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

Whatever. Seems that some people are never happy.

...what he didn't say.

When you elaborated and made an issue out of caring more about those who are the same race, religion, nationality, etc. you turned it into a broader issue and I think it is unfair to single out any individual for that shortcoming.

Was he making a political statement? Certainly. But IMO, so were you. (Maybe it was because you felt the need not to just to say "innocent" muslims, but you had to emphasize it.)

What? I've never heard such a thing. Show me in the bible where it advocates intolerance or violence!

Groucho, could you please point out whoever said that this was justifiable?

oh I dunno --Donny Rumsfeld looks pretty happy to shake the murder's hands.

you're kidding right?

Everyone who has included the the word "but" in their posts. As in (paraphrased):

but what can you expect when we invaded their country?

but that's understandable considering the way we treated our prisoners.

but how can we complain when we don't follow the Geneva Conventions ourselves?

but what about the tens of thousands of innocent muslims who have died?


That kind of thing; which mitigates, softens, downplays or even excuses these actions.

IMO, the reason much of this violence continues is because of this kind of amelioration. Not from people on this forum, lord knows those responsible couldn't care less about us. But from their Iraqi people themselves, their mideast neighbors and the international community at large.

Anything less than total disbelief and outrage is not enough.

I see. So you're saying that if I say "this is to be expected" that is the same as "justifiable"? Am I perfectly clear in this?

I cannot express "disbelief" because this wasn't something I didn't see coming. I can't feel outrage because my outrage meter is tapped out at the moment.

If either of those two things upset you, well - I don't think you can tell someone what their reactions can be.

I see. So you're saying that if I say "this is to be expected" that is the same as "justifiable"? Am I perfectly clear in this?

If Cristiano doesn't have to read the whole thread, why should I?

I'm not saying we didn't support him and any number of other brutal dictators (we still do, in fact). I'm just saying you're angry no matter what we do and you have no suggestions, just complaints.

Bleeding Heart Liberal: Hey, remember when we yelled and cursed because you were supporting an evil dictator like Saddam? Well, uh, sorry about that. Our bad.

You may be as cold and cynical as I am, but at least pretend to be shocked and appalled.

If Cristiano doesn't have to read the whole thread, why should I?

we all expected the possibility that some crazy radical to take matters into his own hands and send his people further into chaos and misery.

BTW, my comments were precipitated by the post where Rose infers that these soldiers would not have been tortured and executed if we had only followed the Geneva Conventions. That was, IMO, the most egregious example of this kind of thinking.

I find that just a little bit outrageous and a whole lotta irrational.

Right. Which is why in Somalia, for example, our soldiers were given tea and cookies until they could be repatriated, right?

Do you honestly believe this? That we've lost the moral high ground because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

We scare our prisoners with dogs, stack them in homosexual pyramids, flush their religious texts down the toilet. They beat, use electric shocks, cut off their testicles and behead their prisoners. Can't you cut us a little slack here?

And should we compare the relative outrage in our respective communities over these offenses?

The implication that the worst forms of torture are justified because we have not followed the Geneva Conventions is ridiculous. If they want to hold on to our prisoners without facing a military trial or without providing counsel, okay. Subject them to the same interrogation techniques even. But I don't think we need the Geneva Conventions to tell us that using power tools to mutilate a prisoner is not quite kosher.

Hate the war, if you like. But this kind of black-and-white rhetoric is just simplistic. We treat our prisoners ten times better than any mideast government and they treat their prisoners many times better than the terrorists we're talking about.

I am no longer outraged by the deaths on either side. I have gone beyond rage and have become merely analytical. The ones who plan (not necessarily those who carry out) these heinous acts do not act out of anger. They act out of a certain knowledge that victory goes to the side that is willing to be more brutal -- the side that is willing to commit acts so horrific that the other side cannot bear to participate in the conflict any longer and so gives in to their demands.

It is a simple fact, proven throughout history, that once a society becomes enlightened enough to abhor violence, it is quickly destroyed by another group that is still willing to use violence and horror to achieve its ends. The fact that the leaders are able to dupe their followers into believing that they will be rewarded in the next life for committing atrocities does not make a particular religion better or worse than another; it simply means that the ignorant will always be exploited by the calculating killers.

Go back and watch Marlon Brando's monologue on horror from Apocalypse Now again. It is spot on. It is happening now.

If we leave the field of battle, it may delay our destruction for a few decades, but those willing to use horror will not stop once we yield "their" territory to them. Our retreat from Iraq in 1991 emboldened them, and thus the 90s were characterized by a series of escalating attacks, culminating in 9/11. Not because of religious beliefs (at least not at the top), but because they know that through horror, they can win power. Because they know that if they can goad us into war, governments will be thrown into chaos, which increases their chances to sieze power. If we refuse to go to war, they cow and subjugate us, which increases their power. Either way, they win.

To those who say war is never the answer, I say, it takes two sides to have peace, and as long as one side believes that it can achieve power through war and horror, war and horror will be inevitable.

I do not see a solution. Either we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and die, or we become less than human, and survive, but as what?

18, some bodies dragged through the streets, if you'll recall.

You conveniently avoid mentioning the prisoners that were "interviewed" to death. Or the basic fact that we don't even know if the prisoners we held had done anything to warrant imprisonment.

Even so, when we begin comparing ourselves to barbarians we put ourselves on their level. We are the United States. We have standards, morals, values. We don't violate those standards because our enemy does. And if our standards are violated, the people responsible should be punished. We live up to our treaties, we keep our word, even if it is inconvenient. That's why we're the good guys.

the operative word of course being "bodies". I asked you how many were tortured and killed.

It was a tragedy. It was disguting --it was also no match for the amount of senseless slaughter we engaged in that killed innocent Somali civilians.

Yes. I did protest that war as well -- and I did shout about how much of what Clinton was doing in Somalia was against the GC.

So what's your point?

Your story only proves mine.

Now ask me how well American GIs were treated by those we actually bothered to honor the GC with.

why egregious? She is correct.