posted May 13, 2004 02:02 PM            

Oh, and by the way, they didn't "behead" him (like w/ a swift swipe of a sword, or a guillotine), they STABBED him in the throat, then SAWED his head off with a large KNIFE, which is why you can hear his screaming and gurgling. Freakin animals...

Would you rather see your loved one naked with panties on his head, or his bodyless head held up in some psycho's hands who's yelling "Allah akbar"?

They are totally NOT moral equivalents IMO, no matter how much you want to throw "cultural relativity" into it.

They are quickly wearing out their right to occupy space on this planet IMNSHO...

posted May 13, 2004 02:31 PM              

Ozonefiller-I live in South Africa why?

posted May 13, 2004 03:19 PM            

lalalinda was just being her true passionate Aries self. Like you, she feels deeply about what happened and although I can't speak for her, I can say that she would never do anything to hurt someone else.

Starlover33,

posted May 13, 2004 03:44 PM              

I believe that we went in on false pretenses. One may even, not believing that we went in soley for the sake of securing oil reserves and promoting our country's interests (valid, if creepy when acted upon preemptively...another arguable point..., concerns for a state), say that the admin used WMDs as a banner knowing that the American public wouldn't go for anything smacking of a humanatiarian mission after the disastors of the mid-nineties, but that still doesn't change what appears to be the use of smoke and mirrors against the American public and the world at large.

posted May 13, 2004 03:58 PM              

The other thing that gets me is how extremely idealistic and slightly naive such sentiments are. There really is a disconnect between the factions of the intel community that engage in such tactics (and, yes, this is common interrogation practice; and, no, I can't cite sources...it's not exactly documented, just pretty well known by anyone with even the least amount of contact with these people) and the rest of the military. MI, and to a certain exent those who aide them, are given a fair degree of carte blanche wiggle room - for the most part because the tactics that we're currently reeling over in Iraq (and which the media are now getting a clue to having been used in Afghanistan and G. Bay) work, especially specifically (when referring to sexual humiliation) on the Arab male, and to some extent the general typical Muslim male, psyche.
Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.

Also like it or lump it, it's on us to not engage in such tactics if that's not the image that we want other nations to have of us, if we'd like to have any semblance of moral and ethical gravitas on the world stage and a measure of sincere and well founded self-respect.

posted May 13, 2004 04:34 PM            

When I see a story with a lead in like the one you posted, why would I not make the connection the information comes from CAIR?

By Editor
Courtesy of CAIR
(Washington, D.C.)
- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned an attack on a Sikh family in New York that was apparently motivated by religious or ethnic bias.

On what basis do you suggest people here are accepting of the crimes committed against innocent Muslims here? Police departments swing into action with investigations and when those investigations identify and get sufficient evidence against perpetrators, prosecutors charge them with the crime and prosecute them. How is that more accepting of what's going on here than what went on in Iraq?

I refuse to view what happened in that prison as backlash and I refuse to view the beheading of an American non combatant as backlash either. In like fashion, I refuse to view 9/11 as backlash. They are all crimes, however there is absolutely no legal, moral, ethical or spiritual equivalence between the acts. It's like saying hazing is the legal, moral, ethical and spiritual equivalence of genocide. Let me tell you alchemiest, worse things happen to fraternity pledges on university campuses than happened to most of those prisoners in those pictures. That doesn't mean it's acceptable or that those acts didn't violate the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. What do you want? Those people are being court marshaled and the investigation goes on to find out who else may have given orders or been otherwise involved.

Why the reference to The Passion of The Christ and the Catholic Church? I don't recall bringing either into the mix. BTW, that film is the most successful film of all time, even if the Hollywood elites/foreign policy experts rejected it.

There are crimes, large and small in Iraq with the small crimes being allocated to the US and the large crimes of murder, torture, armed insurrection against the governing council and intimidation against the civilian population being committed by the terrorists.

How do I know Iraqis want us there? OK, polls have been taken among the Iraqi population. About 70% say they are better off since Saddam was deposed. Their fear is not that we will stay too long, it's that we might leave too soon. Let's put this in context. The Kurds are very much in favor--overwhelmingly so, for the US to stay until a stable government is installed. The Shiites are less so but majorities of up to 70% feel the same way. The Sunnis are the group who benefited from Saddam's brutal dictatorship and most of them, a majority at least are against losing their power in Iraq and want us out thinking they can still seize power.

Of the armed resistance, it's centered in Fallujaha and Najaf. In Fallujaha, it's estimated that there are 800 to 1000 terrorists resisting. In Najaf, where that little power hungry cleric is holed up, estimates are that he has up to 10,000 followers under arms. Lets multiply those numbers by a factor of 10 which is very generous given the few acts of resistance carried out sporadically in the rest of Iraq. Doing the math, I come up with 110,000 and I know that's way overblown. There are 26,000,000 Iraqis and that 110,000 who are actively resisting is .0042307 percent of the population.

Your attempt to make it seem all the Iraqis want the US out of Iraq now is not based in reality. True, they don't want us to stay forever and we don't intend to do so. But they do want us to stick around to get a defense force trained, the infrastructure totally up and running and a stable government in control that they had a part in electing. That's the reports you don't hear on the 6pm news, in the NY Times or the other media and press who are selectively managing the news. Sells a lot more papers and advertising that way and besides, they vote almost 90% Democrat and want Kerry. I think the rest of America has better sense.

Lastly, no country would have to come and liberate America from a home grown dictator. Anyone attempting to seize control of the US government by force could number his/her remaining time on earth in days or perhaps hours. Besides which most of those countries who are against the reconstruction and government selection going on in Iraq are dictatorships of one kind or the other themselves.

posted May 13, 2004 04:48 PM            

How are things? Well, I am pretty sure that I discussed that the WMD was a part of us going into Iraq, but it was only a "part" because I had posted the entire document concerning all the breaches committed on behalf of Saddam's administration, such as the violation of the human rights of the Iraqi people, as our justification for invasion.

I think our Media has mislead us more than our President and while I do feel he should have been even clearer concerning the totality of why we went to war, I do not feel he mislead the people.

posted May 13, 2004 04:54 PM            

Because a "hate crime" is a "hate crime" regardless of what motivated the person to commit the crime.

Why would should we feel more sorry for the Muslim ( or perceived Muslim) that was beaten after 9/11 than the Jewish Person that was beaten after some turd-head watched a movie?

posted May 13, 2004 07:00 PM            

Replace Islam and Koran with Christianity and Bible and it sounds like our very own homegrown variety of fundamentalist.

Proselyzing is gross.

posted May 13, 2004 07:16 PM              

Sorry, I should have specified what I was responding to when I responded to Pid's post so that confusion could have been avoided.
Pid, I totally agree with you that a hate crime is a hate crime regardless of what motivates it. However, I was trying to explain (a bit inarticulately) that people are more prone to react in a stronger way, at least on a national level, when something like a war hits the whole country rather than just select groups. Any hate crime is horrible though.

posted May 13, 2004 08:12 PM            

So until reports get released that say Iraqis were purposely and systematically murdered BY HAVING THEIR HEADS SAWED OFF BY SOLDIERS WITH BOWIE KNIVES WHILE SOME CRAZY **** PRAISES GOD AND/OR BUSH, my attitude is

KILL THEM ALL...(Every last ************ who supports those guys, regardless of whether it's a member of Al Queda or some average ******** Iraqi)

posted May 13, 2004 08:26 PM              

quote:

---

it's a wild, bloodthirsty animal we've created

---

At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting on 5/11, Senators Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman claimed that the beheading of an American by Iraqis was somehow proof that the torture of prisoners was justifiable.

Graham stated that "the enemy" in Iraq "were animals" and would commit any crime "in the name of God."

Graham has uttered a disgraceful slur against animals.
Humans torture animals, but they don't torture us, or do perverted acts to people. They don't behead people, but people often behead them. (I must confess that I've chopped off the heads of a few chickens, myself.)

Animals don't "commit any crime in the name of God." Only humans do that.

As Mark Twain said, "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

posted May 13, 2004 08:30 PM            

It ended with Little Boy and Fat Man

You cannot have peace with people like that. Because THEY DON'T WANT PEACE, THEY WANT US DEAD. And no matter whose nor how many ***** we lick, they're STILL going to want us dead.

Get a clue. They would rape you then spit on your dead body as soon as look at you.

posted May 13, 2004 08:35 PM            

alchemiest
I'm sorry you missed the point of what I said. No liberator will need to come into the United States to depose a dictator because a dictator won't live long enough to be a problem. The US went to Iraq to depose the dictator Saddam Hussein and your analogy fails for that reason.

People in Iraq are far more likely to be intimidated by the terrorists who live in their midst than by poll takers from the news services so I'm not buying into your notions of US intimidation. When CNN, ABC, NBC et al. want some footage for the evening news to show us in America how much we are hated by ALL the Iraqis, they just look up some of Saddam's former buddies to give us an earful. Of course, it's never disclosed exactly who we are hearing from. Why are they not intimidated to talk on camera?

I'm not aware of any incidents of Muslim abuse in America being swept under the rug but to the degree Muslims were abused, I would condemn it.

The report you cites makes it look like CAIR was the group reporting on the incidences. If not, the article would not have said "Courtesy of CAIR". If they didn't supply the information why are they credited with it? The thing that brings their credibility into question is not that they commented on alleged abuses but on their political affiliations and past actions. Would you take at face value the statement of a convicted criminal that they were innocent? Would you take at face value the statement of an al Qaida terrorist that he/she had be abused in captivity? I sure wouldn't---I would investigate. In the case of CAIR their statement sounds self serving considering the other statements they've made. Which is a little stronger than I want to convey and certainly aren't comparing CIAR with criminals.

Now, would you care to go on the record and condemn Saddam's murder of about a million Muslims over the last 30 years? Would you care to condemn his attack of Iran and Kuwait and his use of chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds? Is it only the current living residents of Iraq you have compassion for or do you ever think about the mass graves all over Iraq Saddam filled---approximately 400,000 bodies are estimated to have been buried---secretly in mass graves. Are you going to insist the actions of the US and the actions of Saddam are equivalent?

posted May 13, 2004 08:51 PM            

Every American needs to see that video footage and hear the audio. I haven't seen the video but I've heard the audio, several times.

posted May 14, 2004 12:00 AM            

If, as you say we don't know what the rank and file Iraqi thinks then perhaps you shouldn't be speculating. But, I'll go with the polls taken amongst the Iraqi population.

To the extent the events reported or commented on by CAIR happened, they shouldn't have. In spite of what you've said, there were few such events for a population of 280,000,000 *issed off Americans.

What's going on in Iraq right now is a march towards June 30 when the civil affairs of Iraq will be handed over to the Iraqi people and free elections in 2005.

Tell me, should the US have gotten involved in WWI? How about WW2. Is there any level of threat, tyranny or genocide that you would think justifies military action? What about Bosnia and Kosovo? Should the US have just let them kill each other? Was it OK for Clinton to bomb Bosnia and Kosovo for 78 days. If so, why. Civilians were killed by those American bombs.

I'm not going to take offense until you answer the questions I asked but if you say giving everyone a hug would have settled all the animosity, made Hitler, Tojo, Milosevic and Saddam behave then-----! I'm trying to find out if you practice situational compassion and ethics, if your aversion to military action depends on who it's directed against or perhaps better, who happens to be in charge at the time it occurs. I'd like to know how many people it's OK for dictators to kill before someone can stop them.

TINK, what you mean is that in a war with terrorists there are no civilians. That's their practice and they are quite willing to kill their own people as well as anyone else if it furthers their cause.

Taking the gloves off means going in and removing those who are attempting to prevent a representative government in Iraq.

They do not fight the old fashioned way TINK. Beheading was done for effect. Their usual weapons are AK47's and RPG's.

For some reason you don't see any difference in deliberately killing someone in a brutal and horrible manner and having a bomb or missile go off course and killing someone accidentally. Let me tell you that as a matter of law, the deliberate premeditated killing is first degree murder. One of the reasons I want to see terrorists either captured so they can stand trial or killed if they won't surrender.

posted May 14, 2004 02:13 AM            

I have a lot to say about this, but I'm afraid after viewing the video, I can't maintain a calm manner on the subject. Though I was angry, I stand by my words above. If Iraqi civilians are complacent and/or encouraging of such activities (and I myself have seen Iraqis on the news interviewed by reporters, these are average guys walking down the street, saying, "if I were to find an American, I would cut off his head too", and equating panties on the head to no head at all), then I say, either carpet bomb their cities, or nuke them.

This is war. Time to play it like it's one, instead of like it's a Politically Correct War Reality Show.