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

[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.