Two US soldiers tortured to death, where is the outrage from the left now????

They have homo sapien DNA but they are far from "human." I feel sorry for you that you consider yourself their equal.

There is more to the side a person is on than the country they are in. Loyalists in America were not on the side of the revolutionaries who were also Englishmen in the same country as we were. When Pakistan broke away from India, they were not on the same side as those in their own country. A line drawn in the sand by some random British authority does not make everyone inside that border on the same side. Even people living in the same city of the same race are not always on the same side.

If an Iraqi strongly believes their country would be better without a police force loyal to America, then they are not killing their own side when they kill people signing up for the police force. They are killing those they view as traitors. Terrorists to one group of people are called freedom fighters to another group of people. You can see the same situation in both revolutionary America and the formation of Pakistan as an independant country. It is narrow sighted to think that those fighting for freedom, whether its logical for them to do so or not, are killing their own when they kill those who side with their enemy.

Even if America truly has Iraq's best interest in mind, the western world has not always had Iraq's best interest in mindl. These people have a completely distorted view of America, just as we have of Iraq, just as India has of Pakistan, just as England had of America. They still are admirable in the fact that they are willing to die and kill for what they believe is best for their family. I admire an Iraqi who wants to cut my head off to protect his family more than I do of the childish idea I had a few years ago of doing good by killing for my government. Both ideas stem out of misunderstanding, but at least the Iraqis (this time) are killing out of self-defense and not just killing because Saddam told them to.

If its any consolation, I consider you their equal as much as I consider myself their equal.

You consider us all equals because you believe we all have the same capacity to do.

I consider myself, and yes, you, superior because we have the capacity but don't.

Sad you can't see that.

Now the TERRORISTS are revolitionaries and freedom fighters. OH MY FARKING GOSH. I take back everything I said earlier in this thread. THIS is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

I must say, I agree quite entirely with Dark Korvin. American colonists, if you remember, were terrorists. They might not have suicide bombed or maimed women and children...well..there was some maiming of women and children on both sides, but at the time, guerilla tactics (which we did use) and vandalism of Her Majesty's Fleet (tea, anyone?) were considered on-par with the things we view as atrocities now. Primarily, because any worse was just not discussed in polite company.

Lorelei, I find myself agreeing with you often, but not today. One group viewing itself as superior to another on the fundament of morality is the very thing that incenses war and makes the two alike in their bigotry.

First, you are wrong to say that I said one group is superior to another, unless by groups you mean "people who behead" and "people who don't behead," for example.

It is fallacy to say, for the sake of equality, that we are all the same. Some of us are smarter than others, some stronger. Some add to the world with feats of courage or philanthropy, others subtract from it in acts of rage and violence. Some of us control our darker urges and others do the acts that touched of this thread.

As a rule, all people are entitled to dignity and respect. However, once you commit acts such as was done to the soldiers, you have forfeited your place in the human family. I do believe there are some sins too great to be forgiven. People who do such things are no longer human; they are not even an animal. Animals wouldn't do that.

You can call it bigotry all you like. I guess I value humanity too much to include such creatures among it.

That would be the exact groups I'm referring to. If I say the passing of judgment on who is human and who is not based on their morals and way of life is the very thing that would exclude someone from being "human", thereby excluding you from humanity, would it make you any less human?

Not morals. Actions. Everyone has bad thoughts. It's the decision to act on it or not that makes all the difference.

Yes, I admit that I'm ignorant. I still haven't been able to figure why you think that advocating the humane treatment of prisoners means that person supports the torturing to death of prisoners.

What I think has happened is that you failed to heed your own advice whenyou made your implied accusations.



You seem to think that being outraged about the brutal torture and killing of american troops means that you should ignore bad things that our government is doing. Are the things that the US is doing as bad as what Al Quida does? Not by a long shot. I don't know what kind of bizzaro black-and-white world you live in, but your suppositions about the motivations of those who want the US to stand for decency are completely off base. If you're having trouble understanding how it is possible to want to treat people with compassion while still abhoring these brutal acts, then you may want to try reading C. S. Lewis (trying to recall which book, I think it might have been The Problem of Pain or maybe The Joyful Christian).

I'll return to my ignorance now.

Isn't that the definition of a moral decision? Wouldn't it be the morality of the individual or the mores of a society that dictate the response of a person to their desires? Morals are what keep us from acting on every desire we have, willy-nilly. Which is exactly what you're saying sets one group apart from another.

For all any of us know, the particular sect of the Muslim faith that is enacting Jihad in this manner are the only fundamentally "correct" group in the world. There's no empirical unit of measurement to tell us otherwise. Personally, I don't think so, but it's not my place to judge. Nor is it yours.

Thing is, you seem to talk as if these people are fundamentally flawed, and thus disqualify as human. I recognise that almost any normal human, sufficiently pressed, would do teh exact same thing. I believe teh only reason you and I haven't done these things is because we haven't lived in their shoes. Until you have, you are in no position to judge them as inhuman, because you have no idea what that human has had to put up with.

His attitude is totally un-American, he would be more at home in a religious fundamental state such as Iran (only Christian). Even his own President wants to see an end to situations like Guantanamo and not condoning it because it's what the enemy does. We can feel outrage without doing the same because that is what we are fighting for.

My particular faith tells me that it is okay to lock Jihadists like this up in a dark cell, threaten them with packs of wild dogs and stack them in gay pyramids for my amusement.

Who are you to judge me for that?

Ahh, it's so liberating to be able to do whatever we feel is right without anyone condemning us or judging us for it.

You're passing judgment on those people by way of that belief system.

Perhaps this is what "judge not lest ye be judged" really means: that by judging others, you give up your right to be free from judgment yourself.

your judging him, so by your own logic I can judge you? gee sounds like everyone is subject to judgement.

Well, I wouldn't call foreign troops with loaded weapons rounding up prisoners free no matter what form of government is in place. It is the same reason why I think Vietnam became free when America left them to become what they would on their own.

I'm not judging him. I might be judging his angle, but not him as a person. People tend to get confused on the difference between the two. The Christians say "hate the sin, not the sinner". That's the essential point I'm trying to convey. By saying that an entire people needs to die or be tortured because of actions of their supposed representatives, or their support of those actions, we are passing judgment on people. By simply being angry that the actions took place, we are judging those actions.

Your philosophy is not only impractical it is not even self-consistent. As an extension of what Billybob says, you're judging me for judging them for judging us.

Why am I the only one who gets singled out as unjudgeworthy?


And I certainly don't want to place myself above being judged. Our society depends on weighing the actions of others and taking corrective (sometimes punitive) action. This doesn't mean I'm willing to put myself at the mercy of Islamic fundamentalists, but I'm okay with them judging me as evil because of my actions and beliefs.

Weighing ACTIONS, exactly, not people. A person's actions are not the thing that defines the person. I'm not judging you for judging them. I don't think any less of you or more of you for it. Therefore, I'm not judging you. I"m judging your act of judgment, which is NOT judging a person.

So despite the fact that Bob the terrorist tortured and beheaded American soldiers, made a political statement by blowing up pensioners waiting in line to get their meagre allowance, and likes to sexually assault goats, I still have to view him as a good person? Umm, okay.


More Christian platitudes? If you want to make a case that my god, your god, or their god is taking a position on these matters, then just come out and say so and I'll shut up. But don't pretend that these have any meaning in a secular discussion.


Is this supposed to be addressed to anyone in this thread or have you suddenly shifted to protesting the actions of the Knights Templar or some other historical figure? Or is this another meaningless Bible reference.

No one has advocated torturing all Iraqis or Muslims because of the actions of a small subset of them. This is a shameless attempt to polarize the debate.

I'm in the midst of leaving work, so I'll address your first point only and come to the rest later tonight.

I didn't say you had to view him as a good person. I'm saying you had to view him as a person.


Really, the rest of what I said addresses those to whom they are relevant. I never directed them at you, particularly. It's not a shameless attempt to polarize, it seems to be you thinking you're "special".

Damn straight it is.

An open mind is a good thing. Just don't let it be so open your brain falls out.

There are a lot of really stressed out people in this world who somehow manage to get by without ever beheading a single person. I happen to think these people are superior to those who do. *shrug* It's not such a radical thing to say, really.

Oh, but they absolutely are.

If I walk by a hungry person, sandwich in hand, and think to myself, "Self, it would be really nice if I gave him this sandwich," and then walk on by... that would make me far less of a mensch than the person who thinks it and does it. Good thoughts, or bad thoughts for that matter, don't matter a hill of beans unless they press you to do something.