May 11, 2004

The REAL obscenity

I got quite a bit of traffic a couple days ago regarding my little rant regarding the hypocritical hysteria over the Abu Ghraib "torture." Apparently at least a couple of folks found that offensive. Some of those sort of folks like to use the word "obscene" when talking about Abu Ghraib.

Well, they're full of it. They don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. What, you want an example? Ok.

This is obscene.

In case you haven't heard yet, a young man named Nick Berg was beheaded on videotape, just like Daniel Pearl. Watch the tape. Listen to that poor boy screan as they saw his head off with a knife, and then hold it up in front of the camera. Then, think about the "naked butt" pyramid, and other "tortures" inflicted on the Iraq prisoners.

Then, after that, look me in the eye and tell me about the "obscenity" of Abu Ghraib.

What in the hell is wrong with these people!? How morally obtuse do you have to be to not comprehend that we are talking about two tremendously different ways of life here?

On the one hand, we have some idiot reservists who embarassed some prisoners, for which they should be soundly punished. On the other hand, we have sick cowards who don't even have the courage to show their faces as they slowly murder a civilian who never did them any harm.

The really sick part is that the looney part of the Left will immediately say we "provoked" this foul atrocity, because they are pathologically locked into a "hate Amerikka" mode that prevents them seeing the bloody reality in front of their faces.

Let me paste in a quick quote from Emperor Misha's excellent post regarding Abu Ghraib and the Berg murder:
"Now, first I have to say that it was, is and continues to be my impression that the idiots parading around in our uniform that did this are nothing but a bunch of sick pervs doing all of it for shits and giggles, and there is nothing at this time that makes me believe otherwise. For one thing, professionals would never EVER pose for pictures and distribute them to G-d and everybody.

However, and this is a big however, if you consider stripping people naked and putting hoods over their heads "torture", then you need to turn Oprah off, right now, and get the fuck away from the TV until you've re-acquainted yourself with the real world that we live in."

There are too many people who still don't seem to understand that there is, out there, a way of life which is devoted to the death and destruction of America. Those people need to wake up, and tell the world where the stand, because sometimes you just can't sit on the fence and hope the world ignores you.

Me, I stand with the West. Where are you?

Posted by Casey at May 11, 2004 10:22 PM | TrackBack


I whole-heartedly agree; there is a difference bewtween humiliation and abuse, and cold murder like Nick's.

What troubles me, however, is that I have read of confirmed deaths of prisoners, including one in a vegetative state. *IF* (and I stress if) that has occurred as reported, then what they're doing seems more justified... in their eyes, not mine.

To me, the most sickening part of this whole thing is that Nick Berg went over there to help. Nothing more. Not to make money, not for self-promotion or bragging rights. Just to HELP.

There damn well better be a Heaven, because he deserves to be in it.

Posted by: Lachlan at May 12, 2004 2:56 AM

Lach, maybe, to a very small extent. But recall this is exactly how Daniel Pearl was murdered in Afghanistan.

Then there's the four civilians who were murdered, then the bodies defiled; what about them?

Or to go really way back, how about the Achilles Lauro? Does the name Leon Klinghoffer ring a bell?

What's really weird is that all three (Berg, Pearl, Klinghoffer) are Jewish. What a coincidence...

I will admit that there is no evidence (that' I've seen) which indicates that's why they chose Berg for their vicous slaughter, but it is "interesting," if you know what I mean.

There's just a certain kind of Islamic mind which is kill-crazy.

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 12, 2004 2:17 PM

I think the nick berg video is staged. If you cut someone's head off their is blood all over the people that did it and the place.
This is a Republican ploy to save Bush's ass

Posted by: mike at May 12, 2004 10:54 PM

Kate, I guess I have more faith in the future than you do, which is ironic since I'm agnostic. :) As the old saying goes, just keep the faith.

Um, Mike, one thing you might want to consider: they found the poor man's decapitated body on the side of a road. Somebody cut his head off...

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 14, 2004 11:51 AM

Has it occurred to anyone that all the players here - the murderers of Berg, and the US interrogators - have engaged in an unacceptable level of living, breathing profanity (to say the least)?

No one is saying the Berg beheading was not an atrocity. But a lot of innocent Iraqis have been killed by US interrogators and troops in the field - the latter including unarmed women and children - and I don't see the author of this page crying about them. Perhaps it's because it wasn't his own unarmed wife, son or daughter that was killed by a US made bomb or bullet.

Plenty of these killings have been photographed, at least the aftermath of such, but the right wing always claims it's "the other guys who did that". They never admit what everyone else in the world sees, and that is that US troops sometimes intentionally kill unarmed civilians and prisoners of war.

The most ignorant thing of all is the perception that opposition to George Bush and his policies which include
a) invading countries based on incorrect evidence pointing to WMD's that are now being proven NOT to exist;
b) and trampling on American civil liberties (see: Guantanamo, the USAPATRIOT Act, etc.)

somehow means one is opposed to America and Western beliefs.

It never occurs to the Right Wing at all that the opposition to George W Bush is founded on a strong adherence to long established Western ideals which have been violated under GWB's watch, which include:

a) Presumed innocence until proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
b) The need for hard evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (none of which has been found to support GWB's "WMD" claim re: Iraq)
c) The humane treatment of prisoners of war
d) The punishment of those who kill unarmed civilians under war crimes laws established internationally by Western nations led by the United States

And now, I offer you another point of view. If the United States were invaded by a foreign country intending to "Liberate" us, and we really wanted them to kick our tyrannical (hypothetical) leader out, we, too, would welcome them **for a very short time at best**. As that nation began to try and "stabilize us" according to their foreign principles and morality, we Americans would most certainly rise up and kick them out. Does anyone recall the time honored art of tarring and feathering? We're known for that, remember? If a foreign country's troops overstayed their welcome in America, we would more than easily put the Iraqi rebels to shame with the atrocities we'd inflict upon them. Given the same conditions, American rebels would play just as nasty as the Iraqi rebels are playing now. Heck, we stole dirty fighting tactics 101 right from the Native Americans and beat the British over the head with it, and then turned and drove the Native Americans onto reservations.

Make no mistake, the opposition to George W Bush's tactics in Iraq are squarely founded on his inability to stay in line with established Western principles. The author of this page is suggesting, pretty much, that Bush should get Middle Eastern on the Iraqis, which invalidates the very values he proclaims to be a champion of.

Posted by: The Heretic at June 12, 2004 6:24 PM

"in line with established Western principles."

-----Your memory is very short.

Posted by: Smart Guy at July 3, 2004 2:59 PM