy and outweighed any inflamatory effects.

3. What I have a problem with is the gratuitous, repeated showings of these photos. There is no need for them to be continually rebroadcast. Even if an initial showing was appropriate, there is no need to constantly rebroadcast them; this is inflamatory and is increasing the risk to our hostages (it's also clearly politically motivated; that's not the biggest reason the rebroadcast is wrong, it's just the primary motivation behind the broadcasts, IMO).

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Arabs and Islamic fanatics commit atrocities against Americans and Israelis all the time. They did this before the war, and they continue to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I understood the point of the thread you started, it was that persistent media images about the war in Iraq bore some responsibility for this atrocity. Now you're implying that the war has nothing to do with it.

This is the sort of contradictory nonsense that war supporters often spew out, a perfect example of how they lack of any moral compass and why their moral condemnations of others can't be taken seriously.

[elwoodblues]

Okay --- So, your position (as I understand it) is that the cause of the problem is clearly the idiots in the photos, but the media is exacerbating the problem by continuing to cover it in the way that they do. I can understand that position (though I disagree with it).

To me, the only the problem is only enhanced by the media because it is so eggregious. If they showed photos over and over again of a prisoner with a hood on (fully clothed) and a smiling female officer, there wouldn't be a problem. There are still people who want the news to show the 9/11 planes flying into the twin towers every night (I'm not exaggerating, a local talk radio show made that claim the other day). There's certainly a point at which it becomes too much --- I don't think we're there yet.

[elwoodblues]

I think the point is that the media should only show pictures of Arab attrocities once /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
If I understood the point of the thread you started, it was that persistent media images about the war in Iraq bore some responsibility for this atrocity. Now you're implying that the war has nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the thread is that the media is unnecessarily inflaming emotions in the Arab world by gratuitously rebroadcasting the photos. There is no moral purpose to the continuing rebroadcast of the photos; everyone has had a chance to see them, everyone knows the abuse happened, and that people need to be held accountable.

According to a report I heard on the radio this morning, there are approximately 80 western hostages in Iraq (I don't know if that number is accurate). The broadcasting of these photos can not help them, and there is a very good chance it could harm them. It is not doing anyone any good*, but it may cause a great deal of harm.

* The broadcasting may be making an incremental profit for the media outlets, and is probably beneficial to the democratic party.

[CORed]

Well, in the world of those who are so caught up in their ideology that they can't see that George W. Bush is an incompetent idiot, the problems in Iraq are entirely the fault of the liberal media. Everything over there is going wonderfully well, and the media is exagerating a few little problems, which is encouraging the insurgents. If the media would just ignore the problems, they would go away, and all the Iraqi people would love us. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. (Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a similar pun using "Euphrates".)

[Utah]

Unfortunately, your moral and strategic compass works just fine and it strongly points towards support for the terrorists and the enemies of the United States.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

So how would you handicap our bet at this moment. I lean it a touch in favor of you.

I know you are going to hate this - I think the events over the last couple of months show us the reality that only a few understand - you need to defeat and slaughter your enemy until they submit. No negotiation, no mercy, no relenting. You need to be more brutal that the enemy. Its the only thing that works and it is the most humane approach. Anything less and you embolden your enemy and there supporters and you end up with the slow bleed we are in now.

For example, we get in these protracted fights because terrorists use civilians as shields. You stop that really quickly by shooting right through the civilians to kill the terrorists. Once they know that using these shields is certain death, they will stop using them. It sounds brutal, but in the end it saves a lot of civilian lives.

And, as I have said before, I favor torture for the right reasons. No one answered my question a few weeks ago - would you torture 10 men if you could have achieved the same result as the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs.

If you cant defeat the enemy, you can not win. Its that simple.

David

[Ray Zee]

i feel that anything that happens in the world should be shown. thats what news is for. sure they bais it and it isnt all factual. but i want to be able to see it all and judge for myself what is there. and not have it determined for me by someone elses agenda. the enemy is the enemy and they are going to do whatefer benfits them so showing what is happening doesnt benefit them as much as keeping the world in the dark hurts the rest of us.

as far as someone getting murdered over in iraq that went there to profit or rebuild their country. i personally dont see why they would put themselves into that jeopardy for so little gain. and since they chose of there own free will to go there and take the risk, well that is what happens when you flip the coin. go into a battle zone expect to get shot. it is tragic but to be expected.

[codewarrior]

I think this has been stated before, but one more time...

The USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously dispute that the repeated, gratuitous broadcasting of the prison photos is going to inflame emotions over there?

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be trying for some kind of record.

Images of atrocities that we commit unduly "inflame emotions" but images about atrocities committed against Americans do not (such as Berg and his executioners or the burning towers). Perhaps this is because Americans don't become emotionally inflamed to the point of sending troops to countries that have neither attacked nor threatened to attack the U.S. (although see how you've got MMMMMM raving again about the "subhumans").

Images of war-related atrocites spark revenge killings but war-related atrocities themselves do not.

Those who take revenge on innocents for atrocities are responsible but those who made the atrocities possible in the first place have no responsibility.

Atrocites that occurred in a military prison created by a war have nothing to do with that war because Arab terrorists do this sort of thing all the time anyway.

if Americans commit atrocities, the biggest problem isn't the atrocities but that the media reports them too much. Perhaps because greater self-censorship would inspire people to take our crusade to expand free expression more seriously.

And the winner is: no person can "seriously dispute" that people "over there" tend to get their media images from Dan Rather, who is not only responsible for what his employer decides to broadcast but indeed the bulk of information throughout the Arab world.

[B-Man]

I didn't say anything close to any of that gibberish you are attributing to me.

You've got a hell of an imagination.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
(although see how you've got MMMMMM raving again about the "subhumans").

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, perhaps that is the difference between us, Chris: I consider quite a number of people to be subhuman, at least in the spiritual sense. Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, various sadistic killers--all are quite subhuman in some of the most important measures of what "being human" is really all about. That also goes for "those who take (murderous) revenge on innocents", as you put it. Tell me truly, do you think these people were acting humanly, or more as beasts?

In some Buddhist thought, it is held that the moment we embark on a course of action, we become that action in the spiritual sense--or we even become the type of spiritual being associated with that action. Act in kindness and love, and you are becoming a greater human, or even a godlike being. Act animalistically, and you are becoming an animal. Those who cannot relinquish specific attachments when such relinquishment is long overdue, become "hungry ghosts". Act in depravity and base wickedness, or deliberately inflict great and needless cruelty, and at that moment you become a demon.

Those killers were subhuman, as surely have been any similar killers throughout history--of any race, of any creed, of any time.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this has been stated before, but one more time...
The USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. We are a republic in the sense that we have individuals who represent us in government and a democracy in that we vote for those officials and our elected officials make decisions based on democratic principles. Are you denying the democratic part of our system or are you just splitting hairs?

The phrase "constitutional republic" is much less descriptive of our government the "democratic republic." The adjective "constitutional" just means that there is a document upon which the republic is based. It does nothing to define the way the republic functions. You could have a constitutional republic with a constitution that says "elwoodblues shall appoint representatives for each state who will represent the state in a battle royal to determine if a law passes or not." That would be a constitutional republic but it doesn't describe our government in the way the term democratic republic does.

[superleeds]

Does that make Churchill sub-human, after all alot of Dresden residents were children. What about Truman, he decided to destroy a city not once but twice. Nietzsche might have considered these thugs supermen and Machiavelli would no doubt have admired their singleminded will to perform such atrocities for political gain.

The fact is they are just human beings like you and me. Man has tortured and murdered from the beginning of time. This is not new. These people are not new. And your arrogance isn't new.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Does that make Churchill sub-human, after all alot of Dresden residents were children. What about Truman, he decided to destroy a city not once but twice. Nietzsche might have considered these thugs supermen and Machiavelli would no doubt have admired their singleminded will to perform such atrocities for political gain.

The fact is they are just human beings like you and me. Man has tortured and murdered from the beginning of time. This is not new. These people are not new. And your arrogance isn't new.

[/ QUOTE ]
The motives of these men do matter. Neither Truman nor Churchill were out to just kill a lot of people, but rather to bring a war against aggressors to a speedy end at the lowest cost in suffering possible (recognizing that they are human and imperfect decision makers).

To try and end such a war does not sound like "commiting atrocities for political ends" to me. A true atrocity is a crime committed without a moral compass that is based upon true human goodwill.

[MMMMMM]

No, Superleeds, depraved killers are NOT human beings just like you and me.

Yes, man has tortured and murdered from time immemorial, that is, SOME men have, others haven't. Truly, I often feel that humanity is divided between people who empathize with others and people who don't. That might be the great divider: greater than physical attributes, perhaps greater even than intelligence.

Some people are apparently incapable of empathy, whereas others possess it in varying degrees. Those who completely lack empathy, but instead possess great cruelty, are indeed less than human in the most meaningful and important sense of the word. Otherwise we might just as well all be reptiles or something.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. (Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a similar pun using "Euphrates".)

[/ QUOTE ]

How about "You fraidies ain't just a river in Egypt?"

Or "The Euphrates makes strong men into ladies."

OK. These are not good. You were right not to try.

[Rushmore]

I especially like the way you cannot seem to mention the United States without mentioning Israel before ending the sentence.

It's like after 9-11, when we were told that the Arab terrorists attacked the US because they "hate our freedom." I found it curious that Israel got omitted from the conversation then.

I guess it's the same programming that brought us the ever-present, ever-absurd term Judeo-Christian ethic.

We're such a bunch of dupes, honestly.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
And your arrogance isn't new.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not being arrogant. He's making an observation. If it seems like arrogance to you that he finds bloodlust and other abjectly base pasttimes to be less than that for which we might have been intended, well, I guess you two are simply on different sides of that particular aisle.

My theory is that we are simply a species in the most difficult stage of our evolution, and that there is some question as to whether or not we can see our way through the growing pains.

Recorded history is a relatively small sample, but all indications are that we are moving in the generally right direction.

If we survive, it might be a decent world someday.

[elwoodblues]

How about after 9/11 there was a widely held sentiment that we shouldn't explore how our international policies might have contributed toward terrorist attack (because then you are blaming America); but now we should blame Dan Rather for an act of barbarism.

Typical of the blame the media first crowd

[hetron]

that people in Iraq get their news from Dan Rather. Your argument MIGHT make sense if people in Iraq were watching CBS. However, we have no control of how many time Arab media outlets show the prison abuse pictures.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
How about after 9/11 there was a widely held sentiment that we shouldn't explore how our international policies might have contributed toward terrorist attack (because then you are blaming America); but now we should blame Dan Rather for an act of barbarism.

Typical of the blame the media first crow

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no recollection whatsoever of this "widely held sentiment." I do, however, recall asking myself, my friends, and my family why NOBODY on the wacky television box was making any mention of our little colony there in the Holy Land. I mean, it was as if God Himself had issued a memo expressly forbidding even hinting at the idea that our Inexplicable Israel Policy might have something to do with all of the bodies splashing onto the sidewalk and all of the weeping and death and misery and jet fuel immolation.

P.S. I don't think we're disagreeing, by the way, Elwood.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I don't think we're disagreeing, by the way, Elwood.

[/ QUOTE ]

me either...and I sometimes (though rarely) reply to posts with which I agree.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider quite a number of people to be subhuman

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt this. My guess is that this applies to hundreds of millions.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me truly, do you think these people were acting humanly, or more as beasts?

[/ QUOTE ]
They were acting in the fashion that you praise when your side does it.

[MMMMMM]

If there are any number of people on the face of the globe who totally lack in compassion and empathy, and who instead are filled with only bloodlust and cruelty, then yes: they are indeed less than fully human, Chris, because some degree of compassion and empathy is necessary to be human (at least in the emotional and spiritual sense). Wouldn't you agree?

[ QUOTE ]
They were acting in the fashion that you praise when your side does it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. I never praise such acts by anyone. It is plain to see your instinct for mendacity and twisted comparisons has not changed.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"I have no recollection whatsoever of this "widely held sentiment [that "we shouldn't explore how our international policies might have contributed toward terrorist attack (because then you are blaming America).]"

[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome back from Mars.

I guess it depends on how you define "widely held." Since hardly anyone in the media ever connected U.S. policy to 9/11 or terrorism generally, perhaps there wasn't much call to condemn those who did as America-blamers.

But when they did, the response was invariable: anyone who thinks U.S. policy could possibly provoke terrorism is a defender of terror. Two examples (among many): The flap of Susan Sontag's comment in New Yorker linking policy to terror (including Krauthammer's response that Sontag must think "we had it coming"); and a very short debate between Chomsky and Bill Bennet on CNN, where Bennett lied by saying that NC defended the attacks. Upon which the commentator (Zahn I think) cutoff Chomsky's hundredth declaration that 9/11 was an appalling atrocity by accusing Chomsky of criticizing U.S. policy.

What's interesting, however, is that there's also a lot of stuff in the press connecting U.S. policy to terrorism as a cause-and-effect. The unwritten rule seems to be that you can connect policy to terror in a bloodless descriptive fashion, but you can't criticize policy by arguing that terror has resulted from it. To a lesser extent, one can predict terror without coming across as an America-basher, but once the terror has started you can't connect it to policy. Thus, a lot of commentators predicted that the Iraq invasion would lead to more terror, but few of them are being heard saying, in the context of the Berg and other atrocities, "I told you so."

I might also disagree with you a tad on Israel, although your perspective is refreshing. It's not that Israeli policy led to al Qaeda or even had anything to do with the acts of that group, or the acts of terrorists in Iraq. It's that there's a lot of latent hatred toward the U.S. over Israel, widely and correctly viewed as uncritical support for terror and tyranny. This creates a lot of hositility and a "who-cares" attitude among Arabs and the poorer world generally when it comes to terror against the U.S., even among those who otherwise loathe bin Laden and terrorism.

[andyfox]

"Sadly, the Democrats and the liberal media have been encouraging the terrorists for crass political purposes."

Example, please.

Sadly, I heard this all day today, accusations of treason from the out-of-control conservative talk radio show hosts.

Surely you have more decency than they, Mr. President.

[andyfox]

"So how would you handicap our bet at this moment. I lean it a touch in favor of you."

I agree. If Greenspan raises interest rates and the market goes in the tank, I may be more than just a slight favorite. But it's still way too early to tell. Kerry could, for example, deliver a particularly poor acceptance speech at the convention.

As to being more brutal than the enemy, then, to me, there's no point in winning. If we're no better than they are, what does it matter who wins? Most of what people call "terrorism" is what I call "retail terrorism." That is, the numbers killed are relatively small. While we are rightly disgusted by the decapitation, we hear nothing, as pointed out by others hear, about the genocide in Sudan.

We should never lose sight of the fact that all politicians are liars and nothing they say should be believed. Skepticism should be our watchword.

And I'll be the first to answer your question. If it were 100% certain that 200,000 lives would be saved by the torture of 10, yes, I'd do it.

[Cyrus]

...and that's the very least of estimates, according to what the Pentagon leaks out.

We will all soon feast our eyes on 'em, don't you worry.

[MasterShakes]

...and that hope is good to see.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
as far as someone getting murdered over in iraq that went there to profit or rebuild their country. i personally dont see why they would put themselves into that jeopardy for so little gain. and since they chose of there own free will to go there and take the risk, well that is what happens when you flip the coin. go into a battle zone expect to get shot. it is tragic but to be expected.


[/ QUOTE ]

Blame the victim much? That's pretty callous.

[ QUOTE ]
"you need to defeat and slaughter your enemy until they submit. No negotiation, no mercy, no relenting. You need to be more brutal that the enemy."

[/ QUOTE ]

All we need to do is build a half dozen or so casinos throughout Iraq, then start handing out tainted blankets and firewater to the locals. They'll mellow out in no time.

[jokerswild]

Why MMMMMMMM you shouldn't talk about the President and the Vice-President that way!

[codewarrior]

n/m

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
That might be the great divider

[/ QUOTE ]

Having no understanding and no will to even try to understand why people perform the grotesque acts they do is the great divider.
To assume people who perform such acts are simply monsters is naive. Only by recognising why people are moved by such things as religion, politics etc to perform such atrocities will human kind be able to move on. To fix a problem you first have to understand it.

The middle east is the way it is because of geography and continue meddling by foreign empires thru the centeries. I fear that all we are doing is repeating history.

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise we might just as well all be reptiles or something

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that if reptiles had our ability to think, to reason beyond the next meal, they would be no different to us. We are the only animals that can think beyond subliminal instincts and as such we are capable of acts of unselfisness but there is a flip side which man has proved time and time again.

Edit, addition.
Maybe this is really humankinds problem, we are not able to override our basic instincts as well as we believe.

[Gamblor]

If you haven't figured out that the enemies of Israel and of America if not the same people, are at the very least working together to bring about the downfall of anything and everything close to a liberal nation, you're even more clueless than I thought.

Liberalism and freedom is a threat to everything they stand for. For example, allowing a woman the freedom to even have a job or wear a pair of shorts, is a threat to their belief that woman are a distraction from one's devotion to Allah and should be hidden away.

To them, Israel = America.

All this anti-colonialist invective is a small part of what they really are against, and it is the only part that could possibly get people like Cyrus and Alger on their side. They aren't against "imperialism", as terrorist apologists like to claim - they are against freedom. It is anathema to their moral claims. Remember, they think they are answering to a higher moral authority than we are, just as we think the opposite.

But most importantly, just like the Palestinian Arabs, they take advantage of the fact that Americans and Israelis are forced to fight fair by their own public. Since the Islamists can tell their own whatever they want them to believe (because the faith of their masses is based on religion, and thus whatever their Sheik tells them to believe is suddenly truth), they can justify any and every action to their people. Including the decapitation of an innocent, or the parading of a settler's head through the streets of Gaza City.

[MMMMMM]

This is what I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I consider quite a number of people to be subhuman, at least in the spiritual sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how Chris Alger misleadingly parsed my words:

[ QUOTE ]
I consider quite a number of people to be subhuman

[/ QUOTE ]

I expounded a bit, in keeping with the general theme, then asked the following question:

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me truly, do you think these people (the murderers) were acting humanly, or more as beasts?

[/ QUOTE ]

to which Chris replied:

[ QUOTE ]
They were acting in the fashion that you praise when your side does it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never praised wanton revenge murders upon innocents, which is precisely what these murderers did with the beheading. They even said that it was for "revenge" (by the way, how stupid does someone have to be to think that killing an innocent person is in any way a form of revenge? Revenge is against those who have wronged you, not against some bystander).

At any rate this is another lie by Alger since I have certainly never praised any such atrocities by anyone or any side.

Also, Chris has never answered the question. He is so habituated to drawing parallels (some valid, others invalid) that he does not stop to think here that this method is entirely out of place in this specific instance. He just plunges ahead with his typical tactic.

The parsing, though, Chris: that is shameful. I would have guessed it beneath you but apparently it is not.

[MMMMMM]

Humans who have zero empathy for others are less than fully human, IMO. Maybe it sounds better if I say "less than fully human" rather than "subhuman"--but I feel they are deficient in one of the most important characteristics of humanity: the capacity for empathy. Therefore "subhuman" does not strike me as entirely wrong--and it is fairly correct, in the spiritual sense.

[ QUOTE ]
The middle east is the way it is because of geography and continue meddling by foreign empires thru the centeries. I fear that all we are doing is repeating history.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also that way because of ideology and customs which discourage free thought, and because of the essentially theocratic nature of Islam.

Also, here's a one-paragraph summary of the Crusades:

(excerpt)Let’s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.(end excerpt) (Phil Lucas, Up Against Fanaticism)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13294

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is really humankinds problem, we are not able to override our basic instincts as well as we believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good insight, Superleeds.

I believe that the capacity to override our most primitive thoughts and desires is what sets us apart from the animals. That transcendent quality which humans possess is an integral and very important part of being human. Adults who live in a personal world dominated by thoughts of revenge and bloodlust, and who carry out such impulses, and who have no empathy for others, are not fully human in one of the most important senses of the word. Thus they are living fully as primitive beings, and I think calling that mode of existence "subhuman, at least in the spiritual sense" is fairly accurate. They might as well be reptiles or demons--there is little point to their being human if they do not have some empathy for their fellow humans nor try to transcend their basest most evil desires.

[nicky g]

"Let’s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force"

This is a joke right? We can argue all we want aout Islam now but at the time of the Crusades Islam was infinitely more tolerant than Christianity.

[frizzfreeling]

GWB,
Have you seen the video of the decapitation? I have. I spent a half hour in the bathroom emptying my stomach afterwards. Do you really think that a video of a man getting his head sawed off while he is screaming in agony is something that should be on the nightly news? Do you really think this is anything like the pictures of abuse in the prisons? You and the real GWB are a farse!

[frizzfreeling]

It's people like you that should be apologizing. It seems your sole purpose in life is to to spew anti-American, anti-Israel propoganda. You are a worthless, terrorist-supporting piece of garbage.


In WWII, men left their careers and college to join the fight they believed in. Since you are so incensed by the anti war opinion of others here, I would assume that you are in the middle east right now, having VOLUNTEERED for the cause you so desperately believe in????

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
In WWII, men left their careers and college to join the fight they believed in. Since you are so incensed by the anti war opinion of others here, I would assume that you are in the middle east right now, having VOLUNTEERED for the cause you so desperately believe in????

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I'm not incensed by anti-war opinions. I was on the fence myself, prior to last March, on whether or not we should go to war in Iraq. There are things I am incensed about, but merely being anti-war is not one of them--I know a lot of people that are anti-war whom I merely disagree with, but I respect their opinions. Hint: you need to be a little more critical in your reading.

2. Your point seems to be that unless you volunteered to go to war, you are not entitled to have an opinion on it. That's pretty stupid.

[B-Man]

I read the article you linked to. It has an important message. People need to wake up.

On a related note, it certainly is not a coincidence that Islamic lunatics are involved in all of those conflicts all over the world.

This is going to get worse. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the other religions as well as secular society.

[MMMMMM]

Before the Crusades, Islam tried to impose its religion by force on parts of Europe.

And no, I don't agree that Islam has always been more tolerant than Christianity. Islam's founder, Mohammed, led many armies of conquest to impose Islam by force (along with pillage, and enslavement of many of the conquered--especially the womem).

How is leading armies of conquest to expand a religion "tolerant" in any sense of the word? Islam was intolerant from the outset.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
...Have you seen the video of the decapitation? I have. I spent a half hour in the bathroom emptying my stomach afterwards. Do you really think that a video of a man getting his head sawed off while he is screaming in agony is something that should be on the nightly news? Do you really think this is anything like the pictures of abuse in the prisons?...

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is precisely the difference between us, and the animals who decapitated that poor man.

So: where is the outrage in the Arab presses over this atrocity?

[frizzfreeling]

B-Man,
I just went through the posts again to make sure I didnt miss anything, and guess what? I did miss something!

Support for the war does not equal support for terrorism, actually, just the opposite is true , but leave it to Alger to twist the facts around.

Whether you meant it or not (I, personally believe you did), this statement can easily be construed as saying "those who are not in support of the war ARE in support of terrorism". An all too common way for republicans to corner their oponents. Shameful, really.

And once again, just to complete your statements:

It's people like you that should be apologizing. It seems your sole purpose in life is to to spew anti-American, anti-Israel propoganda. You are a worthless, terrorist-supporting piece of garbage.

What part of your two statements here am I misinterpreting? And yes, I do believe that if YOU are so pro-war AND incensed by those who do not believe in the war, then you should be signing up! People who do not believe this war was necessary in the first place are over there right now, and many are getting killed. Meanwhile you are sitting here in the good old USA, spouting off how those who dont hold your views are worthless terrorist supporting pieces of garbage.

[superleeds]

The crusades were ultimately about wealth and had very little to do with religion. Same old, same old.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, it is going to get worse.

Islam is indeed fundamantally incompatible with all other religions, and with absence of religion, and with secular society.

All one need do is read the Q'uran--or many passages from the Q'uran--to see that this is so. The sheer number of fanatical passages advocating violence against non-believers, and calling for Islam to subjugate everyone and everything non-Muslim, boggles the mind.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
What part of your two statements here am I misinterpreting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, as I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Try making a cogent point and I'll respond.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I do believe that if YOU are so pro-war AND incensed by those who do not believe in the war, then you should be signing up!

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't do very well on the reading comprehension portion of the SATs, did you?

I told you that before the war I was on the fence--if you want to go back and check the archives of this forum, you'll see posts by me on this subject. In the end I was in favor of the Iraq war, but you seem to be implying I was fervently in favor of it. That is not true. I do think it was the right thing to do, but obviously comes at a high price (a price that is worth it, IMO).

As for signing up because I believe in it, that's just a dumb argument. I believe in farming, too, should I go become a farmer? I believe in education, should I become a teacher? We have a volunteer army. I support and appreciate our armed forces. People like Pat Tillman are hereoes, even though Alger and some others (maybe you?) think he got what he deserved.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile you are sitting here in the good old USA, spouting off how those who dont hold your views are worthless terrorist supporting pieces of garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous blanket statement I never made. I made that statement about Chris Alger, and you automatically think I feel that way about everyone I disagree with. Shame on you. I suggest you read these forums and in general get a clue.

[frizzfreeling]

To score political points and help Kerry get elected, Democrats and their liberal allies have exploited minor harrassment into encouraging the murder of Americans in Iraq. The blood is on their hands now.

So, you got us into this mess and now that it has come back to smack you in the face, it becomes the Democrats fault? Its time to pay the piper Dubya. By the way, I am not a Democrat or a Republican.

[MMMMMM]

Part of the overall "war" is also that many Westerners do not perceive the true dangers of fundamental Islam, nor understand the goals of the Islamists.

If B-Man is contributing to the greater understanding of others of the true nature of this threat facing Western civilization, and ultimately, the entire non-Islamic world, he is in fact fighting against this pernicious ideology (although perhaps not as vigorously or visibly as if he were a soldier in Afghanistan).

[trippin bily]

to say we need to "understand" the reason behind these atrocities by muslims is exactly what the democrats say.
there is no "understanding" of a beheading of an innocent man. nor of the murder of woman and children by woman and children. the religion is violent. period. kill those who dont beleive as you is the overall gist of the religion.
these people must be destroyed. it is a fight of good versus evil. only democrats and the U N are not sure which is which.

[frizzfreeling]

B-Man,
Your quotes are pretty straight forward. As for the SAT's, I have never taken them. I am not a college graduate, and I barely graduated highschool. If you believe this makes me a lesser person than you, so be it. However, your statements were simple enough for me to understand them, in my humble opinion, and I thought it worth my time to call you on them. I do not assume to be the most intelligent person in the world. As a matter of fact, im just an average joe. But I can tell the difference between farming or teaching, and people dying in combat.

[nicky g]

I don't beleive either of you seriously think this is a good article. You might like the fact that it supports your points of view, but part of you surely acknowledges that its arguments are deeply silly.

"We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims."

"a mob of grinning Muslims." I see. Not Iraqis, not insurgents, not Fallujans, but simply Muslims. Presumably we can now start referring to the soldiers in the torture pictures as "grinning Christians"?

"Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved?"

How about the Sri Lankan conflict, the Basque conflict, the Colombian civil war, or multiple Central African wars?

"Let’s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years. "

An absurd characterisation of the Crusades, partly for the reasons I stated previously. No serious historian would accept this as a reasonable characterisation.

"Ask England."

I live in England and I have no idea what he is taling about. There are Muslims here, yes... and? What exactly have Muslims done in England?

"There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims – some live here – but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers, the millions gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death. "

Er those gassed in the Middle East (presumably the Kurds) were largely also Muslims, fighting a secular dictarship. The first people to gas the Kurds were, er... the British. The only people who have blown hundreds of people up in the West Bank of late are Israelis. Someone please remind me when Muslims slaughtered tens of thousands of people in Eastern Europe? The slaughter in Falluja had very little to do with Islam and very much to do with massive resentment at occupation forces who had killed more than a dozen unarmed demonstrators on their arrival in Falluja and done arse all to help it.

He can publish all the pictures he wants as far as I care. I don't understand though B-Man how you can on the one hand criticise the display of the far less provocative Abu Ghraib photos while praising this guy's articles defending the display of the Falluja lynchings for the purpose of whipping up anti Muslim hysteria.

[trippin bily]

there isnt much of a story anyway. these are tried and true measures of hathering information from killers and rapist. which is who these prisoners are. why is the level of outrage on the beheading not equal to or more than the " mapplethorpe " pictures from this prison. i want the beheading shown as often as the prison photos. lets see some real outrage not just the willing accomplices in the press tryiung to help out the democrats.

[MMMMMM]

Excellent and informative piece.


"Mark Steyn: These guys want to kill us anyway

March 15, 2004

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

There are three responses to Commissioner Keelty:

1) Not necessarily.

In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s.

2) Commissioner Keelty could be right.

The question then is what does a nation have to do to avoid being targeted by the Islamists. Canada refused to take part in the war on Iraq, but whoever makes Osama's audio tapes these days still named the disinclined dominion as one of al-Qa'ida's enemies. Ireland did no more than allow American aircraft to continue their practice of refuelling at Shannon but that was enough for Robert Fisk to volunteer them for a list of potential Islamist targets.

Turkey refused to let the US attack Iraq from its territory, but they made the mistake of permitting the British to maintain consular and commercial ties, so a bunch of Muslims in Istanbul got slaughtered anyway. France was second to none in the creative energy and elegant deviousness they brought to the undermining of Bush and Blair vis a vis Iraq, and the only thanks they got was the detonation of their oil tanker off the coast of Yemen.

Maybe you could avoid all that by overthrowing the Bush poodles and installing John Pilger as prime minister. But I wouldn't advise it. Before he became a born-again Baathist urging on the Iraqi resistance, Pilger's big pet cause was independence for East Timor, which seemed like a smart move at the time but has since been cited by the Islamofascists as one of the reasons they blew up Bali.

And that brings me to the best response to the commissioner:

3) It makes no difference.

Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane.

That kind of finely calibrated terrorism – just enough slaughter to inconvenience the state into concessions – is all but over. Suppose you're an ETA cell. Suppose you were planning a car-bomb for next month – nothing fancy, just a dead Spanish official plus a couple of unlucky passers-by. Still want to go ahead with it? I doubt it. Despite Gerry Adams's attempts to distinguish between "unacceptable" terrorism and the supposedly more beneficial kind, these days it's a club with only one level of membership. That's why so many formerly active terrorist groups have been so quiet the past couple of years. In that sense, Bush is right: It is a "war on terror", and on many fronts it's being won.

If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.

Mark Steyn is a columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group and the Chicago Sun-Times."
The Australian: Article (http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5774,8966351%5e7583,00.html)

[superleeds]

B-Man
This is a bit more realistic

the crusades (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561210/Crusades.html)

[nicky g]

I din't say any of the things that you attribute to me. At the time of the Crusades, Islam was a much more tolerant religion than Christianity. The Muslim empires did not on the whole forcibly convert the populations of the areas they took over. Chrsitians on the other hand routinely expelled Jews and Muslims when they were put in charge. The Crusaders were out to expel all Muslims from the "Holy Land", and everywhere along the way.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
only democrats and the U N are not sure which is which

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do?

[trippin bily]

when is the last time you saw a story about the schools we have built and run? when is the last time you saw a story about the empowerment of woman in iraq? when is the last time you saw any positve story out of iraq? are there no positive stories at all? according to the press... no there is not.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, the article's main thrust is accurate even if it is a bit overblown and poorly documented. Also, it is true that by FAR the largest numbers of conflicts in the world involve Muslims vs. someone else, which was also true even before 9/11.

[MMMMMM]

You are correct, I was reading and posting in haste and made an error; you did not say that and I was "answering" the wrong thought. Apologies.

However my point remnains that Islam has always been intolerant and aggressive. If Christianity was more intolerant at the time of the Crusades, well so what? It is not inherently intolerant as Islam is, nor is it intolerant now. Islam however was intolerant from its inception and remains so today.

[nicky g]

"In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s."

This is not particularly relevant to what's happening today, but what happened in Spain was not simply "the end of Muslim rule". Spain had a large Muslim population, descendants of both Arab invaders, Arab immigrants and indigenous converts, that were forcibly expelled or converted. That's a bit different from the end of Muslim rule. See here: The Muslim expulsion from Spain (http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_4_52/ai_84804714)

[superleeds]

The article is a hate filled piece of crap. Replace Islamic fundamentalists etc with USA and Osama would be proud to have penned it himself

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a college graduate, and I barely graduated highschool. If you believe this makes me a lesser person than you, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the case at all, nor did I mean to imply that (if I did).

But I still don't know what your point was in the quotes you listed.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
the late Osama bin Laden

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know he was dead.

[MMMMMM]

Ok, I'll read the link, thanks for more specifics.

Anyway, the point that Osama bin-Laden cited 15th century Andalusia as one of his principal grievances, demonstrates the typical insanity of the radical Islamists' point of view.

[MMMMMM]

I noticed that too; any chance the word "late" has a broader meaning in AussieLand;-)?

[elwoodblues]

You are absolutely delusional if you don't see outrage about the beheading.

[ QUOTE ]
these are tried and true measures of hathering information from killers and rapist. which is who these prisoners are.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't know that these prisoners are killers and rapists. Some of them probably are, but part of the outrage is that there very well might be a large number of innocents imprisoned.

[elwoodblues]

Just as a follow-up --- I just went to CNN.com. One of the top headlines: "Taped beheading of American stirs outrage"

[nicky g]

Try also replacing it with "Jews". The author is completely blind to who is at fault or being pesecuted in any of these conflicts - he more or less says so. Many of the victims he cites (eg the West Bank, Eastern Europe, Kurds, Chechens) are in fact thenmselves Muslims, often being victimised by non-Muslims. His point seems to be that whether they're the victims or not, there must be something wrong with them because wherever they go they produce killings - even if they're the ones being killed! So presumably the fact that wherever there have been Jews there has been violence (pogroms, inquisitions, riots, pan-regional wars), regardless of who was at fault or the fact that Jews were almost always the victims rather than the perpetrators of the violence, shows something deeply wrong with Judaism? Now see what racist rubbish it is?

[trippin bily]

Yes.

[nicky g]

"Anyway, the point that Osama bin-Laden cited 15th century Andalusia as one of his principal grievances, demonstrates the typical insanity of the radical Islamists' point of view. "

I don't doubt that for a moment. Just making the point that Steyn's description of what happened wasn't accurate.

[elwoodblues]

Maybe you don't see that because it really isn't top news right now. The job of the press isn't to rally support for US operations in Iraq. I can envision a news room right now "let's see --- we can air a story about the prisoner abuse scandal, we can air a story about the beheading of a US citizen done (in part) as a response to the prisoner abuse, we can air a story about Al Sadr, or we can air a story about a school built and run in Iraq. I think it's clear which one we should go with. Mr. Rather, you're on the school story, run with it."

[trippin bily]

I didnt say i didnt see any outrage. my point is that the outrage over the prison photos is far more than that of the beheading. where are all the world leaders who, correctly, condemned the prison abuses. so far today, none.
we do know who the prisoners were. they were the worst of the worst. these people were not tortured. they were humiliated. thats the difference between good and evil. we neeeded information to save american and iraqi lives. we got it by NOT killing or torturing, even our intellegence gathering methods are humane. do you think our enemies are as tollerent?

[MMMMMM]

You simply have NO IDEA of the goals or beliefs of radical Islamists, do you?

Do you know that one of their principal goals is re-establishment of the Caliphate in an expanded Muslim empire?

How about the words of Islamist Imam Abu Hamza, in London: "it's okay to kill [those who] work against Islam, by slitting their throats, or by shooting them."

Such views are not the views of a few lunatics, but rather an entire worldwide movement of jihadists, radical Islamists, fundamental Muslims: and they can and do find wide support for their lunatic views in the Q'uran.

[nicky g]

"where are all the world leaders who, correctly, condemned the prison abuses. so far today, none. "

From my cursory news browsing today, Tony Blair and the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury have already condemned it. I'm sure many more have. But that's really beside the point. The people who did this are a small band of terrorists representing noone but themselves. Almost everyone is understood to explicity condemn it. The people in the Abu Ghraib scandal were soldiers acting on behalf of the coalition and the United States government. Of course people are going to be more vocal about such actions more than the actions of rogue terrorists, who have been denounced a hundred million times. If I go out into the street and kill someone, would you expect world leaders to stand up and condemn it? Of course not? If several on duty soldiers went out and did the same, would you? Don't you see a difference between thr actions of a nation's representatives and the actions of outlaws already being hunted down?

[MMMMMM]

That doesn't invalidate the central point which is that the followers of fundamental Islam are violent and expansionist, and that they is again threatening and attacking the West (as well as attacking those more moderate Muslims who don't put into practice fundamental Islam's absolutist views).

[trippin bily]

forget about now. have you EVER seen a positve story from iraq om abc, nbc, cbs etc.? heck these news morons run michael jackson going to court stories over the war. they will obviously go for ratings over anything. im not looking for the news to rally support for the war. i just want all the stories. not just the ones that make the U.S. bad.

[nicky g]

The problem is the author repeateddly extends his attacks beyond fundamentalists to people and situatuions that have little or nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Neither the Bosnian war nor the repression of the Kurds for example had the slightest relation to Islamic fundamentalism. His point seems to be that wherever there are Muslims, there's conflict; his target isn't fundamentalism but Muslims in general.

[elwoodblues]

Your original complaint was that you didn't see MEDIA outrage. Now your complaint is that you don't see WORLD LEADERS outrage after I pointed out examples of media outrage.

Seriously, the very first article I looked at mentioned outrage in the title and the very first paragraph says: "The beheading of U.S. hostage Nicholas Berg in Iraq, shown on videotape, has prompted outrage in the United States and Iraq, with one Iraqi official saying the 'psychopaths' responsible will face prompt judgment."

It goes on to say "British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the killing as 'a truly barbaric act.'"

Further "Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell said he was appalled at "the horrific and inhumane way" terrorists killed Berg."


What news are you looking at? I ask in all seriousness because that was literally the very first article I found when looking for media outrage.

[nicky g]

I would totally agree with that point, but I don't see that that is his point. See my post above.

[MMMMMM]

Well let's see how much outrage the beheading produces in the Arab world and the Arab press. Unless I miss my guess this will be more of the same double-standard bullsh!t.

[MMMMMM]

Where is the Arab outrage at this act of inhuman savagery?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You simply have NO IDEA of the goals or beliefs of radical Islamists, do you

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the problems is that MANY people who posit opinions on the matter often fail to make the crucial distinction betwen "radical Islamists" and the vast majority of rational muslims.

[elwoodblues]

THE VERY FIRST F*CKING QUOTE WAS FROM AN IRAQI OFFICIAL!!!

[nicky g]

I agree that Arab governments are largely hypocrites with double standards. Arab governments and the Arab press, which is largely controlled by those governments, do not largely speak for Arabs in general.

[MMMMMM]

Well Islam in general is a threat to all other religions and persons, so I don't see that his target is much off base.

[elwoodblues]

I just did a quick domestic news search for any 2004 articles that have Iraq and school in the title --- 124 articles.

I think you are probably watching the news and remembering only the things that make you angry (either that or you aren't watching the news at all).

[trippin bily]

thanks tony blair for standing by us again. ok thats one. where are all the muslim leaders?
theses people dont represent themselves they represent the muslim beliefs.
you have it backwards. the guards were not acting on behalf of the coalition or the us. it was the actions of a few. supported by no one. the actions of the terrorist are supported by many. some in the us congrees and senate.
many who say the beheading was the fault of the us.
you have made my point.

[Gamblor]

a mob of grinning Muslims." I see. Not Iraqis, not insurgents, not Fallujans, but simply Muslims. Presumably we can now start referring to the soldiers in the torture pictures as "grinning Christians"?

They refer to themselves as "Muslims". Not insurgents, Fallujans, but Muslims. Iraqi Muslims I'll give you.

But their ideology is based on Islam, not on the Mayor of Fallujah's teachings. Ask 'em if you'd like.

Their demand is that Islam reign supreme.

Not Saddam, but Islam. Nor does it mean these wastes of oxygen are representative of all Muslims. But they wish they were.

[MMMMMM]

Ok, Elwood, fair point--but the problem is that radical Islamists are widespread and numerous enough to constitute a grave threat to everyone else. Also, moderate Muslims do not speak out enough against them or act against them enough--in part due to fear, in part due to exhortations from imams backed by scriptural quotes, in part due to a general feeling of resentment against the West.

Also, the views of "radical" Islamists are actually far more in keeping with the Q'uran than the views of more "moderate" Muslims. As Ibn Warraq wrote, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate". So in the final analysis, Islam itself is a threat and is incompatible with everything else.

[nicky g]

Who? The Fallujan mob that killed the contractors? I wasn't aware it had begun to make public statements.

"Nor does it mean these wastes of oxygen are representative of all Muslims."

Describing them simply as "grinning Muslims" makes it seem like they are.

[MMMMMM]

^

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
you have it backwards. the guards were not acting on behalf of the coalition or the us. it was the actions of a few. supported by no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how? Top story on drudge right now entitled: I WAS TOLD TO STAND THERE AND HOLD THE LEASH


[ QUOTE ]
where are all the muslim leaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned earlier, the VERY FIRST ARTICLE I READ says:
"one Iraqi official saying the "psychopaths" responsible will face prompt judgment. "

Seriously, I am honestly curious about where you get your news.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, throughout history, mobs of "grinning Muslims" have inded butchered infidels. It is going on today in some parts of Africa and the Far East. Imams tell them that the life of non-believers have no sanctity, so it is OK to kill them (in fact I think that is nearly the exact quote from one of those two radical imams in London).

Sure it sounds crude and racist but it is not nearly as crude and racist as what those Muslim mobs are doing, and have been doing for ages...in the name of Allah.

[nicky g]

"you have it backwards. the guards were not acting on behalf of the coalition or the us. it was the actions of a few. supported by no one. "

If this is true, it is all the more vital that the government vocally condemn the actions to disassociate themselves from it.

[trippin bily]

again my point is that the outrage for the prison photos far outways that of the beheading. if i said MEDIA it wasnt meant as only the media. perhaps my personnel outrage at the killing is affecting my communication skills.
this killing reminds us of the difference between us and them. good versus evil. yes. im quite sure which side we are on.

[MMMMMM]

Yeah...how about the other Arab countries and presses?

OF COURSE an Iraqi official--probably handpicked--would express outrage now that the US is in control. I want to hear outrage from Al-Jazeera, and other more distant Arabs--think we'll hear much?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
You simply have NO IDEA of the goals or beliefs of radical Islamists, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an idea, yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know that one of their principal goals is re-establishment of the Caliphate in an expanded Muslim empire?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
How about the words of Islamist Imam Abu Hamza, in London: "it's okay to kill [those who] work against Islam, by slitting their throats, or by shooting them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean they don't all live in caves hiding out.

[ QUOTE ]
Such views are not the views of a few lunatics, but rather an entire worldwide movement of jihadists, radical Islamists, fundamental Muslims: and they can and do find wide support for their lunatic views in the Q'uran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. This is exactly the view of a few lunatics. There is a simple 3 letter word why the middle east is so important to western countries. And it's not God. It is why the views of a few lunatics are heard as loudly as they are.

If you could shift this stuff west a 1,000 miles the middle east would be ignored and we would all be arguing over Africa, because believe it or not, it has just as many lunatics as the rest of the world. It just doesn't have anything the western world considers desirable and therefore is basically invisible.

[nicky g]

"Nicky, throughout history, mobs of "grinning Muslims" have inded butchered infidels. It is going on today in some parts of Africa and the Far East."

And so have Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and a whole bunch of others.

[Gamblor]

It absolutely was accurate, if incomplete.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, it is not the same. For one thing, it is going on TODAY. For another, Q'uranic scripture clearly supports it. Thirdly, many imams today support it in sermons backed by Q'uranic quotes.

[trippin bily]

elwood low level iraqi officials you cant even name. where are the presidents, dictators of all the islamic countries
that lined up to demand the us apoligize. youve named tony blair and an unnamed iraqi official. iraq diesnt even have a friggin govern\ment for god sakes!
i can search for anything and find something about it. my question was how many positive stories have you SEEN not searched for. apparently the answer is none since you cant mention any.

[nicky g]

The English al-Jazeera site has a story describing the murder as horrific. It also by the way has a headline about Muslims carrying out revenge attacks on Christians in Nigeria.

"Witnesses to the day's violence saw rioters stopping vehicles and selecting non-Muslims to be killed."

There is always going to be more condemnation of something done by the people in charge of the country (who started a war for that privilege) with thousands of people in capitivity under their control, than by a handful of people not in charge of the country and not representative of anybody but themselves with a handful of people in captivity under their control.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
if i said MEDIA it wasnt meant as only the media

[/ QUOTE ]

In the future, when you use the word media you should clarify whether you mean media or world leaders or the general population /images/graemlins/grin.gif. I can understand your personal outrage and I have heard nobody who expressed an opinion on the matter not share the same outrage.

[ QUOTE ]
this killing reminds us of the difference between us and them

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on who the "them" is.

If the killing reminds us of the difference between us and them then what does the treatment of Iraqi prisoners tell us? The answer to that question is part of the reason why there is "more" outrage expressed over the prisoner situation.

[nicky g]

No it was inaccurate. The Andalusina tragedy was not as Steyn describes the end of Moorish rule, but the forcible conversions and expulsions of hundreds of thousands of people.

I have a train to catch.

[elwoodblues]

AGAIN, you didn't read the article. The first paragraph doesn't name him. He is later identified by name and title.

[ QUOTE ]
low level iraqi officials

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are the current high level iraqi officials? Because of our military presence right now, wouldn't the be GWB --- incidentally, he has come out against it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It also by the way has a headline about Muslims carrying out revenge attacks on Christians in Nigeria.

"Witnesses to the day's violence saw rioters stopping vehicles and selecting non-Muslims to be killed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Subhuman killers, just as I said.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never praised wanton revenge murders upon innocents, which is precisely what these murderers did with the beheading. They even said that it was for "revenge" (by the way, how stupid does someone have to be to think that killing an innocent person is in any way a form of revenge? Revenge is against those who have wronged you, not against some bystander).

At any rate this is another lie by Alger since I have certainly never praised any such atrocities by anyone or any side.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you have, you do it all the time and to a much greater degree than the average jihadist lunatic. You simply use arbitrary, meaningless words to avoid responsibility by labelling your victims "collateral" or "accidental" while insisting (just like the average jihadist lunatic) that your motives are purely defensive. Therefore, using a formula that arbitrarily defines away moral responsibility for the category of killing you support, the greater number of innocent deaths that you are responsible for is 100% excusable and justified, while "their" much lower death rate makes them "subhumans."

The Americans and Israelis who send bombs and shells into streets and apartments, however, don't do so accidentally or without intention, even when they're not trying to kill civilians (a practice which your pretend against all evidence never happens, apart from irrelevant "bad apples"). In all cases, they pull triggers with as much volition as the guy with the decapitation sword. Nor do they have any illusions about avoiding the deaths of innocents. Their actions aren't accidental or unintended, they're based on a cold calculation that killing innocent people is a price worth paying to pursue their agenda, just like the "terrorists" they purport to target.

The only difference between you and those that support suicide bombers is that the latter are honest about it: they admit to supporting murder as a necessary price for their political goals (in Berg's case, the release of prisoners). You contend that mass killing by your own side is purely accidental, a series of unlucky coincidences that bears little or no relation on the morality of the enterprise.

The difference is that your side is much deadlier and dangerous. Bush, for example, is responsible for 4-5 times as many dead civilians as were killed on 9-11, but you praise Bush while calling bin Laden a subhuman monster. In fact, based on your calls for war with Iran, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia and Syria it appears that Bush is unsufficiently bloodthirsty for your taste.

As for the difference between motives of "revenge" and motives of simple "winning," this distinction is something you just made up. Most military operations -- like ours in Faluja now or any of Israel's "retalliatory" strikes (like the one two days ago where a helicopter murdered a man while working on his car) -- have elements of revenge, and most "revenge" killings, like Berg's and those of the Palestinian terrorists, have some military or political excuse to go with them.

In short, you define away "our" mass murder by using official statements of sorrow as proof of no intention to hurt anyone. You point to the relish over premediated murders of the "other" side as proof of subhumanity. In this way, you applaud or excuse high-volume murder in Iraq, Vietnam and Central America while concentrating your hatred -- which you use to justify ever greater amounts of killing -- on the relatively small-scale atrocities by those on the other side.

[Gamblor]

Describing them simply as "grinning Muslims" makes it seem like they are.

Just as describing

- Israeli operations in Gaza to destroy mortar factories and arrest terrorists as "occupation",
- People who choose (not a word that comes up much in the Arab world) to live in cities their parents/ancestors were forced to abandon due to Arab riots 75 years ago or Babylonian exile 2500 years ago as "settlers",
- Land that belonged to no sovereign nation until Israel claimed it as "occupied"
- the building of a chainlink fence (only a few kilometers in sniper heavy area as concrete wall) to prevent terrorists from more indiscriminate murder as an "Apartheid wall"

makes it seen like the Israeli government is guilty of violating international law.

And even if it is? Israel is a vitrually transparent (if slightly flawed to the same extent as Canada) democracy. If international law were more important than the safety of its citizens, the voters can decide that, not the international community. But something tells me the continued aid of the United States - whose government, whether Democratic or Republican - tells the world which side is really more interested in a peaceful resolution.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
OF COURSE an Iraqi official--probably handpicked--would express outrage now that the US is in control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your not suggesting the US are co-ercing the Iraqi people are you. I thought they were freeing Iraq for Iraqi's.

[nicky g]

The perpatrators of that atrocity are something along those lines. Most Muslims are as good and bad as most other people. You might be interested to know that those attacks came following attacks by Christians that left dozens of Muslims dead. Are Christians subhuman killers? Anyway my point was that alJazeera does not ignore atorcities carried out by Muslims. It carried that story, which has in fact been largely ignored by the rest of the world media.

[nicky g]

For f sake. Do you have to turn everythinhg back to Israel? The equivalent in this case would be blaming the atrocities of the occupation on "grining Jews". Can we save the occupation for another thread.

[MMMMMM]

Utter bullsh!t.

So you are arguing that because I refer to some deaths in battle zones as "collateral", that I am praising pure revenge killings?

You are also invoking, in attempt to obfuscate, a far more complicated scenario than the obviously pure and misdirected "revenge killings".

In point of fact, I have condemned any and all deliberate Israeli killings of civilians where it was a deliberately wanton act by the soldier. I have no idea how many of these might have taken place, though I would guess a few have (it is difficult to sort through your posted stats to this end, because you repeatedly lump things together and only provide stats of things like "net Palestinian civilians killed").

I have referred to any such deliberately murderous soldiers (hopefully few) as "bad apples"--if the circumstances are pure enough, such soldiers could be referred to as "subhuman, spiritually speaking" as well. But don't pull the grander picture into it and try to claim that my support for going after specific terrorists is equivalent to depraved murder because of sometimes unavoidable collateral damage.

Further, I never "praised" any murders of innocents by Israeli soldiers, nor did I cheer any collateral damage. You are lying to say I did, and IMO that makes you a rather reprehensible person.

Your claim that I "praised" pure murders of innocents by Israelis is patently false. I have condemned such murders where they may have taken place, and what's more, you know it. You are deliberately lying for smear pourposes. That is your greatest offense; the second is obfuscating to try to win an argument (which is pretty much par for the course for you, but no matter to that). The greatest injury is that you claim I "praised" wanton murders of innocents, when in fact I have condemned them even on the Israeli side when and where they may have existed. Nor, by the way, do I "praise" collateral damage: I just view it as an unfotunate reality that sometimes regretfully occurs when terrporists take refuge amongst civilians.

I do not share your views or analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That does not make me in favor or "praise" of wanton murders or revenge killings, however.

I think you know this intellectually but do not accept it otherwise. But it is true: anyone disagreeing with your views on that conflict is not automatically praising murder, or supporting fascism or anything else you might care to suggest. It simply means they don't see the conflict in the same light you do.

If and when you decide to discuss things without lying and without false smearing personal attacks, let me know. Until then, your false accusations are quite reprehensible.

[MMMMMM]

If those Christians you cite killed in similar manner for similar reasons as that Muslim mob which was hauling poeople out of cars to be killed, then they too are subhuman (spiritually speaking). I thought I made clear near the start of this thread that the subhuman designation is a spiritual category which extends across any race or creed, and hinges upon the fact that some people possess no capacity for empathy but instead possess a significant capacity for cruelty.

[MMMMMM]

No I am not suggesting that.

[Gamblor]

The difference between you and me, is that you see this and start to whine and complain about whatever it is you can possibly blame for the death of an American - in this case, it's GWB.

Me, I get angry. And this doesn't make me happy, nor does it validate my anger, because I've known this anger for so long it doesn't suprise me anymore. Neither that nor the people who believe the solution to everything is killing.

You're the man.

[Rushmore]

Although I am clearly "clueless" (note the lack of a flag flying in my propfile), I feel it necessary to point out that I, ahem, agree with you on one of the major points that you make. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
But most importantly, just like the Palestinian Arabs, they take advantage of the fact that Americans and Israelis are forced to fight fair by their own public. Since the Islamists can tell their own whatever they want them to believe (because the faith of their masses is based on religion, and thus whatever their Sheik tells them to believe is suddenly truth), they can justify any and every action to their people. Including the decapitation of an innocent, or the parading of a settler's head through the streets of Gaza City.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is well stated. It seems this should be obvious to folks, but it seems not to be. The terror apologists manage to miss all of this.

It would be disingenuous for a reasonable human being to say, for instance, that he did not understand the notion that an oppressed people with no army and no real means of self-defense might resort to "terrorism."

It would be further disingenuous to stop the thought process there to serve one's own agenda. The remainder of the process includes making mention of civilized humans not attacking innocents, hacking off heads, etc., particularly in the interests of ostensibly furthering their particular God's agenda.

So, no, I am not clueless. We just do not agree that all seeming democracies are responsible for all others. Most notably, I disagree with you that Israel=America.

but that's OK, our disagreeing. Right?

[nicky g]

OK, sorry. I misunderstood your "like I say" post.

[trippin bily]

elwood as i look back on it i mean media and world leaders are not expressing the outrage on the beheading to the level of the prison photos. people like you think the photos are worse. i happen to think the murder of mr. berg is far greater than taking a picture of a naked PRISONER. in that prison for killing, raping etc.here are people that killed americans and iraqis and the worst we do is take a picture.
that is the difference between us and them.
as for media not giving equal treatment i have some info for you

[nicky g]

"Nicky, it is not the same. For one thing, it is going on TODAY."

Well to be fair, you were the one who introduced the concept of "throughout history". Throughout history, at least as many crimes have been committed, peopel killedm, in the name of Christianity as in Islam. Far far more IMO.

As for today, Hindu massacres of Muslims, Rwandan priests praising the slaughter of Hutus etc lead me to believe that all religions have their bad elements. The Koran, like most religious texts, is ambiguous and contradcitroy on such things. For example, it clearly states there is no compulsion in religion, as well as verses that would seem to suggest the opposite.

[nicky g]

PS many of you are going to find this rather absurd, but Hizbollah has condemned the murder of Daniel Berg. Probably not the condemnation you were looking for.

[Gamblor]

Although I am clearly "clueless" (note the lack of a flag flying in my propfile),

Clueless was my misunderstanding of your point that Israel and America are not one and the same - I was referring to their view, whereas you were referring to "ours". My mistake.

It would be disingenuous for a reasonable human being to say, for instance, that he did not understand the notion that an oppressed people with no army and no real means of self-defense might resort to "terrorism."

I don't say the Arabs of the Territories aren't oppressed. The question is why are the oppressed, and by whom? It is plainly obvious that they were first oppressed by the various Arab nations that attacked Israel from 1948 on. Then they were oppressed by the PLO's gang of thugs. Then, they were oppressed minimally by Israel, and only in an effort to quell the terrorist uprising of the first intifada (both against the PLO and the PLO's scapegoat, Israel) and protect Jewish returnees to the towns in the Territories they left in 1948. The PA's total domination of all media of information has directed that anger towards Israel, and more specifically, Jews (not the same). Much has been made of the demonization of Jews (not Israelis) in the media. What most don't know is that it started long before 1948.

We just do not agree that all seeming democracies are responsible for all others. Most notably, I disagree with you that Israel=America.

Democracies are responsible for the welfare of others? I couldn't even begin to decide on an answer to that. So many points against, so many for. I think the more we lean towards "for", the closer we become to the great Pan-Arab continent. I don't believe America is responsible to protect Britain from terrorism any more than I believe they should station troops in Gaza. But when you enter into accord with another State for mutual benefit, well... I think America can trust Israel much more so than the reverse. I think the US would sell Israel out in a second if it fit a policy of UN appeasement, while there is no party in the Israeli system that advocates severing ties with the US, despite the US insistence on informing Israel how she will make peace. But that's only my opinion.

I, personally, have no particular love for America or Americans. I like the stuff they make, because they're really good at making stuff (cars and electronics, maybe not so much). No, Israel doesn't equal America. But to an Islamist Arab, they are one and the same.

[Gamblor]

all religions have their bad elements.

100% true. The Kahanists are a perfect example, as is Yigal Amir. I don't disagree with his politics, I disagree with his rationale and actions. Premeditated killing is still murder. But what most don't know is that Rabin was a miserable failure as a leader and sold out his country after promising he would not.

Now that we understand all religions - just like pretty much any grouping one could possibly make of a population of human beings - have bad elements, the only question is:

How prevalent are those elements?

Have they permeated the mainstream i.e. is the violent phenomenon a result of
a) power struggle between leaders of opposing religions
b) the deliberate indoctrination of the mainstream population to hate anyone that isn't "us"?

Modern Islamic Arab answer: b).

[Gamblor]

I noticed. They can't afford to be marginalized any more.

The Hezballah has slowed down recently, and have avoided confrontation with IDF soldiers since the withdrawal from Lebanon - in fact, recent political analysis in Israel suggests they are distancing themselves from the groups in the Territories and are focusing on the Sheba'a Farms area, containing Kiryat Shmona and Metulla (home of the only full size hockey rink in Israel - the Canada Centre).

(RANT)

It's beautiful up there - the Good Fence in Metulla, the major border crossing between Israel and Lebanon, is a place where Lebanese and Israeli farmers used to share produce and go to each others' markets. All that ended with the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War between the Christians and Muslims. Now, you look down into the valley and see one massive house with beautiful gardens and trees, and a bunch of little stone huts surrounding it in the midst of rocky desert.

IMO, that's where the real problems lie. In the Arab world, one man holds power (and the running water) while the rest live in poverty. From Ramallah to Gaza to Akko to Baghdad, that's why they hate Israel, that's why they hate America. Cause they don't learn anything else, and they have to be mad at someone for their poverty. And who else to blame but the Jews?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are arguing that because I refer to some deaths in battle zones as "collateral", that I am praising pure revenge killings?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, read the post: you arbitraily define the other side's murder as "pure revenge," "pure murders" and "deliberately wanton" while dismissing far greater death and destruction by the sides you support as "collateral" and "unintended." This is the way you support mass killing and all sorts of horror while condemning relatively small scale acts by others.

To take it to an extreme degree, if the U.S. killed a million or even a billion civilians to accomplish its worthy political goals, you'd defend such killing as regretable but necessary to accomplish some higher end. What those ends might be makes little difference to you: the President and his propagandists would say its worthwhile and you'd swallow it whole.

If terrorists emerging among the targets of U.S. violence killed a handful of civilians to deter such mass killing, you'd argue that they are depraved subhumans with no regard for life.

The only real difference, however, is that you support wholsale killing while calling it "unavoidable collateral damage." You rant and rave about retail terror as sick and subhuman. (And then you elsewhere admit that the "unavoidable" part is just made up, and that you really support elective warfare if you think the political situation will be improved.) Its a transparent psychological trick to cleanse your conscience of all the suffereing you're responsible for. It's what terrorists do.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Koran, like most religious texts, is ambiguous and contradcitroy on such things. For example, it clearly states there is no compulsion in religion, as well as verses that would seem to suggest the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

That example is not contradictory when one realizes that Islam offers the infidel three choices: 1) to convert, or 2) to be subjugated under Islam while maintaining one's own faith (dhimmi, Jews or Christians living under Islamic rule), or 3) to be killed. So there is no compulsion to become a Muslim or be killed as long as one accepts the supremacy of Islamic rule over all. Which, of course, is precisely the problem: that literal Islam insists on being granted preeminent status and rule, (and that basis for such authority comes directly from God).

[MMMMMM]

Sorry, Chris, but your portrayal does not hold up to objective analysis.

You are effectively claiming that because I do not share your views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that I support unwarranted mass murder. You are equating the beheading of Berg with actions of the IDF, and then further claiming that anyone who does not share your assessment of IDF actions is supporting equivalent (or even worse) terror. But the subject of IDF actions is quite debatable. You are acting and arguing as if it is not, and impugning motives of others based on how divergent from your own views their views happen to be.

There is no question that the beheading of Berg was a base, wanton murder. If IDF soldiers deliberately shoot unarmed, unthreatening Palestinian civilians, that too would be base and wanton murder and that which I would condemn. But the question of deaths resulting from less clear circumstances is not nearly so clear-cut; the disposition of that argument is not resolved between us; hence you cannot fairly use it as you are trying to do in this example.

I repeat, the fact that people disagree with your assessment of IDF collateral damage when attempting to deal with known terrorist targets, is NOT the same as support of clear-cut wanton premeditated cold-blooded premeditated murder of innocent(s).

Further, I regret that the IDF inflicts any collateral damage at all, although some is unavoidable in my estimation. However, notice that I said I REGRET that it occurs. That is a far cry from PRAISING collateral damage. And I certainly never claimed that any purely wanton murders by the IDF are praiseworthy--as you falsely impute.

Chris, you are truly wrong and very out of line on this one. Sincerely, M

[nicky g]

"Then they were oppressed by the PLO's gang of thugs. Then, they were oppressed minimally by Israel, and only in an effort to quell the terrorist uprising of the first intifada"

I can't agre with such a description as minimal. For a start Israel had no business occupying the territories; ruling over millions of people without giving them any say or any right to citizenship of any state. Secondly, for years the first intifada consisted almost entirely of at the most stone throwing by one side, and assaults, indefinite detentions without trial and murder by the other.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"But the subject of IDF actions is quite debatable"
"the question of deaths resulting from less clear circumstances is not nearly so clear-cut"

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that you have any idea what a damning admission this is. You are merely adopting the pretense of "debate" in order to use your purported ignorance of the evidence to justify supporting one set of terrorists over the other.

You think that whether Israel murders civilians is debatable? Then debate the following from AI (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150882003?open&of=ENG-ISR) on 9/23/03 concerning Israel and the Palestinians: "The vast majority of those killed and injured on both sides have been unarmed civilians and bystanders. Both sides have knowingly targeted civilians and shown utter disregard for the most basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law. While claiming that it seeks to avoid harming the Palestinian population the Israeli army tanks and aircraft continue to shell densely populated Palestinian refugee camps and residential areas, knowing that such reckless fire will cause heavy civilian casualties."

Unless you have a lot of facts off the top of your head that show how AI is lying, you must admit: I'm unfamiliar with the evidence of Israeli murder, therefore I presume it is subject to legitimate dispute. Since I'm too lazy to investigate, I can act just as I would if these crimes didn't occur (while insisting that if I knew they occured I'd oppose them). This way, I can continue to support policies that kill more civilians than terrorists kill while condemning the latter as depraved subhumans.

Your position is no better than someone who supplies bombs to terrorists but avoids the mass media (or otherwise learning the facts of their use) in order to say: <ul type="square"> "My clients and their friends tell me they're used on civilians only in conjunction with legitimate military targets or when absolutely necessary. I choose to believe them. If killing civilians wasn't necessary or collateral I wouldn't do it, and to the extent they aren't I regret it. But since I don't know what the facts are, I'll continue to supply them and support their users until I learn otherwise. In the meantime, there's no call to label me a "supporter" of "mass murder" because obviously there's a dispute. Even if I'm on the wrong side of it, I can be condmened, at most, for mere ignorance." [/list] Here's my position: I won't support killing unless those doing it have proven to me that it's justified as a last resort beyond any reasonable doubt. If they lie to me, I'll ignore anything they say that isn't obvious or independently corroborated. If they get caught targeting civilians or eschewing non-violent means of resolving the conflict, I'll refuse to support them until they have proven that they changed their ways, including the prosecution of those responsible for crimes.

You are arguing, in essence, that the positon of the bomb-seller is no worse (and perhaps better) than the skeptical refusnik position I take. By any standard, your position is morally bankrupt.

[MMMMMM]

"But the subject of IDF actions is quite debatable"
"the question of deaths resulting from less clear circumstances is not nearly so clear-cut"quote]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that you have any idea what a damning admission this is. You are merely adopting the pretense of "debate" in order to use your purported ignorance of the evidence to justify supporting one set of terrorists over the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, this thread was not even about the IDF actions: it was about the beheading of Berg, and the executioners. I condemned their cruelty and lack of empathy, and said that spiritually speaking, they are subhuman as are also any persons in the world who completely lack empathy and possess great cruelty. You changed the tack by saying that I praise the equivalent of wanton murder. But I don't! If any IDF soldiers engage in pure wanton murders of innocents, I condemn it. And I don't "praise" collateral damage either--I regret that it occurs in war or in any conflict.

[ QUOTE ]
You think that whether Israel murders civilians is debatable? Then debate the following from AI on 9/23/03 concerning Israel and the Palestinians: "The vast majority of those killed and injured on both sides have been unarmed civilians and bystanders. Both sides have knowingly targeted civilians and shown utter disregard for the most basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law. While claiming that it seeks to avoid harming the Palestinian population the Israeli army tanks and aircraft continue to shell densely populated Palestinian refugee camps and residential areas, knowing that such reckless fire will cause heavy civilian casualties."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but that which you cite above proves little. The fact that more Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians have been killed is due to myriad factors, not the least of which is that the IDF manages to prevent most attempted attacks. Condemnations of larger scale assaults may depend on the circumstances, but one simply can't make blanket statements like that and expect them to be accurate. We've been over this ground before. Just because you and I don't reach a meeting of minds does not mean I praise wanton murder.

&lt;snip rest of unsupportable conclusions about my position&gt;

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing, in essence, that the positon of the bomb-seller is no worse (and perhaps better) than the skeptical refusnik position I take. By any standard, your position is morally bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your chain of reasoning is not soundly linked and you are expanding this debate and thread far beyond its original scope, and using far-reached unsupportable conclusions to draw inferences about my position. I repeat for the third time in this thread: any human who engages in wanton murder and lacks the capacity for empathy and deliberately inflicts cruelty, is spiritually subhuman. That goes for any race or creed or type of human being. What the executioners of Berg did was subhuman. If any IDF soldiers deliberately shoot civilians who are clearly unarmed and unthreatening, that is a pretty close equivalent. But collateral damage from attempts to kill terrorist leaders who in turn have been responsible for many Israeli deaths, is simply not the same thing. And because we disagree on that aspect of the conflict does not justify your far-reaching conclusions about my position.

Further, overall preference of the Israeli side over the Palestinian side of this conflict does not justify your conclusions about my position. And it in no way equates to the support or praise of raw wanton murder such as carried out by Berg's murderers. To you, this seems no distinction; but to a more discerning mind, there are differences. I suspect you will never be able to see those differences, however.

I don't know how much simpler I can put it. If you still don't comprehend the invalidity of some of your conclusions, it is probably because you do not have the mental capacity to envision sets and subsets and moderately complex relationships without things getting fairly hazy. Well I'm afraid I can't help you with that. But rest assured: your conclusions about my position are unjustified; and also that there is a difference between praising wanton murder, and having a preference for one side over the other in a bloody, ongoing conflict. A does not equal B, but in Chris Alger's world, anyone who thinks that A does not equal B and prefers the Israeli side over the Palestinian side is guilty of A. Not too surprising coming from a warped mind, I suppose.

[elwoodblues]

I don't think the photos are worse. However, I expect more out of our soldiers than out of the terrorists. What outrages me about the photos is that the acts of a few morons might negatively change the perception of US soldiers as a whole. The prisoner photos have a FAR GREATER negative consequence than the killing of Berg (as tragic as that may be).

[elwoodblues]

I don't know if I made myself clear in my earlier post and wanted to clarify.

The act committed against Berg is much worse than the act(s) portrayed in the prisoner photos.

The negative consequences of the act committed against Berg are much less significant than the act(s) portrayed in the prisoner photos.

[krazyace5]

Which is ludicrous, the prison photos were tame in comparison, and if that is the worst they are treating the prisoners to get information out of them, the world should be glad. You would think the US was the ones doing the beheading!

Although I do think these soldiers must be a bit whacked for wanting souveniers such as these photos. Other than that, if they are getting needed info, so be it.

[Cyrus]

"I, personally, have no particular love for America or Americans. I like the stuff they make, because they're really good at making stuff."

Pray tell, what is it that you dislike about America and, especially, about Americans?

This should be fascinating.

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
I, personally, have no particular love for America or Americans. I like the stuff they make, because they're really good at making stuff (cars and electronics, maybe not so much). No, Israel doesn't equal America. But to an Islamist Arab, they are one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you got major issues.

[nicky g]

What happened to Berg is worse than what happened in the photos we have seen. But what happened in the photos is not the entire story. The photos don't depict the murder of at least two prisoners, what have been described as routine beatings, severe humiliations, deprivation of clothing, warmth and food, alleged rapes, setting dogs om prisoners, using live ammunition on prisoners in situations the military themselves, said could have been resolved without killing, taking the gerneal attitude that their lives are worthless and a range of other abuses that the Red Cross says did not just occur at Abu Ghraib but across the entire military prison system in Iraq (over a dozen jails), not to mention a policy of detaining thousands of people for months at a time without charging them with a crime never mind trying them for anything, detaining family members of suspects when the suspects themselves were unavailable, moving prisoners around to hide them from the Red Cross, refusing to tell prisoners' families the status or whereabouts of their lvoed ones and generally going out of the way to humiliate and infuriate the Iraqi population. Those things in combination, carried out by the people in charge of Iraq and with direct control over thousands of prisoners, are far more serious than a single murder, horrendous as that murder is, and the quest for information does not remotely justify them.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You changed the tack by saying that I praise the equivalent of wanton murder. But I don't! If any IDF soldiers engage in pure wanton murders of innocents, I condemn it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your odd way of phrasing betrays an utter lack of concern for the subject. Unless the reality of the IDF's conduct is incapable of objective proof, feigning the existence of a contingency makes your protests reagarding my accusation of moral incoherence and inconsistency nonsensical. What would you think of the moral pronouncements of someone who said "if suicide bombings occur, I condemn them"? What about: I condemn the holocaust, if it occurred?" How much would you pay to hear a lecture about "spritual subhumans" from someone who talked like this?

To take another example, imagine some Arabic official or propagandist condmening the "subhuman" behavior of the IDF while remaining silent regarding his own government's material support for terrorists. Pretend further that instead of losing his livelihood or liberty, he can freely criticize state policy. When asked about the terror his government supports, however, he offers only this reply: "if it happens, I condmen it." Implicit in that statement is the following: "I don't know about such terror, don't care to find out. I refuse to take a real position but selectively condemn terror according to the convenience of my government."

Who could trust the moral denunciations of someone like that? In other words, who could trust someone like you?

"If" your country and the administration you support is aiding and abetting IDF murder, then they are supporting, as you say, "a pretty close equivalent" to Berg's subhuman killers. "If" that is true, then your condemnations of "subhumans" are worthless, because it would mean that you choose to remain silent with regard to "a pretty close equivalent" when it emanates from sources over which you have some control and influence.

[ACPlayer]

What happened to Berg is worse than what happened in the photos we have seen

Taken as an incident and comparing it to other incidents sure this is correct. However, at one level I dont agree.

Basically, I prefer to hold our behaviour to a higher standard than the behaviour of the Terrorists. I expect the terrorists to execute prisoners and set off suicide bombs. I expect them to scoff at the international conventions and go about with their mayhem.

On the other hand, I expect people represesenting me and other Americans to achieve a higher standard. I believe that the treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo, the treatment of Islamic citizens and lawful residents by the various local and federal authorities following 9/11, the ill considered reasons and planning to invade Iraq, the turning over prisoners to the Army authorities without proper supervision, the continued presence of MG Miller as the headof the Gharib prisons, as all trends in the decay of our own moral standings. Once we lose our honor and morality we are nothing but terrorists and our chances of coming out victorious in the long run are ruined. We will be victorious only if we rise above the behaviours without condoning the behaviour of our enemies.

So, given the above, I am far more shocked and concerned about our behaviours than the Berg killings.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I, personally, have no particular love for America or Americans. I like the stuff they make, because they're really good at making stuff (cars and electronics, maybe not so much). No, Israel doesn't equal America. But to an Islamist Arab, they are one and the same

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously man...what stuff that we make do you like?

[ACPlayer]

. The Kahanists are a perfect example, as is Yigal Amir

Zionists? Sharonists? You forget them in the listing.

Oh,but I forget, you have a hard time looking at your own behaviour with anything but rose colored lenses.

[Gamblor]

Mostly food.

If you'd ever been to a Burger Ranch in Israel you'd understand why American restaurant chains took the country by storm.

Pretty much every major department store in the States has a branch here.

[Gamblor]

For a start Israel had no business occupying the territories;

Considering Jordan held the territories, then denounced their ownership after '67 (leaving them up for grabs), I'd

ruling over millions of people without giving them any say or any right to citizenship of any state.

Israel had no intention of ruling over them, and never wanted to. The "West Bank" is not a contiguous parcel of land, nor is it contiguously populated. Yes, there are Arab-dominant cities there, but for the most part, Israel tried to avoid them by building bypass roads. It's not like a map, where the West Bank is gray and everything else is pink. There is no phsyical border between the West Bank and Israel was eliminated in 1967 by the Jordan/Israeli cease-fire line, which essentially ran through the Dead Sea. If the Palestinians wanted any territory for their own, they had to negotiate and make peace. Every time, Arafat has either walked away from negotiations, or did not live up to their half (mainly involving terrorism).

The proximity of those Arab towns is what makes the negotiations so difficult. Kalkilya is about 15 km from Tel Aviv. Suppose there is an agreement, and the border is established along the Green Line. Now, Arab states, out of the blue, decide they'd once again like to wipe the "Zionist entity" off the map, and considering Jordan used West Bank towns as launch pads for attacks in '67, I don't think it's proper for Israel to take such a risk at this point.

Secondly, for years the first intifada consisted almost entirely of at the most stone throwing by one side, and assaults, indefinite detentions without trial and murder by the other.

That has no bearing on why they are oppressed and I'll thank you to avoid the rhetoric.

[Gamblor]

Pray tell, what is it that you dislike about America and, especially, about Americans?

I don't recall saying I disliked Americans.

I did say I have "no particular love". That is, they're Americans, I'm not. Fantastic.

Although, as a team, you're mildly obnoxious and loud, but those that live in glass houses...

You know, they have programs for people that haven't yet learned to read.

[nicky g]

Ugh. I'm so tired of this argument.

"The "West Bank" is not a contiguous parcel of land"

Yes, it is.

"There is no phsyical border between the West Bank and Israel"

There's no physical border between France and Belgium. Most borders are fairly aribitrary.

" If the Palestinians wanted any territory for their own, they had to negotiate and make peace. Every time, Arafat has either walked away from negotiations, or did not live up to their half (mainly involving terrorism"

Arafat was nowhere near the West Bank at the time of the first intifada, and there was almost no terrorism emanating from the West Bank into Israel. The PLO and other resistance groups were all based outside of historical Palestine and comprised of refugees, with very little to do with the occupied territories.

"The proximity of those Arab towns is what makes the negotiations so difficult. Kalkilya is about 15 km from Tel Aviv. Suppose there is an agreement, and the border is established along the Green Line. Now, Arab states, out of the blue, decide they'd once again like to wipe the "Zionist entity" off the map, and considering Jordan used West Bank towns as launch pads for attacks in '67, I don't think it's proper for Israel to take such a risk at this point."

There is zero possibility of any Arab country being able to do this.

I've tried to explain to you a thousand times. I don;t care if Israel wants that land or not. I don;t care if there is an independent state or not. But if it is going to hold onto that land, build on that land, exploit that land's resources and subject its people to Israeli security forces than it has to give those people citizenship. And if it doesn;t want to give them citizenship, then it has to allow for the emergence of a state on that land that will. By the time of the first intifada those people had been in a completely absurd stateless situation with practically no legal rights, no accountable government to turn to and no form of sovereingty for almost two decades. Any peope would rise up against that kind of completely unreasonable oppression.


"That has no bearing on why they are oppressed"

Yes it does but that wasn't my point; you said the oppression was minimal. In fact it was wildly and brutally disporportionate.

"and I'll thank you to avoid the rhetoric."

What rhetoric? I gave an accurate summation of the hugely disproportionate Israeli response to the first intifada.

[MMMMMM]

Let me show you the absurdity of your argument in this sub-thread with one simple example.

Your claim is that I praise the type of wanton killing done to Berg "when your side does it", and you cite as evidence that I prefer the Israeli side of the conflict over the Palestinian side (and then you go on to argue the murderous intent of the IDF).

Well, I could just as easily say that YOU praise the same type of wanton killing done to Berg, because you prefer the Palestinian side of the conflict. But just because you prefer the Palestinian side of the conflict, does not mean that you praise suicide bombing, right? (actually, you have repeatedly stated that you condemn suicide bombing).

So now, hopefully, you can see how ridiculous it is to try to apply that same argument to me. If I cannot say rightly that YOU "praise that type of killing (of Berg) when your side does it" just because you favor the Palestinian side, then clearly you cannot say that I praise that type of wanton killing just because I prefer the Israeli side.

Hopefully, this has managed to penetrate the granite or concrete...

[MMMMMM]

I do detect a faint whiff of condescension and aloofness in Gamblor's reply (which may have been noticed before--not so much in his words, but in his tone.)

Perhaps he does not realize that without the USA, Israel would likely not even exist today.

Yet he bears "no particular love" for the people who have--at their own significant expense, and for no tangible reward--largely enabled the existence and prosperity of his own country in a deeply hostile environment.

Even now, without US financial aid, Israel's economy would begin a steep downward spiral and probably never recover due to the great cost of maintaining its formidable and necessary military machine. What would happen once Israel would be forced to cut the corners--then entire sides--off its military machine, is anybody's guess.

I suppose a lot of Frenchmen, too, bear us "no particular love" even though we saved them in World War II--but at least they are not receiving from us--what is it now--a gift of $10 billion annually?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
we do know who the prisoners were. they were the worst of the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read that the International Red Cross estimates that up to 90 percent of those detained by the U.S. military in Iraq are innocent, rounded up during sweeps in which all adult males in a house are arrested. I don't know about the particular prisoners in the photos, but let's not kid ourselves here.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose a lot of Frenchmen, too, bear us "no particular love" even though we saved them in World War II--but at least they are not receiving from us--what is it now--a gift of $10 billion annually?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this be the same french who helped you enormously during your war of independence?

[elwoodblues]

3 Arab countries just came out to condemn the beheadings --- didn't have to search for this, it was right at the top of the CNN page.

[MMMMMM]

No, those Frenchmen are all long passed away, and their spirits gone to better things. If their spirits had been living when Germany threatened France, perhaps things might have turned out a bit differently then.

[Boris]

This is what I always suspected. You are an America Hater. f uck you. After all the American lives lost and dollars spent on saving European Jews in WWII and aid to Isreal and you still have the gall to say that the US would sell Isreal down the river the appease the UN. That is a f ucking insult. The US tells Israel how to make peace because Isreal on US welfare. That's the things work. The Federal gov't does it to the states all the time. You want the money? You gotta change your ways.

[superleeds]

As are those Americans, sadly.

[nicky g]

One of the main stories on google news at the moment is a Boston Globe report that most Baghdad residents it spoke to condemned the attack. (Main sotry is Indian election; one other Berg story).
Beheading shocks Iraqis, who despair over violence (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/05/13/beheading_shocks_iraqis_who_despair_over_violence/)

[Gamblor]

I don't recall saying anything even close to "I hate Americans". I said "I have no particular love for Americans."

I have explained what I meant repeatedly, see my other responses to the barrage of replies to this post.

Are you telling me that if the prevailing opinion in this board somehow found its way into the White House, that American aid to Israel wouldn't be cut off instantly?

Cyrus goes on and on about how the Arab-occupied UN is the best thing since sliced bread, and Alger goes on and on about how genocidal the Israeli government is, and ACPlayer has the gall to claim that it's the Israelis who turned religion into an issue when Islamic Arabs turned Jews into prophet-killers long before Zionism existed. Not one mainstream Israeli newspaper, even Ha'Aretz, even criticized the US-led war in Iraq, or any of American foreign policy (with the sole exception of Bush's relationship with Saudi oil barons).

I, for one, can't wait for the day Israel breaks out of this US-foreign aid trap. We'd finally be friendly nations, not by necessity as a welfare case, but as equals. But we need a shitload of immigration help. Anything you can do to encourage an American Jew to live in Israel, short of violence and discriminatory behaviour, by all means, please do so.

Israeli dependence on US aid has turned the country into a nation of shnorrs and the cycle must be broken. The nations will be friends because they share the same values and ethics; namely freedom, liberalism, democracy, and tolerance, not because Israel puts on a nice show and parades US dignitaries around in helicopters to get another buck out of US taxpayers' pockets.

[CORed]

That's right Islam is responsible for all of the world's problems. They're all a bunch of raving fanatics who want to kill us or force us to convert. The solution: Kill them all or force them to convert ot Christianity. You know, that's what the world needs. A religious war. One in which neither side can settle or negotiate, because God (Allah) is on their side. You know what? People like the ignorant idiot who wrote that column scare me almost as much as Al Queda.

Wake up people, religious fanatics of any faith are dangerous. An enemy who is conviced he is fighting for the glory of God is much harder to deal with than one who is fighting for his own self interest. Fanatacism is also dangerous to itself. If we decide to let Al Queda and our homegrown Christion fanatics convince us that we need to be at war with all of Islam, God help us, and God help the world. Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If this becomes Christianity vs. Islam, or U.S. vs. Islam, we will probably win, but we may conquer a world with a lot of places that are too radioactive to use. Critical thinking time: The guy that wrote that column is a nutcase. If you like that column, you are well on the way to becoming a nutcase yourself.

It would not be hard for me to quote some Old Testament passages, and quote some fanatical Christian fundamentalists, and convice non-Christians that Christianity is a dangerous force for evil in the world. How many conflicts in the world involve Christians? I'm not sure of the numbers, but Muslims make up a substantial portion of the world's population. Is it any surprise that a lot of the world's conflicts involve Muslims? Some of our more extreme "family values" people scare me almost as much as the Islamist wackos, and the current administration is way too cozy with that crowd for my tastes.

[Gamblor]

I don't like that Israel depends on American tax-payer money just to keep its citizens safe.

I don't like the way the government gets down on its knees to keep the Americans on "our side".

I don't like the way Israel (sorry, the Zionist entity) is blamed for every action America takes in the Middle East.

I don't like the way Americans are so quick to turn on Israel the instant a questionable policy is undertaken.

I don't like the way American Jews brag on and on about how much they love Israel but fear God that their kids might actually end up living there.

I don't like how Americans don't understand that Israel is still developing, yet is expected to be perfect, without fault, and held to a higher standard than every other nation on earth.

I don't like how Americans see a situation - from the outside - and pass judgement, and then demand their judgement be considered the only solution.

What I DO like about Americans?

For the most part, they're good people. They value human life and equality. They accept that the individual is the basis of society, not the ethnicity. They stand up against injustice, whether perceived or real. Most of all, they know world opinion is more dependent on where the benefits are than moral issues.

I may not have a particular love for Americans, but I know who to respect.

An American isn't bad. As a whole, though, I think the nation has a lot of work to do. Just like everyone else.

If you think I'm an America basher, that's okay. Just remember who is willing to kill you for their hatred.

[elwoodblues]

Most of these aren't about Americans at all
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like that Israel depends on American tax-payer money just to keep its citizens safe.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like a reason to not like Israel.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the way the government gets down on its knees to keep the Americans on "our side".


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, that sounds like a reason to not like Israel.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the way American Jews brag on and on about how much they love Israel but fear God that their kids might actually end up living there.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, at least is focused on Americans (though, a small slice of Americans - American Jews)

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like how Americans don't understand that Israel is still developing is expected to be perfect, without fault, and held to a higher standard than every other nation on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If true, that's a fair criticism. What standards is Israel held to that we don't hold our other allies to?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like how Americans see a situation - from the outside - and pass judgement, and then demand their judgement be considered the only solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that this is only about Americans, but again that's a fair critique (if true). The corollary to that is people who are seeing things only from the inside, their judgment on things tends to be blurred as well.

[Gamblor]

...That sounds like a reason to not like Israel...

I wouldn't blame you. Who needs a welfare case on their hands? Why aid anyone?

What standards is Israel held to that we don't hold our other allies to?

Allies like Saudi Arabia (terrorist ties), China (Tibet), Russia (Chechnya), Egypt (don't get me started), the UK (Ireland).

Where's that outcry? US aid to Egypt is 3/4 of what is to Israel.

Israel is a new state in hostile territory. What kind of country would the United States be with Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon on its borders?

The corollary to that is people who are seeing things only from the inside, their judgment on things tends to be blurred as well.

I don't doubt it for one second. But it is the people on the inside who have to face the consequences of their actions, not those on the outside.

[elwoodblues]

Wow, I really don't get you at all. You start a list of why you don't like Americans. I respond that with several of the items in your list you seem to have your dislike misdirected at Americans instead of at Israel. Your final response has absolutely nothing to do with my comments at all.

To put it all in one place. Your list (with my responses) of why you don't like Americans:
[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> I don't like that Israel depends on American tax-payer money just to keep its citizens safe. </font>

That sounds like a reason to not like Israel.


<font color="blue"> I don't like the way the government gets down on its knees to keep the Americans on "our side". </font>

Again, that sounds like a reason to not like Israel.

<font color="blue"> I wouldn't blame you. Who needs a welfare case on their hands? Why aid anyone?

</font>


[/ QUOTE ]
Blame me for what...suggesting that your issue is with Israel not the US??? I never said that we shouldn't aid anyone. I have consistently held the position (not in this thread, but in others) that with foreign aid should come ability to influence policy or risk losing aid. What is it that you don't like: the foreign aid itself or the strings that are/should be attached?

[Gamblor]

It is part of the painful process of history that people are always made by the world they reject and that the rage at it they express is in large measure rage at themselves.

- Souad Ajami, An Islamic Journey

As I said, I await the day Israel and the United States sit across the table of diplomacy as equals.

[iblucky4u2]

2 big errors in your post -
1 - at least 2 prisoners were confirmed killed - and it looks like several more also killed.
2 - the people in that part of the prison were not rapists and probably not terrorists - just people rounded up for questioning.

[MMMMMM]

The fact that any sort of fanaticism can be dangerous does not mitigate the especial threat of radical Islam.

The Q'uranic passages enjoining violence against non-Muslims are plentiful and more absolutist than those in the Old Testament. Also, the accounts in the Old Testament are largely given in a historical sense. The Q'uran, however, is considered by ALL Muslims to be the exact word of God as related to Mohammed the messenger by the archangel Gabriel, and as such is considered perfect and complete and good for all time (if they don't believe this they are not considered Muslims). The Q'uran is therefore not a historical account like much of the Old Testament but rather a present injunction to modern Muslims to carry out the instructions of Allah. Also, in the New Testament, Jesus did not enjoin violence but preached the opposite. Mohammed on the other hand personally led many military expeditions of conquest.

There are many imams encouraging violence and jihad. They use Q';uranic quotes to support their incitement and find ample scriptural backing for this purpose. They are far more fanatical and dangerous than a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. The perfect example was when Falwell said trhe historical Mohammed was a terrorist, so Falwell's counterpart in the Middle East put fatwa on his head, sentencing Falwell to death for blasphemy. There is no comparison in the virulence or outweard aggression betwen these two religions or their followers today.

I don't think we should have a religious war. But if we are not informed about the very real and widespread dangers of fundamental Islam, there will be even more violence than there would be otherwise. Make no mistake, the international jihadists want to kill us all. If you research this more you will find that it is true. They are NOT just like us; they have been brainwashed since childhhod and they do not believe in equality between Islam and anything else, only that Islam must reign over all. If we ignore this or mislead ourselves as to the true nature of our enemy, it will be at our own peril. For while you and I do not want religious war, they very much do. And that in essence is the problem in a nutshell. If we do not fight them they will still attack us.

[iblucky4u2]

Since when is murder, rape and torture "minor harrasment" although I guess the killng of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans is minor as well.

As for no shame - do you not have any shame for those that put the US into a war based on lies and the oldest claim for killing people, "God told me to do it"

[CORed]

Well, I think fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the "Revealed word of God". It is interesting to note, from a historical perspective, that Jews in Spain were not persecuted under Muslim rule nearly as much as under the Spanish Inquisition. I don't disagree that the fanatic Muslims are a threat. I do think, however, that our current course is playing right into their hands. Invading and occupying a Muslim country, then getting caught in atrocities is just the sort of thing to push a lot of the Muslim world into the fanatics' camp. I think we need to pick our battles wisely. Instead of concentrating on Al Qeda and it's allies, we have gotten ourselves in a quagmire in Iraq that is strengthening our enemies, not weakening them.

It is also noteworthy that in Iran, there is a lot of opposition by the population to Islamic rule. The people there are beginning to realize that living under Sharia isn't the paradise the Imam's promised. I think the Islamist movement, without us as an enemy and a scapegoat, will likely collapse from its mistreatment of the people it claims to represent and it's inability to deliver anything like a decent standard of living. The Iraqi venture has succeeded in getting us to fight the battle on the enemies terms. If we want to make this a world war. I think we will eventually win, given our edge in military strength and technology, but I think we can win at a much lower cost by picking our battles intellegently than by trying to invade and occupy the entire Muslim world. Iraq is not Germany nor is it Japan, and to try to use the post-WWII model there is a recipe for disaster. If we are not careful, we will succeed in replacing Saddam with an Iran or Taliban style islamist regime. I don't believe that will be an improvement.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that picking our battles carefully is quite important, especially at this stage.

Hopefully Iran will be able to break through the Mullah's iron grip somehow, and reform. Maybe they could use a little help, too, though I'm not sure how that could best be accomplished.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The Q'uranic passages enjoining violence against non-Muslims are plentiful and more absolutist than those in the Old Testament. Also, the accounts in the Old Testament are largely given in a historical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? What could be more absolutist than God's decision to drown all humanity save a single family?

Where is the Qu'ran more "aboslutist" than the genocide of the Amelikites, where God instructed Saul to kill not only all the women and children but also their livestock? Is there anything in the Qu'ran where God orders his people to exterminate an entire race, like there is in the Old Testament and Torah?

How were God's instructions to commit genocide, and the fall of Saul's house that resulted from slight infractions (he tried to spare the Amelikite king and the livestock) "largely given an a historical sense?" Isn't it proof that Christians and Jews worship a God capable of unspeakable savagery whose orders should be followed no matter how many innocents perish?

[Gamblor]

Where is the Qu'ran more "aboslutist" than the genocide of the Amelikites, where God instructed Saul to kill not only all the women and children but also their livestock? Is there anything in the Qu'ran where God orders his people to exterminate an entire race, like there is in the Old Testament and Torah?

Jewish doctrine has developed analogously to common law, with much of it deriving from interpretive precedent rather than scripture. The last major Jewish denomination to claim that scripture was the only source of doctine were the Karaites, and they lost their bid to become normative Judaism more than a thousand years ago.

As far as holy war goes, there's a similar doctrinal thread running through Judaism. Witness this scriptually founded argument (http://www.nishma.org/articles/update/update5754-2.htm#LOCKSHIN) that, where an enemy is not "Amalek", peace should be pursued until there is no alternative, and that opportunities for peace should be actively sought. With the exception of Amalek and of the seven nations of Canaan (the latter of which were declared by Maimonides to have no contemporary relevance), Jewish doctrine expresses a strong preference for peace.

[Cyrus]

Abraham was ready to kill Isaac, how own son, because his God told him to - no explanation given. Only if you are ready to kill (e.g. decapitate) your own son, at the orders of God, would you be a true follower of that God. That's according to God's Words, not mine.

Michael Berg would fall miserably on that respect, but I am just guessing.

[Chris Alger]

I don't think like you and MMMMMM do so I would never use ancient scripture to criticize or stereotype Christians, Jews or Muslims or their cultures, much less use scripture to support the deprivation of fundamental rights, like M does. From what I gather from his various posts, he wants to declare war on Islam to force the "radicals" to convert or be subjugated or exterminated. I gather that you also see no problem with this, given your constant claim that the lives and land of Palestinian Arabs are "up for grabs" by their cultural superiors, and your silly pretense that this is somehow sanctioned by international law.

Although criticizing scripture is perfectly appropriate (e.g., the Talmud, Jesus), arguing for the screwing of people because of it is stupid and barbaric.

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

The Old Testament gives accounts, in the historical sense, and as you say, there are some pretty terrible things. However the Q'uran enjoins modern day Muslims to do some terrible things. When you read of Abraham, the Old Testament is not instructing you to do the same as he. But in the Q'uran, Muslims ARE being told to do such things as take not from non-Muslims friends, and fight the non-believers and smite their necks until they confess there is no God but Allah and are subjugated.

The New Testament bespeaks of a new covenant with God, where animal sacrifices are no longer to be performed, where acceptance and belief in the love and forgiveness of Jesus washes away sins and makes all things new. Even the two commandments of Jesus are more important than the Ten Commandments delivered by Moses (those two commandments are: to love God with your entire being, and to love your neighbor as yourself). The message of Jesus is not violence, but pacifism and loving even those who wrong you. So Christians, in the strict sense of the word, follow those teachings. Of course, to follow such teachings is very hard, which may be why Paul said that he takes up his own cross daily.

At the risk of oversimplification, I view the Old Testament as the backdrop or historical setting, and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament as Christianity.

The absolutist nature of the Q'uran to which I refer comes from the fact that Islam is not satisfied, philosophically speaking, until the entire Earth be following God's will, as is outlined in the Q'uran. Islam means submission to God and it starts with the individual submitting to God's will (as outlined in the Q'uran). Well that is just fine and dandy, no problems with that so far. The problems arise when Islam attempts to forcibly mold the world in the same manner. The Islamic vision is the entire world being one under God and under Islam. Well...fine, as long as they don't try to force that. But they do so try, and Mohammed called for the dominance of Islam and for all others to be forcibly subjugated under Islam and ruled over by Islam (either that or be converted, or killed). It's scriptural, and imams quote it in mosques. Constrast this with Jesus saying his kingdom is spiritual, and not of this world, and enjoining his followers to lay up spiritual treasures in heaven instead of on Earth. Jesus did not call for the forcible dominance of Christianity over others, although many later used the religion as an excuse for just that, very tragically. But Mohammed did call for the preeminence of Islamic rule, and led many military expeditions to that end.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think like you and MMMMMM do so I would never use ancient scripture to criticize or stereotype Christians, Jews or Muslims or their cultures, much less use scripture to support the deprivation of fundamental rights, like M does.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't use the scripture to stereotype; rather, I just tell you what the scripture says, and what many imams preach, and what fundamental Islamists believe. Nor do I use scripture to support deprivation of rights--I'm not even sure how you got that odd notion.

[ QUOTE ]
From what I gather from his various posts, he wants to declare war on Islam to force the "radicals" to convert or be subjugated or exterminated.

[/ QUOTE ]


Totally backwards: instead, I am telling you what the radical Muslims believe, and that they are at war with us, and wish to eliminate us. I don't want to declare war on Islam: I merely inform you that radical Muslims have already declared war upon us--if for some amazing reason you haven't already noticed.

[jokerswild]

Very little difference exists between Mussolini and the current leader of the Republican party. Bush has hair. That's the most notable difference.

[Gamblor]

I gather that you also see no problem with this, given your constant claim that the lives and land of Palestinian Arabs are "up for grabs" by their cultural superiors, and your silly pretense that this is somehow sanctioned by international law.

I see no great problem with declaring war on Islam in its manner of practice in a large part of the Middle East, more specifically, the Saudi proliferation of Wahhabist Islam. It is not Islam itself; It is the use of Islam as a tool to further Islamofascism and Arab imperialism that I abhor, and for the most part, the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and to a lesser extent the Fateh advocate this ideology. Anti-semitism permeates Muslim thought from Malaysia (we recall Mahathir's comments) to Morocco, where the government is seeking to end the anti-semitic violence that has exploded in the last 5 years.

I made no such claim regarding the Palestinians' lives - the land in '67 was most certainly up for grabs, but the lives are most certainly not.

However, as long as it remains a fundamental part of Palestinian nationalist strategy to terrorize Israelis into concessions and exploit the rules the IDF must follow for strategic advantage, it will remain very difficult to protect innocent Arab life.

If you don't believe Israelis are culturally more advanced (read: worldly), as well as more educated in liberal thought, then you must have never taken a course in an Israeli high school.


Ironically, while the law and politics of the land are of European roots, Israel has long romanticized Arab culture. Most Israeli slang and colloquialisms are in fact Arabic words. When you say "come on", instead of the Hebrew "Kadima" we sometimes hear "Yalla", for example. Israel's most popular food is felafel, which is of Arab origin. Most telling, is that Arab culture is looked at the same way as stereotypical "black" culture in America are viewed - they're so marginal they're cool. In Israel, Jews aren't a minority, and as such people just don't think about the fact that they're Jewish. It's always the minority that is "cool" when you're a kid. Look at how kids worship Puff Daddy and those guys.

I digress. If you don't see that Arab culture is largely mandated by whatever political goals the current power-holders choose, and thus is much more dangerous than a free liberal culture, then I don't see how this discussion can continue.

Israel is for the most part a secular nation; it's values are indeed based on Jewish ethics, but the people are very much secular because there's no reason to hold on to your "Yiddishkeit" (Jewishness) when you're in the majority.

In sum: it is not the scripture or culture or religion itself that I despise; it is the manipulation of that scripture and culture by the powers that be in order to further political goals that is where the problem is.

If that argument didn't work, show me any post where I quote Koranic verse. Perhaps one where I advocate the genocide of all Muslims/Arabs.

[trippin bily]

wrong lucky. you know how i know there have not been 2 prisoners killed in iraq? because cnn and algers and all the rest of the apoligists would have it on every channel every hour every day. You know i'm right on that.

[Gamblor]

He's a propagandist.

That's what he does.

Most people let the facts determine their opinions.

He does the opposite.