Article

2004-05-04 Iraq-Jordan

Hitchens on Abu Ghraib: Execute the Guards?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 2:11:06 PM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Forgot to include link (then reposted, sorry). Here's the link: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099888/

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 2:16:17 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:16:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Hitchens is doing his moral equivalence shtick. In his mind, American humiliation of prisoners is equivalent to Muslims torturing Americans to death and then mutilating their corpses. Back when I was young and foolish, I used to read his screeds in the Nation. Then, he was blaming Henry Kissinger for the Khmer Rouge's genocidal impulses. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-04 2:20:36 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:20:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Execute Hitchens for hysterical journalism.

Posted by someone 2004-05-04 2:22:09 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:22:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 A third possibility is being reported by NBC now, namely that the physical abuse was done by Iraqi guards rather than US soldiers.

I can believe the psychological games were done, and perhaps ordered (don't condone it, but can believe it).

Rape & other physical abuse is another matter.

Hitchens is right about one thing: the Army will take this very very seriously. It smears the professionalism and ethics of 99%+ of our soldiers and officers. It cannot be allowed to stand without clear punishment, if verified.

Posted by rkb 2004-05-04 2:22:52 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:22:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Zhang: I think the opposite is the problem. It always weakens the point when they bring up the actions of terrorists or tyrants in the same discussion as actions of our soldiers. It inevitably (even if indirectly) results in a comparison between the two groups. And that inevitably sounds like an excuse or justification. Luckily, POTUS and the military leadership have not made the same mistake. They are doing it right: express disgust, take action to punish those involved, and make sure it doesn't happen again. That approach provides as much moral high ground as we can salvage out of this incident. Pointing at the actions of our enemies for "perspective" just smears us with their deeds. Of course there is a horrible double standard: pointing it out is unecessary and makes for a weak and pathetic argument. This is "take responsibility" time, no nuance, no perspective.

As Hitchens says later in the article: "If anyone wanted to argue that torture is a matter of routine in many of the countries whose official media now express such shock, they would have to argue by way of double standards. This case would collapse at once and of its own weight if the standard was to become a single one, or if one torturer became an excuse for another. . . . But there's no hypocrisy in holding self-proclaimed liberators to a higher standard."

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 2:35:41 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:35:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 "It always weakens the point when they bring up the actions of terrorists or tyrants in the same discussion as actions of our soldiers."

Oh, yes. Let's ignore the fact that Saddam and the terrorists make atrocities their policy and concentrate instead on limited problems within our own military.

It's SOOO much more productive that way, no?

And, again, I'm not trying to downplay the crimes committed BY AMERICANS in Abu Gharib; I just think it needs to be put into context. Read this; VDH sums up my take on it very well.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-04 2:42:01 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-04 2:42:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Other than his anti-Kissinger fetish, Hitchens usually has a lot of thoughtful stuff to say in the international arena, though he is a ranting Socialist.

The mugging soldiers around the pyramid of Iraqi nakeds was perhaps the most telling.

To them:
1) Don't take pictures.
2) Take your MP job serious enough not to pull fraternity pranks.
3) You are MPs, not military intel, or CIA so don't put yourself in a position to be sent to Levenworth to crack rocks for a dozen years.
4) Don't embarass this country by acting in a way that anti-death penalty columnists suggest making exceptions in your case.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 2:44:48 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:44:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Humiliation is not torture. But we'll see far worse before it's all over. Best not to wear out the outrage meter yet.

Posted by someone 2004-05-04 3:11:48 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:11:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Hypocracy. Maybe the soldiers should have murdered the prisoners as infidels. You know those Muslim prisoners didn't believe the way we believe, so maybe they should have just killed them and drug them through the streets. Maybe the soldiers should have sent their children into the prison cells with bombs strapped to them and blown up the infidel prisoners. Maybe they should have sent their children with bombs strapped to them to blow some Iraqi infidel children in a bus.

Sometimes the hypocracy makes me want to puke. The soldiers were wrong, and they will be punished. But make no mistake, there are no Americans over here whooping and celebrating in the streets because of the despicable acts of those particular soldiers. They embarrassed us. But were the tables turned, you can be sure that believers in the religion of peace would be dancing in the streets.

Posted by Jake 2004-05-04 3:12:32 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:12:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Good points, Jake.

Superb article you posted, RC! Now I think I understand what you were saying the other day, when the photos first hit the airwaves. An out-of-proportion double standard is taking hold, as you said .

From the article RC linked:

"So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own necessary and stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the same standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more culpable, of their own."

(They should, but like they ever will . . . ha!)

From the excerpt posted by sludj:

* It has been like a shot in the back to the many soldiers (active front-line duty, not safe-job prison guards) who were willing to take casualties rather than inflict them and who fought selectively and carefully.

Yeah, that's one of the things I hate most about what happened--plus it will get the cry-baby Islamofascists in a "take revenge" whirlwind.

Also:

What are the chances of the next such soldier who is captured by some gang of Saddamists or Wahabbists or Khomeinists?

Well, it probably would go worse for them now--but their chances weren't very good anyway, before.

Another thought (dare I say): maybe the jihadis will now realize that we can be mean and ugly too . . . just a thought (although I don't condone what happened--it wasn't okay and it provided way too much fodder for the "Culture of Blame " in the Arab world and among the West's non-thinking libs)

Posted by cingold 2004-05-04 3:31:54 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:31:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 cingold: Another thought (dare I say): maybe the jihadis will now realize that we can be mean and ugly too . . . just a thought (although I don't condone what happened--it wasn't okay and it provided way too much fodder for the "Culture of Blame " in the Arab world and among the West's non-thinking libs)

During the Civil War, the Confederate Army shot black prisoners from the Union Army, thinking that the Union Army wouldn't mind. In response, the Union Army started shooting Confederate prisoners. The result - Confederates stopped the systematic execution of black Union prisoners. Reciprocity is what it takes for the other side to stop ill-treating our people. All this stuff about "higher standards" is both wrong and more importantly, gets our people tortured and killed.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-04 3:38:30 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:38:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Zhang Fei: thanks for the response--didn't know that about the Civil War. Interesting.

But (sorry again) #10, to which you were responding, was posted by me, ex-lib Have no idea what cingold would say about the point you made.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-04 3:44:11 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:44:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 RC> great VDH article, thanx. I really like that guy, puts into words so well what many of us think but I know I certainly could never articulate.

ZF> I agree about the recriprocity. Idealism is fine but *We* need to maintain pragmaticism at all times (especially in the case of warfare).

Posted by Jarhead 2004-05-04 3:54:48 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:54:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Jake wrote: "Hypocracy."

What's that, some sort of low rent form of religious government?

Posted by Tibor 2004-05-04 3:55:22 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:55:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 the statement about the civil war is INCORRECT. The CSA did NOT shoot black prisoners. They sold them back into slavery. They threatened to shoot white officers found leading black troops on grounds of inciting slave rebellion (since most black soldiers were runaway slaves whose free status CSA did not recognize) The Union threatened to retaliate in exact number. The CSA then agreed NOT to shoot white officers. They continued to sell black POWS into slavery. This led to the breakdown of prisoner exchanges, but there was no other Union retaliation.

Do you suppose for one minute that if we tortured prisoners as "retaliation" this would lead the terrorists to STOP torturing our folks?? On the contrary, that would only lead them to INCREASE it, since their goal is to make us look bad throughout the muslim world. They would not give a flying f*** what this meant to their own guys who were captured, unlike the CSA. This is a different enemy, in different conditions. In the conditions of today the what happened at Abu Ghraib was a disaster for us strategically, and that is what has Hitch so angry.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-04 4:11:34 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:11:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Correction - i DO seem to recall at least one instance (the crater?) where the CSA DID shoot black POWS, but that was the exception, and is unconnected with the Union threat to shoot CSA officers.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-04 4:12:54 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:12:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Civil War:

There was an interesting case later in the war when Union forces were chasing a guerilla around the Virginia countryside (forget his name). They executed a few of the guerillas they captured, so the guerilla leader executed a couple of Union soldiers *he* captured, and threatened to do tit for tat unless the Union side desisted. They did.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-05-04 4:19:21 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:19:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 John Moseby?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-04 4:20:52 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:20:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 And re the jihadis thinking we can be mean and ulgy too: they *already* think the worst of us, due to the media hysteria about Gitmo.

Abu Ghraib just turned the knobs to 11, that's all.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-05-04 4:21:33 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:21:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Yep, that's the man LH, thanks ! John Singleton Mosby.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-05-04 4:31:43 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:31:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Reciprocity is also the reason Hitler never used chemical weapons. The allies could blanket his cities in the stuff, but he was only able to launch (relatively) minor air attacks on Britain. (The Germans killed 50,000 British city-dwellers, the Allies killed 2,000,000 German city-dwellers, the bulk of them through aerial bombardment).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-04 4:35:16 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:35:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 An out-of-proportion double standard is taking hold, as you said .

Damn straight. I heard a talking head babbling about "war crimes" and "international law" last night -- they only do that when Americans are the accused.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-04 4:42:22 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-04 4:42:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 But, Carl in N.H: wasn't the stuff at Gitmo pure fabrication, and they know it? Now they have to consider that we can be as mean as they are, with the photo "proof," and that we have the bigger guns to back us up. So maybe they better play nice. In other words, I don't think it would stop them from torturing our prisoners, but it might cause them to think twice about our capabilities. ("But Ahmed, if I join the jihad and the Americans capture me, they might treat me 'like a woman.' " )

Just looking for a little silver lining after Abu Ghraib . . . in any case, I still firmly believe that we gotta "walk the talk" concernig the treatment of POWs, even if they don't.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-04 5:00:23 PM|| 2004-05-04 5:00:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Tibor - I may be able to spell hypocricy, but I know it when I see it.

Posted by Jake 2004-05-04 5:10:15 PM|| 2004-05-04 5:10:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 There are two double standards, and neither one is legitimate. First, the arab media (and their fellow travelers at BBC, CBS, etc.) are having a field day about the humiliation of prisoners held by US forces, while whistling blindly by the graveyard of arab atrocities. This is wrong--but to be expected from unprincipled sources like these. Second, there are those who take the opposite tact, and try to blunt the criticism of the US guards by pointing to the arab atrocities. They call this "perspective," "context," etc. This is also wrong, and also unprincipled. That is because the only thing that matters is how the US guards should have acted. The only context is US morals (not terrorist morals). The only perspective is the professionalism that we expect from the US military (which it delivers almost 100% of the time). The third approach, the right one, the one being taken by POTUS, Rummy, Kimmett, Powell, and every other US authority I have heard from is (1) express disgust, (2) punish the guilty, (3) take steps to prevent it from happening again, and (4) avoid, at all costs, besmirching our military by comparing the actions of terrorists and tyrants to the actions or our servicemen and women in an attempt to excuse the guards' behavior--or even leave the impression that you are trying to excuse their acts or blunt the criticism. I am so pissed at these guards. I don't care much about what they did to the prisoners. But I am furious about what they did to the US. If they had sat around and planned for months how they could do the most harm to the US they couldn't have come up with any better plan than what they did.

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 5:49:14 PM|| 2004-05-04 5:49:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 sludj: If they had sat around and planned for months how they could do the most harm to the US they couldn't have come up with any better plan than what they did.

Now you're getting carried away. If you could point out the practical aspects of this damage, it might help me understand your perspective a little better. You're going on and on about damage, but I really don't see it. Al Jazeera is going on and on about the US deliberately going out and shooting civilians - women and children on a daily basis. Muslims I know here in America believe it. They also believe the stuff about Guantanamo. There is nothing anyone can do that will change Muslim minds about the campaign in Iraq.

And it's not just Muslims who have parochial views about subjects near and dear to their hearts. Almost to a man, Chinese I have spoken to here in America believe that both the Chinese embassy bombing and the EP-3 incident were the fault of the US military. All characterized the American response (regrets, statements of condolence, very sorry, et al) as inadequate. All characterize the US as an arrogant bully. Some of these folks are even US citizens.

As far as I'm concerned, if these boys were interrogating people for information rather than torturing them for kicks, I can't really get too worked up about what they did. All this talk about "standards"* is complete BS. The folks who have the guts to fight us are fighting us. The rest are just wannabes who want to wring concessions out of us by pretending to be jihadis. If these guys are so brave, why has Saddam been in power for so many decades?

* If our boys have to die for a word, that word should be poontang (borrowing from Full Metal Jacket).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-04 6:10:32 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:10:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 You don't have the Big Picture of this "scandal" or know the way Iraqis are truly perceiving it until you read Omar's take on it over at Iraq the Model.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 6:15:53 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 6:15:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 What's with all this POW crap? Why do you have more than 10? You don't want me to come back again. I thought we'd been over this. POWs are a luxury item and we are living in hard times.

Posted by Lou Diamond 2004-05-04 6:17:14 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:17:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Jen and ZF. Jen, thanks for the link, very interesting. If this guy is legitimate and has a good sense of the whole country, that is encouraging. But I would note that even he says, "I also noticed that the abuse pictures brought a flashback from the days of Saddam and the way Iraqi prisoners were treated in; a tone of fear was in the voice of my friend 'this could happen to me or anyone else. If someone gets randomly arrested (for being near the site of some clashes or violent demonstrations in the wrong time), he might be tortured or humiliated by the prison guards before they recognize that heâs got nothing to do with the insurgency or the terrorists' That I must say will have a very bad effect on encouraging Iraqis to participate in the political process in Iraq." ZF, maybe I am overreacting but I am pissed. "Muslims I know here in America believe it. They also believe the stuff about Guantanamo. There is nothing anyone can do that will change Muslim minds about the campaign in Iraq." The big difference is that the accusations are true in this case. Read what Bush, Kimmett, Rummy, Meyers, Powell, etc., etc. are saying. This incident hurts us in a way that all of the lies don't hurt us. It is different. If you don't think so, we disagree.

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 6:28:41 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:28:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 ex-lib:

Not sure about the Gitmo stuff being "pure fabrication" on the part of the media, but the media was reporting the hooding and shackling of the prisoners, plus showing them to the media, as "human rights violations" and even "atrocities", which is what I meant by hysteria.

And in the minds of the jihadi set, the "atrocities" at Gitmo became easily conflated with actual atrocities, to the extent that I recall a couple of stories from a year or so ago which depicted captured jihadis as being actually terrified of going to Gitmo.

As for whether they "know" the stories are not real, of course I do not know either way, except that I am constantly amazed at how primitive and vicious these people are, and fully expect them to swallow uncritically any horrific lie they hear.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-05-04 6:44:23 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:44:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 sludj, you missed the best part! Here's more from Omar:

"...After a few words of greetings that friends usually exchange after not seeing each other for a long time, the conversation turned towards the current situation in Iraq, and as the prisoners abuse issue is the hottest topic nowadays, I started my attempts to discover their points of view about it. They were all upset but they showed satisfaction with the fast and firm reaction of the coalition higher officials and were also impressed by the honesty of the American soldier who reported the abuse and uncovered tha awful behavior of those criminals but at the same time they said that theyâre looking forward to âsee the offenders get some real punishment, not just directing few harsh words. A sentence for 3 or 4 years in prison will be convenientâ. Others showed more understanding to the American law system.

This is very good news! "more understanding of the American law system!"
These people really haven't had any law system for years and years.
And Rule of Law is one of the key things we bring with us to liberate and democratize this country!
(This also ties in with how we're dealing with al-Sadr in Najaf and the American corpse abusers in Falluja and then there will be Saddam's trial, too.)
I think that we're making great strides with the Iraqi people in a little over a year!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 6:44:25 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 6:44:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Jen: You are absolutely right. We are spoon fed bad news every day. The rest of Iraq outside of Najaf and Fallujah are progressing. It has been only one year. There is still a LOT of crap on the carpet. But, that said, we are cleaning it up, slowly but surely.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-04 6:53:29 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:53:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Second, there are those who take the opposite tact, and try to blunt the criticism of the US guards by pointing to the arab atrocities. They call this "perspective," "context," etc. This is also wrong, and also unprincipled.

Gee, thanks, sludj. Now I'm "unprincipled". You sure do love to fly off the handle a lot.

Sludj, I'm sick of your attitude. Did you read the VDH piece? Have you ever bothered to think about what I've said?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-04 8:37:39 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-04 8:37:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 RC. I posted the VDH article yesterday, and responded to it then (I repeated part of the response again above). It was late in the day and you probably missed it. I'm not going to get into it with you again: we disagree and we aren't going to be able to persuade one another. You think there is value in pointing to terrorist atrocities as part of the response to the Abu Ghraib debacle. I think that is simply an excuse, and I think it lowers us to make such comparisons. I have thought hard about what you have said, I think you are taking an approach that demeans our servicemen and servicewomen, but I understand that you don't think it does. I'm not sick of your attitude--you are a hell of a bulldog in your defense--but I think you are misguided and mistaken on this issue. Also, I think you need to stop posting pictures of butter faces at your website--c'mon, there are more attractive women than that. RC, we have different styles. You have called me stupid, told me you are sick of my attitude, etc., etc. That's not my style. I think you are wrong, but I'm not going to insult you (if I have in the past it was heat of battle and I apologize). I think we have a lot more in common in our views on the WoT than differences. But it just depresses me when people refer to the actions of our military in the same breath with actions of monsters in an attempt to defend our military by the comparison. Like I have said, watch Bush, watch Rummy, watch Kimmett, etc., etc. They've got it right in refusing to do that.

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 8:57:36 PM|| 2004-05-04 8:57:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 "It is as if British or American soldiers had not only executed German prisoners of war, but had force-marched them to Dachau in order to commit the atrocity."

This guy is known jornalist and dont know that US , Britain and others allies murdered German soldier for exemple?!

That kind of thing always happen in a war, the judgement must be made by the number of cases vs number of soldiers in operational theatre and if it's a POLICY of governement and how the case is dealt with.

There are assholes in all places
and War is the most stressing situation.

Posted by Anonymous4602 2004-05-04 9:04:49 PM|| 2004-05-04 9:04:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 My husband was travelling with several of his 1st yr cadets (West Point seniors, about to graduate / be commissioned). A news story on this came up and he asked them what they thought caused it.

Unanimous answer: "Failure of Leadership. The NCOs should have prevented this from happening and stopped it when it did. The commissioned officers should have made sure the NCOs did so."

And don't get me started on the sargeant who says he wasn't trained or given guidance.

Every officer I know - and I work with a BUNCH of them every day - is furious and disgusted about this. It goes against their professionalism and ethics.

Having said that, there is a lot of disingenous rhetoric going on about al Ghraib. There's a big difference between psychological abuse and rape. The posed nude photos are abusive and shouldn't have happened, but they are not torture. (Except to the pride of Muslim Arab men, who object most of all to "being treated like women". )

Emotions DO run high during wartime. Given NBC's report today of possible Iraqi guard involvement in the actual physical abuse, it's likely that what occurred has several dimensions to it that need peeling apart in order to assign blame & punishment appropriately. From what I can tell, the chain of command is doing just that.

Posted by rkb 2004-05-04 9:36:28 PM|| 2004-05-04 9:36:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 You think there is value in pointing to terrorist atrocities as part of the response to the Abu Ghraib debacle. I think that is simply an excuse

Because you simply refuse to hear my point.

It's NOT an excuse. It's an explanation that, while we're taking the matter seriously, we'd really, really, really appreciate if people got a sense of proportion. It's a call for maturity in the world.

Also, I think you need to stop posting pictures of butter faces at your website--c'mon, there are more attractive women than that.

? WTF ?

I think you are wrong, but I'm not going to insult you (if I have in the past it was heat of battle and I apologize).

Then why the hell did you use the term "unprincipled" above?

But it just depresses me when people refer to the actions of our military in the same breath with actions of monsters in an attempt to defend our military by the comparison.

That's senseless. Utterly senseless.

"In a single incident during WWII, US soldiers murdered at least one POW and injured dozens; the soldiers involved were tried and those who were convicted were punished. In comparison, the Japanese military used POWs and other prisoners in experiments on biological, chemical, and conventional warfare; few of those involved, if any, were ever punished."

This kind of statement depresses you?

Why?

It's a bald-faced statement of the facts. It places the US and our military in a hell of a positive light in comparison to the Japanese Imperial Army. If anything, it emphasizes our strengths -- self criticism and a willingness to accept hard truths about our selves -- that our enemies lack.

Get a grip.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-04 11:01:51 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-04 11:01:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Sludge, you might want to go take a look at instapundit's site. He's got an interesting take on it:

Instead of viewing this purely as a disaster (though, of course, it's that) we should view this as a teachable moment. Everybody in the Arab world knows that their govenments engage in torture on a far greater scale, and as a matter of policy. People's careers are built on it, not destroyed by it. We should be taking advantage of this opportunity to demonstrate the difference.

Wouldn't we have to mention the actions of others in order to "demonstrate the difference"?

Nah. Of course not. That makes you sad.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-04 11:08:57 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-04 11:08:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Robert Crawford: Wouldn't we have to mention the actions of others in order to "demonstrate the difference"?

Nah. Of course not. That makes you sad.

Most countries take our differing standards to mean that they should abide by their standards, and we should abide by ours. This is why, in their eyes, the mutilation of American dead is acceptable.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-04 11:59:49 PM|| 2004-05-04 11:59:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Btw, if Hitch thinks being a prison guard is safe maybe he should have a talk with this guy.

Posted by someone 2004-05-05 2:33:37 AM|| 2004-05-05 2:33:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 This is why America will lose to the muslims. While Americans are agonizing about what is moral or amoral, muslims are dragging bodies through their streets and planning the next attack. Yes, what the soldiers did was wrong from our standards, but it is nothing compare to what muslims do their own kind and others. So get over it or when the muslims are finished with you, there will no be any moral standards to defend or argue about.
When will Americans realize that no matter what they do, muslims will always hate them. It will take generations to de-program these people. By then, they would have succeded in destroying the country. Indoctrination in this part of the world is done from the top down, therefore Americans, not matter what good examples they set, will never gain the hearts and minds of these people. Their governments will never allow it. Example: hubby's place of work is a very large government company that has in place, a very powerful censorship in the computer network. One cannot access any website that can remotely be connected to hate crimes, porno (that includes dating services)or gambling. Well, guess what has been circulating around for days now? You got it...all the photos of the prisoners being "tortured" in Iraq. We all know that somebody lifted the censorship or turned a blind eye to allow them to circulate. For what purpose? Simple: to promote more hate!

Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-05 4:11:19 AM|| 2004-05-05 4:11:19 AM|| Front Page Top

17:35 Anonymous4775
15:02 Anonymous4752
03:22 someone else
11:47 cingold
07:33 Howard UK
06:52 Bulldog
06:50 Super Hose
06:49 Bulldog
06:10 Howard UK
06:04 Bulldog
05:18 Howard UK
05:10 Bulldog
04:11 Anonymous4617
03:04 Zenster
02:33 someone
01:59 Jen
01:43 Anonymous4617
01:30 Eric Jablow
01:21 Bomb-a-rama
01:17 Anonymous4617
01:08 Anonymous4617
01:01 Beau
00:26 Zhang Fei
00:03 Mr. Davis