Where's the outrage?

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“Dangermouse”]
blah blah blah…and then the US mistreats uncharged, untried prisoners[/quote]

You mean like this guy? He should have been taken out back, forced to dig his own grave and then had a bullet pumped into what passes for his brain. And his family be billed for the bullet.

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Vows to Fight Russia

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - A Danish man who was released from U.S. military detention in Guantanamo Bay told a television interviewer he plans to travel to Chechnya and join Islamic militants fighting Russian forces.

As a condition of his release from Guantanamo in February, Abderrahmane pledged to refrain from warfare. Of the pledge, he said, “They can use it as toilet paper over there in the United States.”

Abderrahmane was not charged upon his return to Denmark. He was widely criticized earlier this week when he told Danish media that Denmark’s prime minister and the nation’s troops in Iraq were legitimate targets for terrorists.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … detainee_2

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

22

There’s one logical argument - if you believe it to be immoral or unjust. Just because one is treated immorally/unjustly that does not necessarily mean that the immoral/unjust treatment need be reciprocated.

23

There’s one logical argument - if you believe it to be immoral or unjust. Just because one is treated immorally/unjustly that does not necessarily mean that the immoral/unjust treatment need be reciprocated.[/quote]

We have a moral obligation to protect our society and individuals within our society.

24

There’s one logical argument - if you believe it to be immoral or unjust. Just because one is treated immorally/unjustly that does not necessarily mean that the immoral/unjust treatment need be reciprocated.[/quote]
We have a moral obligation to protect our society and individuals within our society.[/quote]
Absolutely. But we act with constraints imposed on ourselves by ourselves that terrorists do not. That is right and proper, if somewhat inefficient. We would have a quicker victory against the “war on terror” if we had no scruples at all. But then, what would we be fighting to protect?

25

Take a look at the article from which the following is excerpted:

[quote]“Revenge is a kind of wild justice.” It will inevitably – and arguably rightly – become the resort of decent people when law and government fail to deliver justice. Post-modern governments fail in just that way. Humanitarian bodies such as Amnesty International are even worse: They practice a sort of unilateral civil libertarianism that holds governments to account for the smallest infraction of civil liberty but treats terrorism as a natural disaster. Transnational bodies like the U.N. and the EU are worse – they seek to take the weapons of war and capital punishment from us in our struggles against terrorism, slavery, piracy and hostage-taking and to force us to rely instead on their own [color=red]*[/color]paper resolutions and elevated principles.

All these responses – … – are overcivilized. That sounds almost like a compliment, as if it meant more civilized. In fact, to be overcivilized is to be less civilized because genuine civilization includes a robust willingness to enforce its order and truths on anarchy, violence, murder and superstition. As long as we remain overcivilized, anarchy, violence, murder and superstition will continue their sinister recovery…[/quote]

[color=red]*[/color] Note this from the article Comrade Stalin linked to above:

[quote]In a live interview with the DR-1 television channel Wednesday night, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane said he planned to go into hiding and then “try to find a way to Chechnya.”

[color=red]*[/color] As a condition of his release from Guantanamo in February, Abderrahmane pledged to refrain from warfare. Of the pledge, he said, “They can use it as toilet paper over there in the United States.”[/quote]

I don’t know what it will take to get people serious about fighting terrorism and terrorists. But, IMO, its long past time to emulate Colonel Kurtz.

26

I have no problem resorting to the weapons of war and capital punishment. I would have a lot of problems to employing the kind of tactics that our enemies employ. Bombing marketplaces, kidnapping civilians and then beheading them, crashing hijacked airplanes into non-military targets - these are the actions of monsters, and we can’t match them in their evilness. We want to destroy the enemy, they want to destroy our families. Do youthink any terrorist wants to take on the US Army? Never. Wheelchair-bound invalids on cruise ships are more their style. Or Italian aid workers in their 20s. I appreciate the argument for a ferocious battle, but the targets are cowards, won’t show their faces, and will hide aomg innocents. They count on our morality as a key part of their war strategy. That’s ok. What other choice do we realistically have? Get more ruthless? Sure - up to a point. After that we just become the monster we’re trying to destroy.

27

Well, I’m not talking necessarily about matching them tactic for tactic. However, I think its ridiculous that we will watch them detonate a bomb in a church and then give up our chase of them when they enter a mosque.

What I really think we should be doing, however, is going after the families of the terrorist leaders. Some may regard this as barbaric. And it is. However, we know that virtually none of the suicide bombers have ever been the children of any of the Palestinian leaders. That indicates to me that while these leaders are fanatic enough to send young ignorant people to their deaths, they value the lives of their own children above their “cause”. That makes them just as vulnerable to the horror of having their own children, wives and parents targeted. Yes, its beastly… but why should they be permitted to perform their terror acts on other innocents? If they choose the game of terror, then I would rather see their families being terrorized than the families of those who have made no claim to any “cause” and have not chosen terror as a weapon. Terror should be a double-edged sword.

28

Rooftop:

Left work not avoiding your argument. Now, what was it that you wanted to know again? If you were being brilliant, I must have missed out on something. Was it terribly clever? and no, I do not intend to go searching through Forumosa for your enlightened “Aha I see the light” comments. Mille pardons, mille regrettes.

Maoman:

Sorry completely disagree with what appears to be your premise. I did not say that the US should lower itself to the level of the terrorists. I said that terrorists should be held just as accountable for their actions as anyone else. The question is not why the bar should be higher for the US but why it should be so low for Muslim and Arab societies.

And in general:

This is why we have the ridiculous posturing of women’s groups in the US who complain about not being able to get into the Augusta country club but are silent when women are treated like cattle in Afghanistan and actually protest about how the US invasion was not “culturally sensitive” and about how it is all about white men with big sticks acting aggressively against brown peoples of the world. Give me a break.

So we have the US bashed for the crimes that happened in Abu Ghraib even though these are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Yet, where are the voices of outrage that are raised to complain about the rapes and abuse that occur each and every day in our prison system in the US? But those are mostly Black and Hispanic or Native American and therefore acceptable? OR if anything, those that are in the prison system are “victims” of a “racially oppressive” society and are therefore allowed to “act up” by raping and abusing other prisoners? Sorry if I am framing this incorectly but I am really trying to understand what makes these people tick.

So as always I am having a difficult time figuring out what triggers outrage on the left. We have millions killed directly under Saddam’s orders and silence. Nay we have an active and complicit UN and France. When the US gets involved, suddenly 24,000 deaths most of which were caused during war, or by insurgents and if “collateral” were certainly not “deliberately” targeted by US troops to maximize civilian deaths, and we get “each Iraqi death is ONE TOO MANY.”

In fact, Saddam deliberately placed military installations in civilian areas precisely because he knew that we would be cautious over civilian deaths. Our own civilized behavior is being used against us. But is that what we hear about Iraq? No. We do not hear about the millions who died. We don’t hear about the hundreds of thousands who died because of French and UN corruption. We hear about 24,000 because we should be held to a higher standard?

Yes, but… cop out again. If holding us to that higher standard is all important and the only central pertinent reasoning behind the frequently overexaggerated outrage against the US AND the absolute silence that greets far worse offenses, then what is a rational and sane person supposed to conclude about just such a person’s moral system?

So if that makes me sound angry, well then yes, sign me angry, sign me confused, but best of all, let me coopt the Left on this one and sign me outraged.

29

Tigerman:

Amen. I completely agree. Ridiculous this constant tiptoeing around mosques. Are churches and synagogues accorded the same respect by Muslims. Hardly. However, I really do not think that we can afford to be too hard on these places or we will offend the 90% of Muslims that we want to wake up and smell the coffee about the corruption, dysfunctionalism and terrrorism that has taken root in their societies. Pardon the expression but for most, it is time to have a “come to Jesus” meeting. Shape up or ship out.

Targeting families has worked very well in Israel. Why? Because they have supported and given aid and sanctuary to their terrorist sons and daughters. If families had aided a bank robber or rapist, they would be equally liable under the law for prosecution (aiding and abetting) so why not terrorists or isn’t that really a crime? That seems to be the moral wishy washy nature of most of these people. Terrorism is somehow not a crime because there are “root causes” that must be “understood” and it is all about White or Western or male or Christian (fill in the appropriate group that can be discriminated against) “oppression” of brown peoples ergo they are not to blame. Shall I also follow this argument to its illogical conclusion? Then, the White, Western, Christian, Jewish, male peoples cannot help but attack and oppress because it is our nature and therefore we must be “understood” as well? Just wondering. Would such an argument taken to its illogical fallacies be acceptable to those on the Left. And for those that demand equal rights and all that for everyone, why then have separate systems and standards for various groups? Isn’t that somehow unequal? racist?

Comrade Stalin:

Excellent points. There was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about the GITMO prisoner that was released, went back to Afghanistan and was recently killed while fighting with the Taliban against American forces. I would like those that are pressing for these people’s rights to take full responsibility for any American or European soldiers and/or aid workers that this man killed during the interim, but will they? Doubtful. The left is not know for being morally or otherwise responsible. Ask the South Vietnamese, Cambodians and Hmong.

But I meant well. I had the best of intentions. I was only following Jimmy Carter’s example.

30

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]So a picture surfaces of[b] Ken Bigley /b, the unlucky Brit who has been captured by Iraqi insurgents, sitting in a cage with what looks suspiciously like a chain around his neck. Let me see, where have I seen that before? Oh right, the Abu Ghraib (search) prison: One picture of an Iraqi in a collar and leash

31

Well, those 90% have to come to grips with acts like this. They have got to decide whether they value their mosques more than their children.

32

Electrocution does not normally result in death. Decapitation usually results in death.

33

Ah but twocs:

What is the difference? We heard outrage throughout the world about Abu Ghraib and rightly so but why so much silence for the far greater outrages occuring each and every day throughout the Muslim world? Surely, the archbishop of Canterbury or Pope can be stirred enough by these ongoing acts of barbarity to issue even a simple statement condemning them in the strongest possible terms? Strange that they cannot be bothered to say anything? Strange that this is not a newspaper headline in the Guardian? OUTRAGE!!! TERRORISTS GO TO FAR! BARBARIC ACTS CONDEMNED BY CIVILIZED WORLD. What are the chances of this, hmmm? That is all I am asking for is a bit more even handed venting of outrage. Where’s Oprah Winfrey on this? Why isn’t she having abused Afghan women on her show? You get my point surely?

34

[quote=“Tigerman”]
Well, those 90% have to come to grips with acts like this. They have got to decide whether they value their mosques more than their children.[/quote]

Yasser Arafat’s wife Suha and daughter Zahwa live in Paris. I guess it’s ok for him to send OTHER peoples daughters out to be “martyrs”.

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

35

Fred

I must be getting soft in old age but on the question of why should double standards be allowed, then i might be inclined to go along with you on the principle of it. We should be able to hold everyone accountable to the same standard. However reality aint that simple.

Service personnel are representatives of the country in whose forces they are serving, this makes for clear lines of responsibility etc, the terrorists have no such clear lines, do not represent any country, hell they do not even represent the majority of the religious faith that these acts are carried out on behalf of. Should we fall to their level or try and get them to come to our level.

If there was not acceptance of douvble standards then why on earth did the US not just go in and nuker the whole goddam area then fart around as they are currently doing.

You are always advocating that Iraq was good as not only did it get rid of Saddam but also allowed for democracy etc to be established. You hold this as being a step forward or even a step up, as such then you are holding democracy and those countries that employ it plus there citizens to be of a different standard to those that dont.

As for headlines plashed across newspapers etc, why on earth provide them with such excellent marketing and advertising material. Common sense has to be applied as well. The old adage of “all advertising is good advertising” needs to be weighed carefully when plastering headlines around the world.

36

Traveller:

You miss my point. I want to relentlessly strike down the argument that the US should be held to one standard, the rest of the world to another. This anti-American bashing is dangerous for the whole world. What if the US becomes isolationist again? As much as I would love just one week of suffering for those of you would would welcome such a prospect, cheap I told you so’s on my part would result in too much suffering to really be gratifying.

Therefore I want to know from the professional protesters on the Left just what their moral compass is. I want to know why one outrageous situation after another in the Middle East is met with silence and the US is treated as the No. 1 most dangerous nation, No. 1 enemy of rights etc. etc. Ridiculous. There should be one set of standards and we should hold everyone to that.

This is why we need to prepare the world for the violence that will soon take place in Fallujah. Innocent people are killed in wars and there will be many innocent deaths in Fallujah, but we cannot pretend anymore that this is a reason for not cleaning up that rat’s nest once and for all. These sensibilities have kept us from advancing our aims in Iraq. Because of that innocent women and children are being blown up daily in Baghdad. I want people to remember this when we do move on Fallujah because I don’t hear anyone crying for these victims today but I guarantee you that when we go into Fallujah, you will hear endless weaping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about the evil US and its wanton disregard of civilian casualties. Let’s see if I am right. I fear that I will be.

37

That sounds exactly like something those vicious bastards who behead people to further their twisted cause would say.

38

That sounds exactly like something those vicious bastards who behead people to further their twisted cause would say.[/quote]

But, spook, you know well that things are not always what they may appear to be. There is indeed a difference in what fred says above and what the vicious bastards who behead people say. The circumstances in which violence takes place is an important distinction that must be made.

39

A little sloppy by your standards TMT. We are not talking about ‘people from terrorist nations’. We are talking about terrorists. Do you or do you not expect the US government to behave better than terrorists? Shock is a response to events that we don’t expect to see. Hence a terrorist being a cunt is somewhat less shocking than representatives of a democratic state being a cunt. Outrage - there is plenty of outrage about the actions of the terrorists. Again though, you kind of expect this kind of stuff from them.

40

[quote=“Tigerman”]If you argue that the US should be held to higher standards then you are acknowledging that another group of peoples (let’s [color=red]say peoples from terrorist nations[/color]) should be held to a lower set of standards.

Thus, you must then believe that such other group ([color=red]let’s say peoples from terrorist nations[/color]) cannot to be trusted because they do not live up to a certain high level of standards.

If you believe that such other group ([color=red]let’s say peoples from terrorist nations[/color]) cannot be trusted to live up to a certain level of standards, then there is no logical argument against profiling that other group and even treating that other group with less trust.[/quote]

I was using the group that Maoman had cited. Thus, not sloppy.

Yes. I do not expect the US to initiate attacks that target innocent civilians.

Yes. That’s why I would be shocked to see a civilized person sucker punch an old woman or child. However, I am even more shocked to see that some people think it wrong of civilized people to hold back from sucker punching a person who has shown that his preferred modus operendi is sucker punching old women and children.

If that is how you feel, then I assume that you have no objection to profiling certain peoples… right?