WARNING:This is the Enemy: Don't look away.

[Batman]

This is the Enemy (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3732)

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
May 30, '04 / 10 Sivan 5764

[WARNING: The following contains graphic descriptions of violence.]

Nick Berg, an American from Philadelphia, was kidnapped and tortuously beheaded by Arabs in Iraq sometime in May. The murderers filmed the deed and proudly displayed the victim's severed head.

After killing six Israeli soldiers in an attack on an armored vehicle in Gaza on May 11, the Arabs near the scene of the carnage gleefully held aloft human body parts in front of rolling cameras. One of the Arab terrorists was later interviewed on film with what appeared to be a human head in front of him.

The week before, after shooting at Tali Hatuel's car, causing it to skid and stop, Arab terrorists walked over to the vehicle to finish the occupants off. They looked at the heavily pregnant mother and her four no-doubt frightened girls; the youngest was two years old. And then shot them all. At point-blank range. With sadistic satisfaction, they systematically murdered Tali Hatuel and her unborn son, as well as all of Tali's daughters - Hila, age 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, and two-year-old Meirav.

In Fallujah in March, crowds of townspeople dragged four American civilians out of their vehicles, shot or beat them to death, mutilated their bodies, dragged them through the streets, suspended them from a bridge and burned them.

And they danced and cheered.

With their children.

In Ramallah in 2000, two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, beaten, stabbed countless times, had their eyes gouged out, and were literally disemboweled and dismembered by an Arab lynch mob.

The people - and I use the term loosely - who carried out the initial beatings threw one of the victims down to the waiting mob, where his face was further crushed with stones, feet, fists and even a heavy metal window frame. One Jew was set on fire and dragged along the street as Arab onlookers danced and cheered. Some of the butchers celebrated their crimes with the victims' internal organs. One of the killers, famously captured on film, proudly displayed his blood-soaked hands to the cheering Ramallah crowd.

And it gets worse. In 2003, nearly two years later, Arab parents in Gaza cheered again when their little children dressed up as members of the Ramallah lynch mob, complete with hands painted blood red, for a kindergarten graduation ceremony.

According to a report by Dr. Michael Widlanski, an Israeli Arabic expert, the Voice of Palestine called the attack on the Hatuel girls "an act of heroic martyrdom". The targeted children and their mother, the PA radio reported only as "five settlers".

Among the participants at the funerals of the Hatuel family members was President of Israel Moshe Katzav. He said, "This day of blood will be engraved in our history. An earthquake has happened. No one in the world can stand apathetically by in the face of these acts by such evil people. Where are those who speak in the name of Allah?"

National Review contributing editor David Frum posed the same question in his May 12 "Diary" on NRO: "Where are the imams?" he asked.

Some of "those who speak in the name of Allah," Mr. President, were busy sawing Nick Berg's head from his body in Iraq. "Allah is great!" they shouted in triumphal glee as they killed their bound and helpless victim. The imams are in the mosques, Mr. Frum, waving swords and exhorting their followers to behead a Jew: "Allah willing, we will cut off his head! Oh Jews! Allah is great! Allah is great!" They are also in Saudi Arabian palaces, telling their subjects that they are 95% certain Zionists are behind Islamist terrorism. They are also writing for the Arab media, explaining that Jews are behind all the evil in the world. And they are even organizing soccer matches, Mr. President, honoring mass murderers.

This is the enemy. Don't look away.

Perhaps when another rally is held in support of Iraqi "resistance" or "Palestinian liberation" somewhere in the world, counter-protesters can remind the ever-so-sensitive and progressive demonstrators of Nick Berg's scream of pain, or of two-year-old Meirav Hatuel cowering in her car seat, or of the Ramallah or Fallujah savages dancing with human entrails.

During the lynch of the two IDF soldiers who had taken a wrong turn into Ramallah in 2000, one of the Arab murderers paused in his savage beating to answer a cell phone belonging to one of the dying soldiers.

He told the worried voice on the other end of the line, "We are killing your husband."

There is a Talmudic dictum that states, "One who is merciful to the cruel, will ultimately cause cruelty to the merciful."

It seems to me that we, Israelis and Americans, have proven the Talmudic sages absolutely correct. Please, no more mercy.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Batman
This is the Enemy (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3732)

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
May 30, '04 / 10 Sivan 5764

[WARNING: The following contains graphic descriptions of violence.]

Nick Berg, an American from Philadelphia, was kidnapped and tortuously beheaded by Arabs in Iraq sometime in May. The murderers filmed the deed and proudly displayed the victim's severed head.

After killing six Israeli soldiers in an attack on an armored vehicle in Gaza on May 11, the Arabs near the scene of the carnage gleefully held aloft human body parts in front of rolling cameras. One of the Arab terrorists was later interviewed on film with what appeared to be a human head in front of him.

The week before, after shooting at Tali Hatuel's car, causing it to skid and stop, Arab terrorists walked over to the vehicle to finish the occupants off. They looked at the heavily pregnant mother and her four no-doubt frightened girls; the youngest was two years old. And then shot them all. At point-blank range. With sadistic satisfaction, they systematically murdered Tali Hatuel and her unborn son, as well as all of Tali's daughters - Hila, age 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, and two-year-old Meirav.

In Fallujah in March, crowds of townspeople dragged four American civilians out of their vehicles, shot or beat them to death, mutilated their bodies, dragged them through the streets, suspended them from a bridge and burned them.

And they danced and cheered.

With their children.

In Ramallah in 2000, two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, beaten, stabbed countless times, had their eyes gouged out, and were literally disemboweled and dismembered by an Arab lynch mob.

The people - and I use the term loosely - who carried out the initial beatings threw one of the victims down to the waiting mob, where his face was further crushed with stones, feet, fists and even a heavy metal window frame. One Jew was set on fire and dragged along the street as Arab onlookers danced and cheered. Some of the butchers celebrated their crimes with the victims' internal organs. One of the killers, famously captured on film, proudly displayed his blood-soaked hands to the cheering Ramallah crowd.

And it gets worse. In 2003, nearly two years later, Arab parents in Gaza cheered again when their little children dressed up as members of the Ramallah lynch mob, complete with hands painted blood red, for a kindergarten graduation ceremony.

According to a report by Dr. Michael Widlanski, an Israeli Arabic expert, the Voice of Palestine called the attack on the Hatuel girls "an act of heroic martyrdom". The targeted children and their mother, the PA radio reported only as "five settlers".

Among the participants at the funerals of the Hatuel family members was President of Israel Moshe Katzav. He said, "This day of blood will be engraved in our history. An earthquake has happened. No one in the world can stand apathetically by in the face of these acts by such evil people. Where are those who speak in the name of Allah?"

National Review contributing editor David Frum posed the same question in his May 12 "Diary" on NRO: "Where are the imams?" he asked.

Some of "those who speak in the name of Allah," Mr. President, were busy sawing Nick Berg's head from his body in Iraq. "Allah is great!" they shouted in triumphal glee as they killed their bound and helpless victim. The imams are in the mosques, Mr. Frum, waving swords and exhorting their followers to behead a Jew: "Allah willing, we will cut off his head! Oh Jews! Allah is great! Allah is great!" They are also in Saudi Arabian palaces, telling their subjects that they are 95% certain Zionists are behind Islamist terrorism. They are also writing for the Arab media, explaining that Jews are behind all the evil in the world. And they are even organizing soccer matches, Mr. President, honoring mass murderers.

This is the enemy. Don't look away.

Perhaps when another rally is held in support of Iraqi "resistance" or "Palestinian liberation" somewhere in the world, counter-protesters can remind the ever-so-sensitive and progressive demonstrators of Nick Berg's scream of pain, or of two-year-old Meirav Hatuel cowering in her car seat, or of the Ramallah or Fallujah savages dancing with human entrails.

During the lynch of the two IDF soldiers who had taken a wrong turn into Ramallah in 2000, one of the Arab murderers paused in his savage beating to answer a cell phone belonging to one of the dying soldiers.

He told the worried voice on the other end of the line, "We are killing your husband."

There is a Talmudic dictum that states, "One who is merciful to the cruel, will ultimately cause cruelty to the merciful."

It seems to me that we, Israelis and Americans, have proven the Talmudic sages absolutely correct. Please, no more mercy.

This and other heinous acts by these scumbags, only confirms, to me, that they don’t deserve to share this planet.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by RichardP
This and other heinous acts by these scumbags, only confirms, to me, that they don’t deserve to share this planet.

The issue is - just who are 'these scumbags'? All the Iraqi people? All the Palestinians?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
The issue is - just who are 'these scumbags'? All the Iraqi people? All the Palestinians?

That’s not an issue in many cases!

Clear and concise polls have been taken and they indicate clearly that an overwhelming percentage of the population support the murder of unarmed civilians.
Several Islamic states come to mind as well as the WB/GS where up to 80% of the population support the killing of Jewish children, women and men.

I believe in democracy and the as far as I’m concerned the people have spoken through these polls and should be eliminated. It’s true that the 20% that are against murdering civilians don’t deserve to die and unfortunate that they would become innocent victims in an all out assault on Islam.

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
The issue is - just who are 'these scumbags'? All the Iraqi people? All the Palestinians?

Tovah, if this were an isolated incident I would ask the same question.But it happens over and over again in islamic societies,and Lamplighter's figures are absolutely accurate.
This behaviour is a symptom of the sickness permeating islamic societies.
Every single time israelis are murdered by arab terrorists the palestinians dance & sing and call the acts "heroic".
How long must they behave this way before you stop trying to be pc?

[Oh Jerusalem]

The article could also have mentioned the car body draggings on 2 occasions by terrorists in Saudi Arabia. In this weekend's attack, apparently it was a British infidel's body that got taken for a joyride.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by frizzer1
Tovah, if this were an isolated incident I would ask the same question.But it happens over and over again in islamic societies,and Lamplighter's figures are absolutely accurate.
This behaviour is a symptom of the sickness permeating islamic societies.
Every single time israelis are murdered by arab terrorists the palestinians dance & sing and call the acts "heroic".
How long must they behave this way before you stop trying to be pc?


Oh my, am I only trying to be pc - I guess I haven't achieved it yet. ;) After viewing the pics from Abu Ghraib and the 'fuzzy' response from US officials, do you think that all Americans should be considered complicit in those abuses? Yes, I know there has been a geat hew and cry from several sectors of the American polulation over the 'shenanigans' over there, but in a repressed society as in many of the Arab countries, can there be a similar outcry against the violations of human decency? I don't know frizzer, but the answer is not as clearly black and white as we would like it to be. "Kill them all" is a kind of a knee jerk reaction in which I will not allow myself indulge.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
but in a repressed society as in many of the Arab countries, can there be a similar outcry against the violations of human decency?
Not being able to outcry should not de facto result in dancing in the streets.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
Oh my, am I only trying to be pc - I guess I haven't achieved it yet. ;) After viewing the pics from Abu Ghraib and the 'fuzzy' response from US officials, do you think that all Americans should be considered complicit in those abuses? Yes, I know there has been a geat hew and cry from several sectors of the American polulation over the 'shenanigans' over there, but in a repressed society as in many of the Arab countries, can there be a similar outcry against the violations of human decency? I don't know frizzer, but the answer is not as clearly black and white as we would like it to be. "Kill them all" is a kind of a knee jerk reaction in which I will not allow myself indulge.
Anybody who cannot distinguish between the minor humiliations of abu ghraib and the celebration of murder and mutilation commonly indulged in by palestinian barbarians is not one looking for understanding and thus will never grasp what people are saying to her.

[Sheherazade]

You're telling me that there were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them? The difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight. As far as not being able to discern the difference between our abuses (rape and torture) vs. torture and murder and mutilation by Muslims you are being disingenuous when you make that accusation against me. Notice, I am arguing the issues and you are indulging in personal attacks. Let's beat you and stick a broomstick up your ass and see if you consider it a 'minor humiliation'. :rolleyes:

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
You're telling me that there were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them? The difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight.
How many? 1,000? 10,000? 10,000,000?

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
How many? 1,000? 10,000? 10,000,000?


I have not a clue. I didn't take a poll but I'm sure if you have the energy to look it up someone must have. It's interesting that that is the only part of my post to which you chose to reply.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
I have not a clue.
Then why are you posting such hyperbole and cheap rhetoric?

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Then why are you posting such hyperbole and cheap rhetoric?


"Many" is hyperbole? I could see if I had said millions or even thousands - but "many"? Do you doubt that there are those in some sections of our country, most likely in the south who are outright racist and don't consider Arabs as human? If you think my statement is hyperbolic, I suggest that you are being naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Now..... how about that broomstick of 'minor humiliation'? Please point out the "cheap rhetoric" in my statements. Again you are attacking the person and not dealing with the issue.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
"Many" is hyperbole? I could see if I had said millions or even thousands - but "many"? Do you doubt that there are those in some sections of our country, most likely in the south who are outright racist and don't consider Arabs as human? If you think my statement is hyperbolic, I suggest that you are being naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Now..... how about that broomstick of 'minor humiliation'? Please point out the "cheap rhetoric" in my statements. Again you are attacking the person and not dealing with the issue.

Why are people in the South more likely to be racist?

[Donna]

Originally posted by Mira
Why are people in the South more likely to be racist?

I suspect because it is a quick and easy stereotype to yank out of thin air.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by Mira
Why are people in the South more likely to be racist?


I seem to recall that the perpetrators of the abuse were from West Virginia - I could be mistaken, but let's just say that there are racists all over this country. OK? Now about that "broomstick of minor humilition".............................

As far as my experiences in the South - I can honestly say that I saw and experienced outright anti-semitism and saw racism. Now is it the same up here in the North? Let's just assume that it's better hidden.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Donna
I suspect because it is a quick and easy stereotype to yank out of thin air.

Kind of odd, don't you think, that someone who is so quick to denounce other people for blanket stereotypes is so quick to make them?

[Donna]

Originally posted by Mira
Kind of odd, don't you think, that someone who is so quick to denounce other people for blanket stereotypes is so quick to make them?

Indeed.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by Mira
Kind of odd, don't you think, that someone who is so quick to denounce other people for blanket stereotypes is so quick to make them?


Interesting that you are not dealing with the issue at hand - that of "minor humilition" of Arab prisoners, many of whom may have been innocent. As far as my "blanket statement" it's about the same as my "hyperbole" when I said "many".

Now we have dispensed with the adhominem arguments - let's deal with the issue. Why would we want to "kill them all"?

As I stated before from my experience I have personally witnessed outright racism and anti-semitism in the south, I did not say that all southerners were racist - did I?

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
I seem to recall that the perpetrators of the abuse were from West Virginia - I could be mistaken, but let's just say that there are racists all over this country. OK? Now about that "broomstick of minor humilition".............................

As far as my experiences in the South - I can honestly say that I saw and experienced outright anti-semitism and saw racism. Now is it the same up here in the North? Let's just assume that it's better hidden.

I have an Egyptian friend named Tarik who now lives in Tennessee. I went to visit him with some other friends last summer and he took us to a kosher deli there. The owner, a 70+ year old Jew spoke just like a good old boy, and had pictures of him and his wife with all the local politicians and music celebrities on the wall. He is convinced that my friend Tarik is actually Jewish and invites him to the local synagogue whenever he is in his resturant. I went to a pig roast when I was there. About the only thing I noticed that was suspicious was the fact that everyone seemed to be watching to see if I was going to eat any of that roasted pig. I didn't, but my friend Tarik did. :D America is great, so shut the f$6! up!

[Donna]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
You're telling me that there were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them?

Yes, that's exactly right. There were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, nor were there many that made excuses for them.

Originally posted by Shehereazade
The difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight.

So in your opinion, the only difference is that there were no cameras to catch that gloating, dancing, cheering, and candy-tossing by Americans as they celebrated the abuses at Abu Ghraib? Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your words.

Originally posted by Shehereazade
As far as not being able to discern the difference between our abuses (rape and torture) vs. torture and murder and mutilation by Muslims you are being disingenuous when you make that accusation against me.

No, he wasn't being disingenuous. But you, however, appear to be deliberately obtuse when it comes to differentiating between abuse and humiliation and outright torture.

Originally posted by Shereazade
Notice, I am arguing the issues and you are indulging in personal attacks.

That was no personal attack, merely a statement of the obvious.

Originally posted by Shereazade
Let's beat you and stick a broomstick up your ass and see if you consider it a 'minor humiliation'. :rolleyes:

I'd take that bet. See, the difference in what would happen to me is that afterwards, I'd still be very much alive and able to participate in the prosecution of my abusers.

On the other hand, if you were kidnapped and then had your head hacked off and then your murderers beat and kicked your corpse, set it on fire, and dragged it behind a vehicle in a street. . .well. . .you'd be very much dead.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by Mira
I have an Egyptian friend named Tarik who now lives in Tennessee. I went to visit him with some other friends last summer and he took us to a kosher deli there. The owner, a 70+ year old Jew spoke just like a good old boy, and had pictures of him and his wife with all the local politicians and music celebrities on the wall. He is convinced that my friend Tarik is actually Jewish and invites him to the local synagogue whenever he is in his resturant. I went to a pig roast when I was there. About the only thing I noticed that was suspicious was the fact that everyone seemed to be watching to see if I was going to eat any of that roasted pig. I didn't, but my friend Tarik did. :D America is great, so shut the f$6! up!


I'm glad you had a wonderful time in Tennesee and didn't eat pork.. Now what does that have to do with the abuses -er- 'minor humiliations' that you chose to ignore at Abu Gharib?

Just where in Tennessee was this - Nashville or its environs? Did you go to the rural areas where young men and women are more likely to enlist in the Army as a means of improving their lot in life?

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by Donna
Yes, that's exactly right. There were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, nor were there many that made excuses for them.



So in your opinion, the only difference is that there were no cameras to catch that gloating, dancing, cheering, and candy-tossing by Americans as they celebrated the abuses at Abu Ghraib? Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your words.

yes, you have misinterpreted my words - you are not being realistic if you don't think that there are Americans who feel that these prisoners got exactly 'what they deserve'. You know the ones who use terms like "sand nigger"....


No, he wasn't being disingenuous. But you, however, appear to be deliberately obtuse when it comes to differentiating between abuse and humiliation and outright torture.

You don't think that some of the acts perpetrated in Abu Gharib were torture? Are we engaging in moral equivalency now?


I'd take that bet. See, the difference in what would happen to me is that afterwards, I'd still be very much alive and able to participate in the prosecution of my abusers.

Only if you were fortunate enough to have had someone around with a camera.

On the other hand, if you were kidnapped and then had your head hacked off and then your murderers beat and kicked your corpse, set it on fire, and dragged it behind a vehicle in a street. . .well. . .you'd be very much dead.

There were deaths in Abu Gharib as well. Are they less important because they were Iraqis?

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
I'm glad you had a wonderful time in Tennesee and didn't eat pork.. Now what does that have to do with the abuses -er- 'minor humiliations' that you chose to ignore at Abu Gharib?

Just where in Tennessee was this - Nashville or its environs? Did you go to the rural areas where young men and women are more likely to enlist in the Army as a means of improving their lot in life?

I was in Knoxville, but that doesn't really matter. Jews have very little to complain about in the United States. If you want to see what real racism looks like, check this out: http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/hway-2-mecca-muslims-only.jpg

[Canajew]

I will take you up on objective analytical dialogue.

Originally posted by Shehereazade
After viewing the pics from Abu Ghraib and the 'fuzzy' response from US officials, do you think that all Americans should be considered complicit in those abuses?


Can you please expand on the link you wish to make between the "fuzzy response of officials" at acts of dehumanization, torture and some murder by a limited number of military personnel, perhaps (though not certain of anything at this point) implicitly sanctioned by the military apparatus, and the act of gleeful celebration by thousands upon thousands of civilians in an open show of bliss, handing out candies and dancing in the streets upon news of the murder of completely and totally innocent people suspected of nothing other than being Jewish? Because from here it appears efforts at drawing equivalency are essentially attempts at obfuscation.


Yes, I know there has been a geat hew and cry from several sectors of the American polulation over the 'shenanigans' over there,


oh, no. It is far far mroe than that. Not only people on the street, but the government as a whole is genuinely upset about what happened. There were public inquiries undertaken on very short notice in the Seante (which would be unheard of in other democracies like Canada) and it is very clear that most if not all American Parliamentarians are genuinely disgusted by the acts committed in the name of the United States. And one thing I know for sure which I'm sure you will concede - the people that committed these acts, the people who ordered them carried out - these people will not have streets and sporting events named in their honour. Children will not pass out trading cards with their faces, and stories of their glory and heroism will not be passed down through the generations. Contrast to Palestinain lionization of suicide bombers please.


but in a repressed society as in many of the Arab countries, can there be a similar outcry against the violations of human decency?


as Jerusalem rightly pointed out, there is a very big difference between sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing and pouring into the streets to "celebrate" the successful commission of an attrocity. I was unaware that there were spontaneous outdoor celebrations of the "great victory" at abu garib, but perhaps you can point me to them.

And this argument looses substantial weights when you turn your attention to Muslims in western countries, who simialrly sit on the sidelines and do not condemn what is done in their name and in the name of their religion. Numbers are smaller, though undoubtedly "many" (as you use the term to apply to Americans, just increase the percentage of the total a bit) were secretly gleeful and derived signifiant satisfaction from the various successful "heroic martyrdom operations".


I don't know frizzer, but the answer is not as clearly black and white as we would like it to be.


I generally agree. But I am stuck on the Talmudic comment at the end of the article. "One who is merciful to the cruel, will ultimately cause cruelty to the merciful". It would be nice were this not so, but it appears true. And inasmuch as this statement is looked at in isolation, it IS balck and white. Those that would be merciful to those that have no intention of either stopping or showing mercy are just inviting cruelty upon themselves and their own merciful people. This of course does not make abu garib any less bad (both morally and strategically), but it does put "innocent" Palestinian civilian casualties which stem from terrorists using them as cover into proper context. Targeting innocents is unaccpetable, but showing mercy to those innocents that support the cruel and harbour them and give them moral, financial and tactical support is in essance an invitation for cruelty to be imposed on the Israelis.

And its the same thing with al-quaeda.


"Kill them all" is a kind of a knee jerk reaction in which I will not allow myself indulge.


nor will I, and I don't endorse it in the least, but I am having some problems deriving the proper foundations for rejecting that as a wise policy decision. I think the best I can do is say no, not now, but I cannot pretend I can't think of any circumstances where this position might be different. Like with the expulsion of the Palestinaisn. I know it is ok to talk about the ethnic clensing of Jews from the west bank and gaza but not of ethnically clensing the ARabs, and I do not endorse this position, but when the Palestinaisn "successfully" commit a mass terror attack, killing thousands or more, and this attack was only possible because of the presence of a substantial civilian population that supports both the cause and the means of the terrorists, then expulsion is, I believe, necessary in order to avert further future cruely by the cruel. To show mercy only invites more cruelty upon ourselves.


You're telling me that there were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them?


yes. Many have argued that one must look at the DEGREE of cruelty in the actions, and while I have no doubt some were cruel beyond belief, I also have no doubt that just because 2 things are "war crimes" it does not follow that both are euqally morally bad. Comparing house demolitions to systemic torture and murder of prisoners is a pretty good example. And comparing Abu Garib to what the enemy does, while not making abu garib any less disgusting and unaccppetable, does illustrate the lie that we are as bad as the enemy.

And again, "many" and "many" are often quite different, in both quantity and quality, such is the namture of such words. And so while many Americans are not as repelled by abu garib as they should be, their reaction pales in comparison with the joyous reaction of the Palestinaisn to the murder of children and pregnant women.

(note, I also missed the recent American spontaneous parties at the news of the bombing of an Iraqi wedding party. Can you post something on those, which would then be similar to the many spontaneous parties the palestinaisn hold when they bomb passover seders and break into Jewish homes and murder children in their beds)


The difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight.


this comment is just wilfull ignorance. the difference is far greater and of far more substance. If any americans went out on the street ot "celebrate" such actions they would be on every TV set in the world. Meanwhile, the Palestinaisn confiscated any video footage taken of the Palestinaisn holding a celebration after the fall of the world trade centre, and they are very hostile to journalists who publish images that are not perceived to be beneficial. So if anything, the "camera" argument of yours above points strongly in the other direction. However, since the Islamists enjoy showing off their work (and their people are genuinely proud of them and derive pleasure from their work - did you know the beheading of Daniel Perle is one of the most watched videos in Pakistan? Explain that away by comparing it to US behaviour please)


As far as not being able to discern the difference between our abuses (rape and torture) vs. torture and murder and mutilation by Muslims you are being disingenuous when you make that accusation against me.


you focus on distinctions of quality, and I disagree with you, because the quality of the acts is clearly different (i.e. no sawing off heads, dismembering bodies and using intestines as boas like some rocky horror fashion show). And you ignore clear differences in quality, where the actions of the Islamists and the Palestinian islamofacists are clearly supported by a wider swatch of the population and the acts are so much mroe embedded in the identity and the culture of those "innocent civilians" as to render any comparrison borderline offensive. I am not offended, but saying that the US govenrment allowed abuses and so American individuals are as morally reprehensible as those that derive genuine glee at the brutal murder and dismemberment of civilians is to make an argument that coiuld easily be perceived of as offensive to others. And that, I suspect, is what got you all those ad hominems.


Notice, I am arguing the issues and you are indulging in personal attacks. Let's beat you and stick a broomstick up your ass and see if you consider it a 'minor humiliation'. [/B]

Well, faced with your option A, and option B of being fed into a woodchipper feet first, I choose A. I know this does not excuse A in the least, but again, perspective prevents the leftist propagandists from deriving too much mileage from selective omission and distortion.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
yes, you have misinterpreted my words

In retrospect, I don't believe I did misinterpret your words. This is what you said in post #10 on this thread:

Originally posted by Shehereazade
You're telling me that there were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them? The difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight.

Based on those two sentences, you believe that yes, there were many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them, and the only difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight.

I guess that no camera thing is a minor technicality.

Originally posted by Shehereazade
- you are not being realistic if you don't think that there are Americans who feel that these prisoners got exactly 'what they deserve'.

You'll note that I did not say there were noAmericans; what I did say was that there were not many. Again, big difference.

Immediately after that story broke, including the information regarding the hometowns of the accused, the disgust and anger that people around here felt was palpable. There were no righteous cheers of "Hell yeah, you suns a' bitches!".

Originally posted by Shehereazade
You know the ones who use terms like "sand nigger"....

The first time I ever heard that expression was when I was fresh out of high school and an older friend of mine was dating a man from Iran. Her then-boyfriend from Iran used the expression while talking to her about some other Iranians he knew.

But, I suspect that by tossing that sentence out you were really attempting to take yet another poke at the rampant racism that you apparently think is found only in the American South.

Originally posted by Shehereazade
You don't think that some of the acts perpetrated in Abu Gharib were torture?

Ah, a direct question. Yes, I expect that some of the acts that were perpetrated in Abu Ghraib were torture. However, I don't think all of the acts were torture. Do you?

Originally posted by Shehereazade
Are we engaging in moral equivalency now?

Is that the condescending "we"?

Originally posted by Shehereazade
Only if you were fortunate enough to have had someone around with a camera.

So, if you're beheaded on camera, does that mean you survive?

Originally posted by Shehereazade
There were deaths in Abu Gharib as well. Are they less important because they were Iraqis?

Who said that???

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
Now we have dispensed with the adhominem arguments - let's deal with the issue. Why would we want to "kill them all"?


again, I do not endirse the "kill them all" policy in the least, and do not believe it is in any way acceptable, but here is my explanation as to why we would want to:

Given that there is a population of enemy combatants, hell-bent on the destruction of our civilization (or a relevant portion thereof) and that population enagages in the sytematic targeting of innocent civilians and would, if successful, either kill or enslave our entire population.

Given that this population of enemy combatants lives among an enemy civilian population, and this enemy civilian population is actively endorsing both the goals and means of these enemy combatants, lending them financial, logistical, propaganda and other support, and hoping beyond all hope to benefit from the "successful" achievement of the enemy combatants' mission.

Given that the enemy civilian population has become indocrinated in the most hateful of racism, intolerance and sadism, tought to glory in acts of depravity, tought to hero-wrship the slaughterers of innocents, touhgt to view themselves as inherently worthy while thought we are inherently worthy only of death and cruelty, and they INTERNALIZE this view, to the point where it cannot be excised from that society without severe trauma.

And given that the enemy combatants cannot be defeated, either because they cannot be isolated or because the enemy civilian population lends them too much support.

Then where there is no less offensive way to eliminate the real, pressing and substantial threat of the destruction of our civilization (or a relevant subset thereof) then it is justified to engage in actions that could result in "substantially wiping out" the enemy civilian population.

This logic applied to the Germans in Nazi Germany, to the Japanese in Imperial Japan, and, I would argue it should apply to the Palestinaisn if they become a real threat (but only then and even then as grudgingly as possible).

To do otherwise would invite cruelty and only make catastrophe more likely. And that is why we would want to "kill them all".

Again, I disagree and do not at all want any of this to happen, and believe that uncertainty thrown in as a factor complicates the analysis significantly, but, objectively speaking, this argument appears beyond raproach (though I invite your criticisms) and should provide you a solid base-line for answering your question of why.

What do you think?

[golani]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
"Many" is hyperbole? I could see if I had said millions or even thousands - but "many"? Do you doubt that there are those in some sections of our country, most likely in the south who are outright racist and don't consider Arabs as human? If you think my statement is hyperbolic, I suggest that you are being naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Now..... how about that broomstick of 'minor humiliation'? Please point out the "cheap rhetoric" in my statements. Again you are attacking the person and not dealing with the issue.

How can you compare outrageous minor acts from some american prison wardens with a global collective murdurous behaviour from a huge human group prefering killing and maiming other people and themselves rather than reforming their outdated social and cultural system????

I think Dr Sigmund Freud could answer... :mad:

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
You're telling me that there were not many Americans that supported the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or at least made excuses for them? The difference is that there was no camera that caught their delight. As far as not being able to discern the difference between our abuses (rape and torture) vs. torture and murder and mutilation by Muslims you are being disingenuous when you make that accusation against me. Notice, I am arguing the issues and you are indulging in personal attacks. Let's beat you and stick a broomstick up your ass and see if you consider it a 'minor humiliation'. :rolleyes:
Extremely lame of you to accuse me of a personal attack because I question your understanding. Your words indicated to me that you had little grasp of the abu ghraib abuses compared to much worse islamic abuse that goes on without end.

The "abuses" of abu ghraib, irregardless of how many people were involved or how many took pleasure in them, are of note mostly because of the rarity of such things being perpetrated by Americans. In the world of islamic barbarity the so-called abuses of abu ghraib are pathetically wimpy in comparison. To equate them to the eternal onslaught of savagery and barbarian behavior that is typical of islam, is what led me to believe that you possess no understanding.

When islam begins to condemn the murder of pregnant women and their innocent daughters with one tenth of the ferocity they demonstrate for the comparatively minor humiliations of abu ghraib, then I might begin to think that islam has a soul. As of now, I do not.

Your ability to equate abu ghraib to the neverending murder and mayhem emanating from islam with little resistance from people like yourself, is my yardstick for measuring your ability to understand.

[Sheherazade]

I think the difference is between pragmatism and idealism.
Your response was very thorough and well thought out.

Any philosopher of war will agree with you whole heartedly, as a matter of fact even in Torah there is the admonition against leaving any of your enemy alive. I hoped that the world would have evolved further since then. It seems not.

As far as Abu Ghraib, my statment about the cameras was meant to illustrate that there were people certainly happy to see those Iraqis "get theirs" but it was not caught graphically on film. Is hate any less so when one hides it? I don't know.

I can follow your argument as far as objectively seeking safety and security in the world. The fact that I find fault with the behavior of some Americans in no way excuses the actions of those terrorists and murderers, and conversely the behavior of terrorist and murderers doesn't not justify abuse from us. I think the argument here is on whether the degree of violence warrants different opinions of the acts. As far as I am concerned, violence perpetrated with pleasure is reprehensible no matter what the degree. Who is to draw the line and judge when the line of tolerance is crossed?

As far as my "fuzzy" response statement, I believe the investigation is still ongoing. There was no clear cut line of responsibility for those acts at Abu Ghraib and it has certalnly come to light that abuses were not confined to that facility alone. This implies at least that it is part of the military culture at this juncture in time. The arrogance of this government to state that the rules of the Geneva Convention does not apply to these prisoners is troubling.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Extremely lame of you to accuse me of a personal attack because I question your understanding. Your words indicated to me that you had little grasp of the abu ghraib abuses compared to much worse islamic abuse that goes on without end.

The "abuses" of abu ghraib, irregardless of how many people were involved or how many took pleasure in them, are of note mostly because of the rarity of such things being perpetrated by Americans. In the world of islamic barbarity the so-called abuses of abu ghraib are pathetically wimpy in comparison. To equate them to the eternal onslaught of savagery and barbarian behavior that is typical of islam, is what led me to believe that you possess no understanding.

When islam begins to condemn the murder of pregnant women and their innocent daughters with one tenth of the ferocity they demonstrate for the comparatively minor humiliations of abu ghraib, then I might begin to think that islam has a soul. As of now, I do not.

Your ability to equate abu ghraib to the neverending murder and mayhem emanating from islam with little resistance from people like yourself, is my yardstick for measuring your ability to understand.

I have not equated them. However I find no justification of ANY violence enacted with pleasure. The fact that the abuses and heinous acts were perpetrated by some does not justify abuse (even if it is much less severe) by another. Surely you don't advocate murdering preganant Muslim women and children......well. when one says "kill them all" just what does that imply?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
I think the difference is between pragmatism and idealism.
Your response was very thorough and well thought out.


not sure I agree with your distinction. there is nothing wrong with idealism. In fact, it is what keeps all of us going forward, I suspect, even the Islamofacists.

However, idealism that results in being blinded to reality is not usually very good at bringing about those "idealistic" goals. In fact, ignoring reality is generally counter-productive, as was seen during Oslo where the Labour governemnt constantly and consistently downplayed, excused or trivialized fundamental Palestinian breaches of both the letter and the spirit of agreements. the palestinains never gave up on their maximalist intentions to destroy Israel, and pretending they did does not help advance a true and genuine peace (the ideal) one bit.

It is about objective rationality versus wishful thinking more than pragmatism vs idealism.


Any philosopher of war will agree with you whole heartedly, as a matter of fact even in Torah there is the admonition against leaving any of your enemy alive.


this is not my position. I am not in favour of executing POWs. Having said this, I can think of circumstances where that may be necessary to prevent detection or some other legitimate aim, but care should be taken to minimize circumstances where that might be necessary because it is wrong and unjust.

However, there is a distinct differnece between killing POWs and what Israel has been accused of, "extrajudicial killings". I am wholeheartedly in favour of such a policy. Those operations target active participants in terrorist organizations who are engaged in making it easier (or actually doing it themselves) for terrorists to harm Israeli civilians. And here, where the choice is between letting them run free or killing them (and arresting them where possible), there is no doubt that giving them (or the people they surround themselves with as willing human shields) mercy is only inviting more cruelty. Capturing a soldier effectively cuts off the head, preventing that soldier from committing additional harm for the duration of conflict, and so killing them is not assisting in preventing harm to the merciful.


I hoped that the world would have evolved further since then. It seems not.


most definitely not, and why would you be of the view in the first place. Some in the world have, and when those countries fight wars against each other (not that they ever do) they should both abide by their shared morality.

but where one side is abjectly depraved and glories in the suffering of others and the dehuminization of the "other", being unduely bound by a strict moral code THAT IMPACTS ON THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY FIGHT the war (making the chances of defeat by the immoral enemy all the more liklely) then that code of morality is, in fact, objectively immoral. Thoughts?


As far as Abu Ghraib, my statment about the cameras was meant to illustrate that there were people certainly happy to see those Iraqis "get theirs" but it was not caught graphically on film.


i would agree, but respectfully suggest the magnitude of this reaction in the genral population is not nearly in the same league as the Palestinians and the Islamofacist celebrations and jubulation at the suffering of wholly innocent people.


Is hate any less so when one hides it? I don't know.


i would say no, though if expression or manifestation of the hate allows it to further the cause of hate, then yes.


I can follow your argument as far as objectively seeking safety and security in the world. The fact that I find fault with the behavior of some Americans in no way excuses the actions of those terrorists and murderers, and conversely the behavior of terrorist and murderers doesn't not justify abuse from us. I think the argument here is on whether the degree of violence warrants different opinions of the acts. As far as I am concerned, violence perpetrated with pleasure is reprehensible no matter what the degree. Who is to draw the line and judge when the line of tolerance is crossed?


i agree. there was no purpose to be advanced by the treatment of those prisoners, and so there are no entries on the other side of the ledger so to speak. The actions were unaccpetable and abhorent, both from a moral perspective and from a strategic geopolitical perspective. But again, it is different in kind and in quantity from the depravity of the enemy, and it is always important to make that clear, as context really is important in these sorts of discussions.

As for who is to draw the line, who knows? But there must be a line and someone (or a collection of people, whether consciously or not) must draw it (or assume that god has drawn a line somewhere or other). It is a question that we are now paying attention to, though we have not for most of our history. And our enemy doesw not draw such lines, which must always be remembered. Loosing for morality is not moral, and neither is sparing an innocent enemy child while condemning innocent friendly children. If you can avoid both,great, and you should, were there no risk, but in a risky uncertain world top priority must be paid to our own civilians and the supporters of our cause, not theirs.


As far as my "fuzzy" response statement, I believe the investigation is still ongoing. There was no clear cut line of responsibility for those acts at Abu Ghraib and it has certalnly come to light that abuses were not confined to that facility alone.


but this is quite different from the general population dancing in the streets, which is why I labelled it fuzzy.


This implies at least that it is part of the military culture at this juncture in time.


Agree, and it should be dealt with.


The arrogance of this government to state that the rules of the Geneva Convention does not apply to these prisoners is troubling. [/B]

I believe they said it did apply to those at abu garib, but does not apply at Guantanemo. I could also turn around your statement, "the arrogance of the international community and non-governmental organizations purportion to dictate what is "legal" or "illegal" under international law, even though they don't really have a clue what they are talking about nor are they interested in comming to an objective conclusion on the matter is profoundly troubling, particularly where their behaviuour may make the battle against islamofacism more difficult to win."

And while I am not an international alwyer, I am a lawyer, and have paid some attention to these issues over the past few years. The "international community" is routinely wrong when they condemn Israel for "viollations of international laws" (and they generally don't name these laws or explain the breach, nor is there a real, objective mechanism for assessing whether the impugned actions are genuinely illegal), and it is also quite clear that the Geneva conventions do not apply to those combatants in guantanimo that were a part of al-quaeda (though I have more doubts about Taliban prisoners, if there are any).

Read the Geneva conventions and let me know what provisions you believe are violated and why. And before going through clause for clause, look at the preamble and the nature of the TREATY, and see whether any of the provisions would correctly apply to groups of people or individuals. For example, the Geneva convention does not really apply for the palestinians at all, as they are not a contracting party. Of course, even were they a party, Israel would STILL not be engaging in illegal activity when it demolishes houses and targets terrorists for "assassination" (and it really is nothing like a real assassination, merely targeting enemy soldiers during an armed conflict, which is about as legal as can be during wartime.)

regards

[Sheherazade]

Ahhhhhh so you're an attorney - no wonder the well written long responses ;). I didn't know this thread was about Israel. What about the ethnic cleansing in Sudan? What about the wars between the Serbs and Croats? Not accepting the 'reality' as what has to be is not necessarily being blinded by idealism. I am not so blind as to understand what one must do for survival...I'm of the 60's generation and know personally those who were forced to kill children for survival. I also know that these men will never be the same.

Would you blame all Muslims for the murders and acts of terror?
Do you think that Islam is central to this or is it used as a tool by those who have more primitive tribal propensities?

I still am troubled by the "kill them all" statement, which, BTW, was my entree into this thread. No one has explained that to me. We've danced all over the place, and I admit that I have been a willing 'partner', but who is "them all"? All Iraqis? All Palestinians? All Pakistanis, Saudis? Aren't we talking about incredible genocide here?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
I have not equated them. However I find no justification of ANY violence enacted with pleasure. The fact that the abuses and heinous acts were perpetrated by some does not justify abuse (even if it is much less severe) by another. Surely you don't advocate murdering preganant Muslim women and children......well. when one says "kill them all" just what does that imply?
I never said "kill them all" so why bring that up with me?

Has it truly not occurred to you that the only concerted abuse by Americans that you and others can find to rail about is the “dead horse” of abu ghraib that you continue to beat in hope of drawing just a few more drops of blood. In the meantime, jihadists continue their murder and mayhem unabated. Nothing unusual there. Certainly nothing that might draw any condemnation from you.

The reason that people like you draw so much rebuttal is because you take isolated and rare behavior by your adversaries, blow it up as large as you can make it, and harp endlessly about something that was halted by a public outcry from those whom you also wish to implicate, the everyday citizens of the U.S.

Have you spent any time at all castigating islamists for their perpetual abuses? I doubt it. A person who gives themselves a grandiose arabian screen name strikes me as a person who would find it hard to fault the behavior of arabs.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
[B]Ahhhhhh so you're an attorney - no wonder the well written long responses ;). I didn't know this thread was about Israel.


What about the ethnic cleansing in Sudan? What about the wars between the Serbs and Croats?


the thread is about the enemy. In the context of the lead article, these are the Islamofacists and their palestinian fascist allies. The ethnic clensing in Sudan is part of the same thing, while the wars between the Serbs and Croats is not.

And it is the UN's failings as to why nothing has been done in Sudan, even though the Black Christian Sudanese have been treated far worse by the colonizing, dispossessing, mudering Arabs plundering their land than the Palestinaisn have ever been treated by Isarel. but this is just more evidence of international hypocricy when Jews are interested in defending themselves. Or maybe it isn't, and the Arabs just have a carte blance to act as savagely as they want.


Not accepting the 'reality' as what has to be is not necessarily being blinded by idealism.


indeed, but using idealism to develop a policy on HOW to get there is being blinded by idealism. that is why Oslo failed, even though it's eventual solution is what most people know will be the final solution. But that process did not get us there because the palestinians did not give up their goal of destroying Israel.


I am not so blind as to understand what one must do for survival...I'm of the 60's generation and know personally those who were forced to kill children for survival. I also know that these men will never be the same.


that's rigth, never be the same. As Golda Meir said (paraphrase), "I will one day be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but I will never be able to forgive them for forcing me to kill their children". And this is why the closer we get to losing this war, the more we will become like the enemy. All the more reason we fight to win now, and deal with the consequences (which are better than losing though not better than if the conflict had never existed (i.e. the "fantasy la-la benchmark") later.


Would you blame all Muslims for the murders and acts of terror?


no, but the question is how to distinguish groups. Easy in soem circumstances, difficult in others. The guy who sweeps the floor of the suicide bomb factory - innocent? The civilians that hero worship terrroists and provide them shelter and money? Those that fund propaganda campaigns in order to allow terrorists greater latitude?


Do you think that Islam is central to this or is it used as a tool by those who have more primitive tribal propensities?


both. I should disclose I do not believe in god at all, and believe all religion was made up, but Islam is particularly obvious (though Christianity is too). A warlord from Arabia who married a six year old and had sex with a nine year old conquored a whole bunch of territory and used religion to control people as religion has been used for millenia. It is indeed used by those with tribal propensities, but it has its findamental origins in the same tribal propensities and was developed as a tool to advance them.

There is no separation of church and state, and wahabbi Islam is now mainstream in most of the wrodl. Sure there could conceivably be a sufi-style peaceable version of Islam, just like Chriastianity did not need to always be roman catholic 15th century style. But right now Islam is a tool of Arab cultural imperialism and is used pretty much only to further these imperialistic aims.


I still am troubled by the "kill them all" statement, which, BTW, was my entree into this thread.


me too. but take solace. Few people believe this and "all" means different things to them. This can be contrasted with the popularity of the slogan "Butcher the Jews", which, in the Arab world, has taken on the proportions of "I want to be like Mike" from back in the 80s.


No one has explained that to me. We've danced all over the place, and I admit that I have been a willing 'partner', but who is "them all"? All Iraqis? All Palestinians? All Pakistanis, Saudis? Aren't we talking about incredible genocide here?

yes, and it should be avoided at all costs. But while we are assigning labels to things, why not accurately describe the removal of Jewish villages in the west bank and gaza as "ethnic clensing", as that is an accurate description?

And I think when they say "all" it means all those who adhere to the Islamofacist ideology and those that would support them, or those than cannot be distinguished from them.

Much like saying kill all the Germans or Japanese during WWII, which resulted in the firebombing of cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. but those innocents had a government that had engaged in such barbaric and brutal attocities (the Germans in Eastern Europe and with the Jews, the Japanese with the Chinese, Koreans etc.) that it was seen as justified to kill them in the process of eliminating the enemy state's war making capabilities and will to fight. If this conflict ever conflagurates to WWII levels (which is more and more likely the more deference we pay to the Islamofacists (Munich-style)), it may indeed be time to "kill them all" (though this doesn't mean a seek out and destroy all like what they would do to the Jews, just attack them indiscriminately without compunction about civilian casualties.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I never said "kill them all" so why bring that up with me?

Has it truly not occurred to you that the only concerted abuse by Americans that you and others can find to rail about is the “dead horse” of abu ghraib that you continue to beat in hope of drawing just a few more drops of blood. In the meantime, jihadists continue their murder and mayhem unabated. Nothing unusual there. Certainly nothing that might draw any condemnation from you.

The reason that people like you draw so much rebuttal is because you take isolated and rare behavior by your adversaries, blow it up as large as you can make it, and harp endlessly about something that was halted by a public outcry from those whom you also wish to implicate, the everyday citizens of the U.S.

Have you spent any time at all castigating islamists for their perpetual abuses? I doubt it. A person who gives themselves a grandiose arabian screen name strikes me as a person who would find it hard to fault the behavior of arabs.


Yes I have quite often and quite strongly. Shehrezade was a gallant character in the Thousand and One Nights stories. There you go again with personal attacks. :rolleyes: Have you gone on any pro-Palestinian forums with your arguments? There are some who post here who know where I stand and know that I have taken the Israeli side on other forums, well not as much as some would like as evidenced here. I don't recall complaining about the amount of rebuttal I've drawn - I'm used to being the 'only one' but usually it's as a Jew.
I didn't know the soldiers acting as prison guards were my adversaries.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
Yes I have quite often and quite strongly. Shehrezade was a gallant character in the Thousand and One Nights stories. There you go again with personal attacks. :rolleyes: Have you gone on any pro-Palestinian forums with your arguments? There are some who post here who know where I stand and know that I have taken the Israeli side on other forums, well not as much as some would like as evidenced here. I don't recall complaining about the amount of rebuttal I've drawn - I'm used to being the 'only one' but usually it's as a Jew.
I didn't know the soldiers acting as prison guards were my adversaries.
If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Coming to this forum and telling us about your heroics elsewhere does not change the fact that you are basically whining and claiming victimhood here.

Just another crybaby.

[Sheherazade]

Originally posted by MichaelC
If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Coming to this forum and telling us about your heroics elsewhere does not change the fact that you are basically whining and claiming victimhood here.

Just another crybaby.

Please point out where I am whining or even claiming victimhood. I just responded to your questions - you're the one who asked if I challenged Muslims - and I answered. Calling you out on your personal attacks in my opinion does not constitute whining.

Notice how I manage to refrain from calling you names.

[cunard]

The idea that it is always muslems that show repect for the enemies dead is not true, in all conflicts both sides have had no repect for the dead, It doesnt matter in Iraq such as in Falluja or in Abu Graise Prison where the americans are abusing the dead, or in Israel with militants with bodies, the israelis have also mis treated the dead for that there is a link below. War is not a clean game, it is dirty with on both sides. In india soldiers would put a burning tire around a person and place bets to see how long he would surive for. In Chile, people were killed by being thrown out of helicopeters, and that govt had US backing. Not just muslems even though the most recent have been the muslems mis treating the dead of there enemy.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/mideast_israel_army_exhibit

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Shehereazade
as a matter of fact even in Torah there is the admonition against leaving any of your enemy alive.
Ignorance is bliss.

This only applies to:

1. Amalekites. Haven't seen any around since Haman & Sons back in Shushan town, some 2500 years ago.

2. The original obligatory war of conquering the land of Israel, from the time of Joshua, throughout David's reign. Even then, the enemy was to be offered two options in advance: leave or remain in servitude of Israel. Look in today's latest Jewish law books on the obligations of Jewish soldiers in Israel and you'll find no mention of making sure the enemy is dead, except in cases of endagerment to life.

[Ralph63]

Batman: "There is a Talmudic dictum that states, "One who is merciful to the cruel, will ultimately cause cruelty to the merciful."

"Be careful in fighting monsters that you do not become a monster yourself." / "When a man looks into the abyss, the abyss is looking back into the man." Nietche

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ralph63
"Be careful in fighting monsters that you do not become a monster yourself."
This is indeed important advice.