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

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?

YES.. and what a lovely day it is how are you?

This is just a red herring and IMO a meaningless attack on the administration (not by you specifically, you're just playing along).

I'm not an expert on the Geneva Conventions and I'm pretty sure you're not either. However, my understanding is that the GC would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to apply here. The conventions were written to apply to uniformed, national armies. They do not work very well, IMO, when applied to terrorists.

Members of the Republican Guard should have been treated under the GC, even if Saddam would not have given us the same consideration.

However, those in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were not in uniform and not part of any national army. They were criminals (presumably) and should have been treated as such. Our soldiers were kidnapped, tortured and murdered by criminals, not soldiers, so the GC doesn't apply there either.

The "War on Terror" is not a conventional war and the GC does not apply (no more than it would to the "War on Drugs". The administration does try to walk the fine line between war and not-war, using whichever definition is most beneficial at the time.

That is perhaps the problem here, not that we've lost the moral high ground because we're not treating terrorists with the proper respect.

I wouldn't know. But thanks for asking.

People always argue that by attacking Iraq and killing thousands of soldiers AND civilist has saved a larger number of lives in the end. But what if there was one genius among the victims, who could have discovered a cure for HIV... who would have saved millions... billions of people in the coming years...

Who are these people to decide which life is worth more than someone else's life.

What else is new? But this is not unique to Billy, neo-cons, Republicans, the religious right, or whatever group you are complaining about right now. Hopefully you have just as much ire for those on the "left" who lament that we've recently passed the 2500 mark on American military fatalities in Iraq.

But here's the comparison you are (intentionally?) missing. Tens of thousands of innocents who died during our occupation vs. the millions that died under Saddam. And none of them looked like me.


I see you received your invitation.

There is a middle ground.

We have the resources to hold ourselves to a higher standard, but that does not mean that we won't have to get a little dirty at times or that individuals on our side won't make mistakes.

I don't see it. Sorry.
What is so difficult to understand? Here you have a person foaming at the mouth about the death of two people and you don't hear a peep out of him about the death of thousands of Muslims. It does not matter who is responsible for this - whether Saddam or the Americans. This is not a political argument. It's an argument about basic moral decency.

You say he has no moral decency because he values 2 American lives over thousands of muslims. I totally agree with you. Most Americans would probably value 2 American soldiers at only about 200 to 300 innocent muslims. He's clearly a nut.

But this is why I think you're also lacking in basic moral decency. Here you are lamenting the deaths of tens of thousands of muslims as a result of our invasion/occupation. But I don't hear a peep out of you on the millions who died as a direct result of Hussein's dictatorship.

So, if we're going with the theory that whatever was in your last post indicates your greatest moral outrage, then you are equally morally deficient.

Since you're not an expert, I'll just point out to you that teh GC also has some very struct rules about how people out of uniform are supposed to be treated. And yes, rules on how 'spies' get reated too.

Is this a joke? If not, you might want to collect your thoughts and get back to us, because what you've stated here makes absolutely no sense.

Thank you for this. I wasn't going to respond to that spewed garbage, but you did quite well.

Excellent post and points

The rules are very complex and I'm guessing you're not an expert either. There are many, many reasons why we should not treat every terrorist exactly the same as we would a combatant in a conventional war.

But, if you want to have that discussion you should probably start another thread.

The relevant point here is that it is just absurd to look at the kidnapping, mutilation, and execution of uniformed soldiers as a reasonable action. And to excuse those actions (or say we shouldn't be outraged by them) because we're not following the GC ourselves.

Well maybe the thread is just continuing the way it started.

I am not assuming that Billy is morally deficient based on that one post only. He has a long history of expressing bigotry and hatred in these forums.Well, I'm trying to compare apples with apples. The deaths of American soldiers and the daily carnage of Iraqi civilians from Americans, Al Qaeda elements, etc. is both concurrent and related. Whereas the deaths of American soldiers and the massacres under Hussein's regime is not concurrent or as related. No moral deficiency here. I'm an atheist, not a Christian. tyvm.

Oh my lord, who said they were reasonable actions? Am I missing something?

What is outrageous is your sanctimony in thinking you have the market cornered on outrage. Is the death of these soldiers sad? Absolutely - and it is made worse by the manner in which they died. However, there have been tens of thousands of people - many of them innocent civilians (not soldiers who signed up for duty) who have been killed at the hands of our forces as well. You say it's a part of war when it happens to them, well so is this unfortunately. Outrage needs to go both ways. It is a horrific situation on both sides, and no ones hands are clean. Get over yourself, seriously.

Maybe, I don't know about that. I just took issue with your post and what seemed like a conclusion based on what he stated here and more importantly 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.


We can express outrage or show remorse over the execution of these two soldiers while still having consideration for loss of life elsewhere.

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.)

Wow, that is wonderful, calling the Koran a piece of trash. You are so ignorant about what it contains that it is laughable, and it just shows how ridiculously intolerant you are. Do you think the Christian Bible does not call for the death of people? Islam is not a religion of violence, any more than Christianity is supposed to be a religion of hatred and intolerance. What you have are both religions being perverted by small sects of fundamentalists. Go ahead and insult the religion of millions of people throughout the world, they are all just terrorists, right?

The people the BECAME muslims are certainly mentioned as worthy of death at the hands of Israelis. Your question was meaningless --The Bible was written long before the Muslim religion existed.

The point I was making is that the Bible also calls for death to non-believers.
Stupid sophist questions notwithstanding.

millions that died under Saddam WITH OUR SUPPORT you mean.

Whatever. Seems that some people are never happy.

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?