The brutal murder of Nick Berg at the hands of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a reminder of the kind of inhuman savages we’re fighting in Iraq. They don’t represent a popular uprising, but a group of disgusting butchers that likes of which have not seen since the days of Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler.
When we find those bastards we should but a bullet in their brains and feed their corpses to pigs. Let them burn in the deepest part of hell. Such acts are enough to show that they’ve rescinded any claim to humanity.
This is the barbarism we’re fighting alongside the innnocent people of Iraq. This is why we must win this war.
Cool. Lets be savages too. That’ll show em and it will be fun!
Besides, putting a bullet in thier heads is a helluva lot better than rotting in a prison for the rest of thier lives.
Self-defense isn’t savagery.
Or do you reject the concept of justice?
This is not a law-enforcement job. This is a war. You win wars by killing your enemy – violently, and in sufficient numbers to make their comrades reconsider.
People who don’t know that should recuse themselves from voting in the interest of decency.
You have to understand that this atrocity of a GI losing his head was just an isolated case…
Since they did it to protest against the “youth foolishnesses” of some GIs, you know what the US should do: revenge and punish!! And then, muslims groups would fight for revenge again in a suicide bombing. And then, the US would send some missiles in a city town to retaliate….and we have a new palestinian/israeli conflict!! GOOD JOB!!!
(and you’re so stupid you’ve never seen that coming!!!)
Vincent: 1940:
I see the spirit of Petain lives on…
Mitch is exactly right here – shooting al-Zarqawi isn’t savagery. He’s a military target in a time of war. It would be no different than shooting Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Hell, we put Tim McVeigh to death for less (and deservedly so).
al-Zarqawi and his group of thugs represent a sick strain of virulent radicalism. What disgusts me is that someone like Vincent, who is smart enough to know better, really believes that they killed him because of Abu Ghraib. They killed him because he was an American and a Jew – just what they did to Daniel Pearl two years ago.
Oh, we can shoot them- but we can also take them prisoner.
Tell me, what ever happened to the old treatment of POW’s taken by America? In WWII we sent German POW’s to the midwest, where they worked on farms. Many didn’t want to go home after the war- life was better over here. Although we have the stain of interning the Japanese on our hands (the second most idiotic thing this country has ever done), the treatment of our own prisoners of war was a model of civilized conduct.
Let’s show the world how America conducts a war and not give in to solutions that mirror the beasts we’re fighting.
The short answer is that the Germans weren’t terrorists. The Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists – in fact, in order to retain your rights under the convention, you must meet four criteria:
***The detainees in question must have been “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”
***They must have worn “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”
***They must have carried their arms “openly”
***And they must have conducted their operations “in accordance with the laws and customs of war”
Terrorists usually don’t meet any of these. Now, guerilla fighters can be treated under the Convention provided they meet those criteria as well, but anyone who doesn’t is no longer covered.
So, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi doesn’t count because he is responsible to no one (unless he’s somehow in communications with OBL, which seems very unlikely without us knowing), he doesn’t wear a uniform, he hides in the civilian population of Iraq, and he just murdered someone who was covered under the Convention.
Basically, as far as international law is concerned, terrorists have no rights – which is exactly the way it should be.
Vincent,
How can you be so heartless as to say “You have to understand that this atrocity of a concentration camp was just an isolated case”
This “isolated case” has a family, parents that have to see this on the news again and again, they have to see their sons head cut off over and over. Are you so arrogant and bitter towards the US that you have lost all sence of compassion for those that are dying? Your comment makes me sick, it is a simple “well I told you so” comment.
Chris: Actually, that was me changing the context of Vincent’s statement. His actual words were “You have to understand that this atrocity of a GI losing his head was just an isolated case…”
It’s still wrong, and your point still stands, but I just wanted to make sure that he wasn’t being misquoted.
The problem is, we need to do something about the status of terrorists, and quick. One of the things that has bothered me is that since 9-11 we have never had an “anti-terrorism” summit or an “islamofascism” summit in which we’ve clearly delineated our plans to our allies and what we’re facing. While such a move may seem pointless, it could do a lot to iron over our problems with our allies and with our image in the world, and let us set up guidelines for how we’re going to fight terrorism properly without ticking off everyone in the islamic world.
I think you’re missing my point because what I said was ironic. I was just doing a parallel between what they did (cut his head) and what the US did (pee on them, have them fuck each other as a chain, attach their balls with electric wires…) .All these atrocities were commited and excused in a matter of seconds (“this is an isolated case”), even though it is totally inexcusable: officials like rumsfeld knew it since February and said nothing + it wasn’t “isolated” at all, since it happened a lot, and in all jails of Iraq (and probably in Guantanamo too). I agree that kill is worth than torture, but not when it comes from educated, powerful and democratic americans.
My point is that there is a bouble-standard for war crimes depending on what side it comes from. Just as in the israeli-palestinian war, Jay thinks it “innocents vs. terrorists”. This is untrue, simplistic and dumb. Both sides are wrong. From an iraki point of view, it really looks like you don’t like them.
Chris: I was just as shocked as you by Jay’s stupidity, “quoting me” as a nazi. He thought it was funny. It was dumb and insulting, but I guess he never really realises that to be called anti-semitic when not true is not fun. I guess it is the only way he can make his points get accross: pretend others hate jews! How handy to dismiss all peace argumentation with a “you are a nazi” type of insult!! I don’t know how someone can agree with israelis grabing land from three of their neighbouring countries, but it has to be my anti-semitism talking.
1.) The people who were responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib were about 12 out of 135,000. Saying they represent the US military is like me saying that all of France is represented by the pied-noirs in Algeria.
2.) Rumsfeld didn’t cover anything up. In fact, the Defense Department issued a press release months ago stating that it was investigating abuses. The only difference between now and then is that the media got ahold of the pictures and can now hype the story beyond all proportion.
3.) How many Israelis have suicide bombed Palestinian schoolbuses? Where are the synagogues that say that the Palestinian people must be slaughtered every Sabbath? How many Israeli children trade baseball cards with pictures of murderers on them? How many terrorist groups are left alone by Israel and allowed to openly demonstrate? Where is Israel’s supreme President for life? How many Fulbright Scholars representatives have Israelis killed? If you want to know when I’d stop supporting Israel Victor Davis Hanson has the answer. Until then, trying to draw moral equivocation between Israel and Palestine is simply wrong.
4.) Both sides are *not* wrong – unless you consider democracy and freedom to be wrong.
What disgusts me about Europe is the arrogant assumption that all Iraqis are the same bloodthirsty savages as the terrorists of Fallujah. The Iraqi people have been brutalized by years of Ba’athist oppression. While France and the UN were stealing humanitarian relief money from the Iraqi people, Abu Ghraib was being used for torture that makes those pictures look like nothing, mass graves were being filled, and the Iraqi people were enslaved.
If you honestly think that is just the same as an occupation that has liberated 25 million, spent billions of dollars building schools, hospitals, homes, roads, and bridges – if you honestly think that the recent acts at Abu Ghraib were equal to mass extermination of thousands of ethnic minorities, if you think that the US was just as bad as Saddam – in that case you’re not only being incredible ignorant, but participating in a denial that is just as sick and just as morally reprehensible as denying the Holocaust.
The Iraqis can tell the difference between the two, so why can’t most Europeans?
5.) Just look at the argument – “israelis grabing land from three of their neighbouring countries” as if Israel just woke up and decided to conquer its neighbors – conveniently ignoring the fact that the Six Day War was started by those same countries and Israel had to establish a buffer zone to prevent itself from being overrun. Had Israel not had the benefit of better weapons (sold to them by France, Germany, and the UK none the less), better training, and the knowledge that defeat would mean anihilation, there might not have been an Israel afterwards.
If you want to know why I frequently accuse Europeans of casual anti-Semitism, things like that are exactly why.
I think I need to clarify what I meant. I meant to quote Vincent saying this “”You have to understand that this atrocity of a GI losing his head was just an isolated case”
However Do I agree with rapeing and sexually abusing prisoners? hell no. The thought that people could do that makes me sick, what is to stop soldiers doing the same gross actions when they get home from war? But do I think Europe is arrogant in their attitude towards the US? Yes. I have visited a number of commentary web sites both of the US and Europe. Many Europeans are saying that we got what was coming to us, we brought it on ourselves, this is payment for the prisoner abuse… yada yada. Also Many Americans are saying that this kind of interrogation is acceptable, via on web sites or on radio and TV show. Both of these kinds of statements are wrong. Rape and torture is never right, but neither is gloating over the death of an innocent man. Which is what I felt Vincent statements were doing.