Does anybody care to take a guess as to what the international outcry will be over reports that 2 American troopers were tortured and killed by Islamo-fanatics in Iraq? How many days of condemnation will the MSM dedicate to pillorying Islamist fanatics? How many of the world’s leftist elite will step forward and condemn the crime without the usual excuses thrown in (ie: If the USA wasn’t in Iraq, this wouldn’t happen)? How many lefty blogs will condemn the crime without drafting moral equivalency arguments that include Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or Haditha? And, how many politicians from the “progressive” camp will condemn the deed without piggy-backing into a “withdrawal timetable”?
Celestial Junk:
Brace yourselves boys and girls, it’s going to be ugly. Amnesty will of course decry the fact that Islamist terrorists, after this sadistic act, are now even more depraved than the Abu Ghraib bum-pile perverts. Leftist blogs the world over will warn Muslim fanatics that they had better start wearing uniforms if they want to be accorded Geneva convention rights.
Update: From LGF the KOS response.
Cjunk,
The answer to all your questions is a big fat zero.
Don’t you have better things to do than enciting conservatives into a faux fervor?
Polling throughout Europe and North America shows an increasing distrust of the MSM; increasing support for Israel; decreasing support for UN solutions; decreasing trust that Islamic doctrine is generally “peaceful”.
Every single time a blogger points out the bias and duplicity in the MSM, and the socialist elite, the tide against Utopianism is pushed a tiny bit further. Sorros and KOS know this, so they are investing enormous sums in trying to counter the New Media revolution, as are Euro-elite and most “progressive” organizations. The obvious reaction from liberarians and conservatives is to counter-punch. Why? Because it is working.
It was a crime when Bush took the troops into Iraq.
Just arrested 3 US troops for shooting prosoners. They’ve all been charged with Murder, but you want to dwell on the deaths of US soldiers.
Didn’t see anything from you about the children that died yesterday or today, what their terrorists?
But you don’t say anything about the people dying in US custody, from torture.
Thats 111 that we know of, but then US troops have been seen going out at night burying dead Iraqis before their families find out.
Running over children after the fall of Bagdad, when the people were to come out and welcome them as liberaters, the troops were odered to run over anyone that got in front do not swerve. Indiscriminate shooting at citizens that are on the street, 30 or less free fire over 30 ask commander.
Its sad when anyone dies, seems it matters what colour or religion you are to some here. This guys went to war to kill or be killed. What did the 6 month old baby join, or the 3 year old, seems they don’t matter? Tens of thousanda of children have died in Iraq, no tears for them why even talk about little children.
Remember what they did to Fallujah a city the size regina and saskatoon combined. Now they’re getting ready to attack another city the size of winnipeg. What do the poor families do? Are they forgotten like the poor of New Orleans?
Go read the comments at the Mop and Pail.
The Globe and Mail so far has published a very limited account of what is actually known about this dispicable event.
There are many many anti-American and anti-war commments in the Globes comment section.
As usual The Canadian press cannot be trusted to report the facts of this story.
They edit their content to reflect their own biased versions of events.
You don’t have to wear a uniform to be recognized.
BiasedSam said:
“Its sad when anyone dies, seems it matters what colour or religion you are to some here. This guys went to war to kill or be killed.”
These soldiers were apparently tortured. They had parents and families who must be heartbroken. I would like to hear someone in the MSM or on the left simply condemn the people who killed them without making excuses for their murderers.
Brace yourselves boys and girls, it’s going to be ugly. Amnesty will of course decry the fact that Islamist terrorists, after this sadistic act, are now even more depraved than the Abu Ghraib bum-pile perverts. Leftist blogs the world over will warn Muslim fanatics that they had better start wearing uniforms if they want to be accorded Geneva convention rights.
The signs, portents, plus the may omens before this great event can occur:
1) The second coming of Jesus.
2) Gays with there lefty camp followers, will admit Heterosexual marriage with children creating a renewable community, is the norm . Not Gay couplings.
3) Hell gets a hockey team
4) Natives like the rest of us will grow up, & take responsibility for there lives. Not the government.
5) The UN will say something positive about Israel.
6) The French will stop hating Americans.
7) The Spanish will stop hating Anglos. They will be filled with gratitude at the chance for a new life.
8) Quebec will stop threatening separation.
9) The Left will stop being anti American.
10) We will finally abolish teaching a political system in our schools that has killed over 100,000,000 million people Academia will stop calling it progressive.
11) The Liberals will actually see the reality of there incessant corruption , while patronizing themselves with tax cash.
12) Hedgy fry will actually see a cross burn.
13) Ottawa will finally realize this is a Federation of equal provinces. Not a federal fiefdom of Toronto.
14) Lefty’s learn it not honest gun hunters or farmers that are killers ,but there friends the criminal.
15) The great dawning realization that Boys & girls are different.
16) Evolution is just a theory like any other.
17) In war people die. That includes “peacekeeping”.
18) That there are only so many tax payers , that the money is completely there’s & not a free for all for social experiments that don’t work. Nor a grab bag for any “Minority” to pick from at leisure, for there own use . From completely compromised pols.
19) Yes Dorothy thee is evil in the world.
20)Liberals learn that lying, innuendo, straw men & other tools except logic & facts backed by president are real debating tactics. That emoting , screaming,lies, distortions, personnel attacks are not debate , but the ravings of spoiled tots.
WSAM,
Your never ending US bashing, never ending demonization of the right, never ending passing over of the truth. All that is a crime.
What is up with the poor of NO? How did they get forgotten? Forgotten by the corrupt NO politicians that pocketed aid, pocketed repair money? Or forgotten by the ignorant voters that elect theses same corrupt local politicians? Forgotten by Mayor Nagin who was a bumbling fool? Forgotten by democratic congressman Jefferson who used troops to get his stash of cash? Forgotten by all the people who donated homes, money and help?
enough
Should have read neutralsam.
How many days, Cjunk? Zero. They’re off and running on day one.
The Usual Suspects in the MSM and even our own trusty regular lefty trolls are already busy spewing lies and venom.
If I may repeat myself,
IMHO those who agree with postions like those of steve d. and neutralsam etc. etc, through their constant effort undermine our own governments military goals and lend support to our enemy while endangering our soldiers.
Their positons are required to always be anti-American even when those Americans are beheaded.
They are NOT neutral or anti-war.
They help the other side.
At least we don’t support terrorist Nations?
neutralsam,
Are you serious when you post that delusional drivel or are you just trying to irritate everyone here?
It’s hard to believe someone with an IQ higher than a houseplant could think like that.
Really. If you are serious, seek expert help…
Dave,
Before you go off on one of your righty-pants rants please take the time to think things through.
Let me put it this way:
I will judge the quality of any MSM coverage of this event based on whether it admits the following:
(1) What happened to those soldiers is an atrocity, regardless of whether or not you agree with the war.
(2) We should’ve expected something like this to happen eventually. We are, after all, dealing with terrorists; this is what they DO. This is tragic, but predictable.
(3) Regardless of one’s opinion of the war, the allegations murders of civilians by American soldiers, if true, constitute serious war crimes and should be punished accordingly. It is our willingness to prosecute offenders on our own side that makes us different than the terrorists we fight.
(4) There is a fundamental difference between accidentally killing civilians during military operations, and delberately targeting them. Likewise, accidental deaths do not justify the murder of prisoners.
(5) Atrocity under no circumstances justifies atrocity.
I think even neutralsam could agree with this much.
“The Usual Suspects in the MSM and even our own trusty regular lefty trolls are already busy spewing lies and venom.”
Switch a few phrases in the above sentence:
“MSM” -> “White House”
“our own trusty regular lefty trolls” -> “U.S. Defense Department”
And you will find out how the illegal occupation of Iraq came about.
By the time the U.S. ‘liberates’ Iraq (from the U.S.) and installs ‘democracy’, there won’t be too many living Iraqis left to celebrate the U.S. ‘victory’.
neutralsam- but you DO support terrorist nations, such as pre-war Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Al Qaeda!
No, the US has not tortured prisoners to death. Just because you say so – means nothing. I saw three unicorns the other day, neutralsam.
By the way, you refer to the prosecution (not affirmed) of US soldiers for murder. Why don’t you refer to the prosecution of Al Qaeda for beheading of prisoners, torture of prisoners, for kidnapping, murder, ransom-seeking? Why don’t you refer to them, neutralsam? Is it because you support Al Qaeda and don’t support freedom brought by the US?
Sure, US troops burying people at night. Sure -I saw those unicorns at night too, neutralsam. Again, you can say anything you want; that doesn’t make it true. I don’t use a car anymore, neutralsam, I just zip off on those unicorns.
(And you sure aren’t neutral; your support of Islamofascism, dictatorships and mass murder by these dictators is pretty clear).
So, they ran over children in Baghdad? Gosh, another unicorn just zipped by. You don’t need any proof. Things are the way they are, because I say so. So there. WhateverNeutralSam says – is so. Because NeutralSam says so.
What six month old baby, what three year old? Are you referring to the two new unicorns in my barn? How did you know about them!!!
The poor of New Orleans forgotten??? Do you mean the poor who were given debit cards, with several thousand dollars credit on them, by the gov’t – and who then went out and spent that money, not on food and housing, but: diamonds, sex videos, trips to spas, and other luxuries? All paid for by the taxpayer? Those poor forgotten….
Neutralsam – I think it would help if, just occasionally, you would stop your endless ignorant rant – and thought. Check out some facts.
“At least we don’t support terrorist Nations?”
I am at least glad that you put a question mark after this statement. By standing up to support the action of the Islamist terrorists in Iraq you are supporting terrorists. What many in the Left don’t realize is that it is inconsistent to state that you are against killing but then at the same time make excuses for those who kill. It’s called hypocricy.
Re: “It was a crime when Bush took the troops into Iraq.”
For the uneducated, Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire agreement and constantly violated it.
Section 34 of the agreement clearly states “and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.”
Removing Saddam from power and creating a democratic country fits the bill.
It seems folks like “neutralsam” would be very happy if Saddam was still in power, still executing people, still employing state rapists, still paying homicide bombers and building more palaces with the money meant to buy food.
If that’s the price of neutrality……
(but I’m sure that neutrlsam is a warm caring, tolerant, diversity loving, planet worshiping person, we just have to make the effort to get past all the stupidity.)
neutralsam – it’s only your imagination that people who post here don’t criticize crimes committed by US troops. We do criticize them when they have been investigated AND convicted of the crime. You know? The same process as with the 17 terrorist suspects arrested in Toronto last month? They are innocent until proven guilty. Go back and read up if you have forgotten… sorry… if you ignored the fact that many people who post here criticized the idiots involved in Abu Ghraib, etc.
It’s just that we believe in a little thing called, “due process”. Look it up sometime.
While I don’t consider myself a conservative, I feel that’s the one, undeniably positive difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives will criticize their own and back off supporting them if they think something is wrong. Look at what happened to the PC party back in the early 90’s.
Liberals on the other hand… well… just look at the Liberal reaction to Adscam and tell me that Liberals will hold their own to account.
The problem is, that neutralsam isn’t interesting in agreeing with basic principles. He also doesn’t require facts or evidence.
He already has affirmed that Americans murdered Iraqis and buried them at night. No proof, but, he’s not interested in proof, only in his conclusions.
Oh, and he’s assured us that Americans tortured people to death. He knows this. We don’t, but he does.
He’s already told us that Americans ran over civilians with their tanks. No proof – but who needs proof?
He’s already affirmed that a six month old, a three year old, have been killed by Americans. No proof or reason – but – he doesn’t need any.
He doesn’t say a word, not a word, about the 9/11 bombings, the London subway, the Madrid train, the Indonesian restaurants, the Jordanian wedding bombing by Islamic fundamentalists. Not a word. That’s because he approves. Not a word about beheadings on video, not a word about hostage taking and murders. Not a word about torture. Not a word about using women and children as shields. Not a word about masquerading as civilians to blow up soldiers.
That’s because he approves of Islamic fascism and Al Qaeda.
At least we know that neutralsam is not neutral. He’s made his choice; he’s pro-Islamic fascist and pro Al Qaeda. He’s against democracy; he’s against freedom.
Lew:
“And you will find out how the illegal occupation of Iraq came about.”
Legal vs. Illegal is a sham….to suggest that there is anything resembling functioning “law” in international relations is wishful thinking.
“By the time the U.S. ‘liberates’ Iraq (from the U.S.) and installs ‘democracy’, there won’t be too many living Iraqis left to celebrate the U.S. ‘victory’.”
(1) democracy is already there…they had elections with a 60% turnout that were certified as legitimate.
(2) oddly enough, the number of iraqis dead from the war isn’t too far off the number the prior regime was killing…but of course there may be an end to the war, whereas Saddam showed no intention of stopping.
(3) It is quite likely that troops will start coming home permanently by the end of the year…so there is, in fact, an end in sight
It’s simple.
The MSM and the leftist moonbats judge different groups by different standards.
We are expected to behave like gentlemen at all times. They are expected to behave like 12th century barbarians.
Therefore they are not shocked when the ‘brave resistance fighters’ behave exactly as they expect them to.
neutralsam…you talk a lot of trash from behind a computer. Have you ever been in the Middle East? I have 4 times, so be quiet and listen!
Lew – Iraq isn’t occupied.
The war in Iraq wasn’t illegal. Please provide proof to support your claim.
Surely you don’t subscribe to the foolish assumption that a war is legal if and only if the UN permits it? Since when is the UN a legitimate evaluator of anything? Since it enriched Saddam Hussein by enabling him to scoop out most of the Oil for Food money for himself rather than food for Iraqis? Since it stopped the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur? Since it stopped France from its unilateral, non-UN supported wars in its ex-colonies?
There already is democracy in Iraq and it is a typical characteristic of the left that they insult the Iraqi people by ignoring that they, alone, set up a constitution and they, alone, voted, with an 80% turnout, for their government.
By the way, who is killing the Iraqi people now? Is it Islamics, who are against democracy, and want to create dissension in Iraq, to prevent the strengthening of this new democracy? Is it Islamics from Iran, SA, Syria, Jordan, who prefer tribal dictatorships and want to prevent the Iraqi people from democracy? Why don’t you criticize their hostile actions against other Muslims? And against a people who have voted for their own democracy? Hmmm?
See:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21135_Daily_Kos-_How_Quaint&only
for the KOS response
ET what I say comes from the mouths of US marines that were there at the time.
You real should get away from the main stream stuff.
Just wondering why, for the effect it would create, wasn’t it mentioned that the 2 were decapitated?
Loney is a Catholic? A camper? A youth camper?
Of course, the Roman Catholic Church “discriminates”. All religions discriminate. It’s inherent in the nature of religion to discriminate.
Loney is a quisling, a stooge for the Muslim Islamist terrorists. …-
Loney accuses Catholic camp of discrimination
TORONTO (CP) – An Ontario Catholic youth camp that counted James Loney among its staff members has been ordered to close its doors – and the man who spent four months in captivity in Iraq says it’s because he’s gay. google news
My deepest sympathy goes to the families and friends of these young men.
Their deaths will never be forgotten.
They died in the service of their country as have so many, many young American soldiers before them.
Their truth is marching on.
Neither the UN nor the International Financial Institutions have assisted Iraq in paying for its unlawful action. They are governed by the same principles with respect to the coalition. The UN currently controls Iraqi oil revenues. Given the widely-held conclusion that the invasion was unlawful, the better approach for the UN is not to turn control of Iraqi revenues over to the occupants. Oil revenues may be spent for immediate humanitarian assistance, distributed through neutral channels. Any Iraqi revenues beyond those needed for basic humanitarian assistance, should be conserved by the UN for the future. At the point when it is clear that Iraqis have created their own government and the occupiers have left, Iraqi resources may be turned over to Iraq. The same is true of Iraqi assets outside the country. The example of Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion provides a recent precedent.
International lawyers around the world advised their governments on March 19 that the US-led invasion of Iraq was in violation of fundamental international law.
If you don’t agree with the UN then we should release Saddam, because he’s being charged under the same rules as the US and Briton are breaking.
I’d say that all illusion that the Left in the United States actually cares about their soldiers just went out the window with that Daily KOS posting.
You can almost hear sympathy in the words… almost meaning that you can’t in the least.
And you will find out how the illegal occupation of Iraq came about
Are you dumber than a rock? Iraq has had a legal democratic election, has installed a President, a Cabinet and a representative legislature. It has a free press. The citizens aren’t chained to their beds with masking tape across their mouths. They can ask the US to leave any time they want. Or, perhaps, I missed the big mass demonstrations asking the US to leave?
As far as you statement “there won’t be too many living Iraqis left to celebrate the U.S. ‘victory'”, Iraq has a less violent civilain death rate than DC:
Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.
While that number sounds high – astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it’s significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation’s capital.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/132706.shtml?s=ic
neutralsam – because you say that ‘it came out of the mouths of marines’ doesn’t mean that it did. You have to provide more proof than your words.
You must provide factual data and evidence, not just your words-of-hearsay. That is, provide the links, not what you think they said, not what you think they wrote. But, the actual links. It is a common problem that what one individual thinks they read or heard, can be different from what actually was written or spoken. That is why a data-base is required. Your word about what was said – is simply no evidence.
Therefore, please provide the direct links. Not what you think they said.
Could you explain how you think that the UN didn’t assist Iraq in ‘paying for its unlawful action’? I’m assuming you mean the action of money laundering the Oil for Food?
Because a conclusion is ‘widely-held’ (by the left, not by others) doesn’t mean that the conclusion is valid. At one time, it was a widely held conclusion that the earth was flat.
So, you may think that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that it was, ‘de jure’, unlawful.
I don’t know why you support the UN’s handling of oil revenues in Iraq, when the UN is indicted in the fraudulent laundering of oil revenues in that same country. That seems to me rather like handing the keys to the bank robbers. Why do you promote this? Are you unwilling to evaluate the UN?
I’m sorry. I don’t understand you. You say ‘ when it becomes clear that the Iraqis have created their own gov’t? Are you insulting their elections? Insulting their writing of their constutition? Why?
Sorry – but Iraq is not occupied.
You state: “International lawyers around the world advised their governments on March 19 that the US-led invasion of Iraq was in violation of fundamental international law”. I regret to say that this statement is so ambiguous that it is without meaning.
‘International lawyers’ is a term that can be applied to any two-bit graduate with a focus on international law. What does it mean in actuality?
Which governments? And did their gov’t ask them to provide an opinion, or was it a leftist petition?
Which ‘fundamental international law’ statute are you referring to? Please advise. Oh- and please don’t do a Barbara McLachlin tactic, which is to assert that ‘unwritten fundamental principles’ exist, that can be ‘discovered’ by and only by ‘special judges’. Is that what you mean?
Again, you obviously support Islamic fascism. Could you explain why and how you think this mode of governance is viable and preferable to, for example, the current Iraqi people’s development of democracy? And remember, as I’m sure you know, people don’t move out of tribalism into democracy in the flick of a light switch. Especially when there are lots of bad guys around who dislike others having democracy.
neutralsam and steve d. constantly show their true colours.
Now neutralsam stoops so low as to advocate for the release of Saddam.
Personally I think Kate should sweep him to the curb.
He is obviously not neutral.
I will say it again, they and their like minded left wingers help the other side.
Read islamonline and Arab News and the propaganda repeated over and over and over by the Baghdad Bobs in the Arab and Islamic press.
They obviously get many of their talking points from neutralsam and steve d. and our own left wingers. (I wish I could put the sarc tag here but I am not kidding).
neutralsam’s a waste of time and energy.
I’d ignore him. He even gives trolls a bad name.
Hi neutralsam,
I think you miss the point: “international law” is not “law” without a uniform mechanism for enforcement and an organization with a legitmate monopoly on coercive power to enforce it. What exists are norms, precedents, and agreements;But none of these matter when it is in the interests of states to disregard them. These are a partial law but not a complete one; after all, can you really call something a “law” where there is no functioning jusitice system and no police?
What exists right now in international relations is not “law” but, at best, moderated anarchy. To pretend otherwise is wishful thinking.
Wars, like all other international politcal decisions, either pursue valid ends or they don’t, and they either use effective methods or they don’t. Whether a treaty was broken or a norm violated is only a peripheral issue.
Rather than using “legality” as a crutch, give us an argument why the invasion was WRONG.
Aristides said…
Let me tell you what we are up against. Just the other day I was talking to my friend–valedictorian, Princeton grad, high honors, degree in German philosophy, post-grad degrees, etc., really smart guy–about the Iraq war and President Bush. We hadn’t seen each other in a few years — we had quite a bit of time to kill over some beers at the local pub — so I decided I would get to the bottom of what he thought about Life, the Universe, and Everything — specifically, the current situation we find ourselves in.
It was a humbling experience. Not because I was outmatched intellectually, and not because of his devastating retorts; no, it was humbling because the problem we here at the Club always talk about–the problem of communication, of perspective, of accuracy in language, of context, of belief, etc.–exposed itself as the unforgiving, uncompromising, nigh indomitable Leviathan it is. I had four hours and trust and I could not break into the fortress he had set up around his smug self-certainty.
Some examples, perhaps?
1. Bush is a Fascist. I tried the Socratic method first, tried to get him to define the word and then give specific examples of actions that could reasonably fit under that definition. Of course, I got Gitmo, Eavesdropping, Torture, Abu Ghraib, lying to the American people to go to war, and stealing elections. I took them one by one, bringing up American jurisprudence and Constitutional Law, history, and the finer details of these events, but I soon found out it wasn’t his facts that he cared about. It was his opinion. It was as if he jumped on a conclusion and then raked to himself any factoid that could support it in argument. The facts themselves were disposable, because it was the opinion that was important. And the opinion was indestructable.
2. Bush and Cheney are Felons. This was never discarded, even after I explained that the word Felon has a specific meaning, a meaning that is tied to a specific lexiconic universe, and that in that universe Bush and Cheney are almost certainly not Felons. He couldn’t, or wouldn’t, understand. For him, to label someone a Felon was not a legal judgment, but an emotional one. I gave up.
3. Condoleeza Rice is a house nigger, and the Republicans are the party of racism. He actually said that, and I’m still pissed off. If you want to know where you can find racism, my friends, look no further than elite Leftists. They talk like this casually. (!)
4. Bush lied.
5. Iraq is a failure.
6. Terrorism is America’s fault.
7. 9/11 was a Conspiracy.
8. The Government is Listening.
My friend is an hyper-intelligent elite Ivy Leaguer, plugged into the top echelon of society, steeped in the new religion of Smug, and these are his earnest beliefs.
You want to know scary? We’re producing more of these jackasses every single day. Articulate, smooth, persuasive — jackasses.
…-
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/06/choice-not-referendum.html
My apologies to those who are getting blocked by the filter. I’ll try to keep on top of it; but it is designed to keep SDA spam-free.
Any time you enter a URL, you will be blocked. I’ll try to “release” your posts ASAP, but I can’t remain parked here. Thanks for your patience and for the sharp debate.
I guess that you’ll agree that the international court should be closed then?
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm
Then when countries commit war crimes against others we can let the wars continue.
Despite being a lifelong Conservative and a avid reader of Kate’s blog and the Blogging Tories in general, I am always surprised when people whine about “trolls”. People like “neutralsam” should be encouraged to post on Tory blogs – what the heck is the point of consistently hearing our own ideas parrotted back to us? At least hearing the arguments of our opponents allows us to see the flaws in their logic.
Neutralsam is wrong in my opinion, but I found his post more interesting than most of the typical rehash of many posters. He made me a little angry, a little incredulous and made me want to post back to debate the issue (it doesn’t matter that neither of us could change the other’s mind, the exercise is useful in and of itself).
Except by the time I had finished scrolling through the posts I was more riled up by all the troll-bashing. Our opponents are always going to be wrong and many of them will be mindnumbingly frustrating but what would be the point of only ever hearing opinions we agreed with?
We should also remember that when the Left defends “the enemy of their enemy” they are only doing what political groups have always done: anyone who has studied the 20s and 30s knows that many French, British and American rightists defended Mussolini (especially the Abyssinian war), Japan and even Hitler because opposing these aggressors meant canoodling with the Left and Russia (Churchill aside).
The right was wrong then and the left is wrong now — but we shouldn’t descent into their style of hysteria. We certainly shouldn’t label opponents trolls for voicing their opinions or suggest that they be banned from this site.
N-Sam: What is the record of UN humanrights tribunals? How many killers have been convicted in the Rwanda case, and at what cost? What about Bosnia? And, how long does it take to get a conviction? And, when convicted, what are the sentences? The answers to these questions prove the hoax that the UN has become.
The UN humanrights tribunals and international court are a make-work project for more UN leeches. They are long on moralizing; yet nil on results… unless you count enriching international lawyers and bureaucrats.
maz2:
Good post. Just goes to show that leftism is a mental disorder. First it destroys logic/rational thought and then it goes on to cripple conscience, morality, etc.
For those afflicted – from a site set up at the start of the war in order to create public distress towards the ‘occupation’:
Iraqi’s killed by Islamic terrorists, this year: 3078
Iraqi’s killed collaterally by the US, this year: 48
Source: iraqbodycount.net
Neutralsam,
(1)The ICJ tries people, not “countries.”
(2)The issues before the ICJ are “war crimes” not “wars”; the ICJ has never stopped a war from continuing or happening.
but on the main issue:
Besides, the ICJ actually proves my point: only the loosers (i.e. those with no power) ever end up in front of it. It is a legitimized tool of states.
It is in the interest of states to set rules that serve their common interest and see that those are enforced. BUT, let us never forget that these rules exist only because they are in the common interest of powerful states. When they cease to be in state interests, they are disregarded. For example, a defendant is only ever turned over to the international criminal court AFTER their nation consents to do so.
An optional court system is not a true system of law. It is a means of legitimizing power.
If you want to argue that the U.S. violated a norm, and this violation is not in the common interest of other states, let’s hear the argument.
But again, let us acknowledge the reality that in International Affairs, norms are based on interests, not on some amorphous body of “law”.
Maz2 best line of the day:
“You want to know scary? We’re producing more of these jackasses every single day. Articulate, smooth, persuasive — jackasses.”
And it IS scary. I have believed for a very long time that we will lose the war on terror (so called by the so called crowd)because the jackasses of the world are educated, articulate, persuasive and dumb as a freakin a$$.
In Memoriam To The “New” George Bush:
George Bush has failed rehab; Zarqawi has worms. …-
US effort to rehab image falls short
Christian Science Monitor – 2 hours ago
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. WASHINGTON – In Europe for two days, President Bush will lay out a full agenda on Iran, aid to Iraq, and farm subsidies in world trade. … google news
Andrew Mason- your example of people who supported the fascists in WWII as doing so because they rejected communism, is inadequate as a reason for all support of the fascists in WWII.
It is also inadequate to explain those who support the Islamic fascists and reject the US and coalition in the ME – because the rejection of the US is not also a rejection of something ‘else that is bad, eg communism’.
neutralsam, I don’t understand your point of suggesting that we dispense with the International Court. What does this court have to do with war crimes? Has it said a word, ever, about Rwanda, about Darfur? It is currently dealing with genocide in Bosnia/Serbia and Croatia/Serbia – but- what has it accomplished? Nothing.
As has been pointed out, this court has an extremely limited mandate. First, of course, it cannot overturn the sovereignty of nations. That can’t be done, unless and until, nations no longer exist! So, it can’t declare that China can’t claim Taiwan, can it?
It has therefore, a limited mandate, because it cannot overrule national law. If a nation insists on dictatorship, this court can’t insist on democracy.
So, it has a limited mandate. The court can only declare on issues where both parties in the argument agree to submit to the court; or, when both are parties to a treaty that actually says that they may refer a dispute to the court; or, where both states have stated that, with certain categories excluded, they are willing to take the advice of the court – in certain circumstances.
So, neutralsam, this court can’t say a word about Iraq, or Iran, or SA, or many other areas, because of that mandate.
I’d like to ask you why you don’t respond to the requests for information, for clarification, etc that we have asked of you. I asked you for specific references for your quie controversial and unsubstantiated claims of violence by the US military of running over children, murdering bystanders, etc, etc. You made these assertions without evidence and I asked for proof other than hearsay. I asked for specific international law references, for specific gov’ts, to explain your refusal to recognize the current elected Iraqi gov’t and so on.
You are silent.
Does this mean that you offer us only unsubstantiated opinions which you expect us to accept as valid and refuse to offer any evidence to support those opinions? Why?
Equivacate all you like Andrew but defending and/or excusing those who are killing our own soldiers goes far far beyond a difference of political opinion and that is where IMO neutralsam and steve d. etc. etc. cross the line.
I really feel badly for those guys. Getting shot in battle is one thing, but tortured to death is just… I don’t know. Horrific.
That being said I need to point out the problem I have with Kate’s question. She writes “How many lefty blogs will condemn the crime without drafting moral equivalency arguments that include Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or Haditha?”
First of all, there is no justifying what happened to those two soldiers. To pretend otherwise is idiotic, and I won’t be entertaining that line of “thought”. Similarly, there is no justifying Haditha. I’m not sure exactly what Kate means by moral equivilancy, but I think condemning both acts and saying that they are both wrong, and both horrible, is perhaps a kind of moral equivilancy.
Where Kate goes wrong I think, is implying that the two are raised or discussed in tandom as justification, which is impossible and morally depraved, as opposed to in explanation.
No, I don’t think one explains the other. But asking how did this happen, how do things like this come to pass, and what can we do to stop it, is required. The right does this all the time. FOR EXAMPLE, they understand the acts to be the result of completely irrational and murderous islamo-facists, and so find the way to stop it is by destroying islamo-facism and its practioners. Others on the left may reply to this by saying that the explanation fails to take into account the reasons terrorists are giving for why they are doing this, like getting Americans out of Iraq and setting up a islamic fundamentalist government ala Iran.
Neither party (left and right) is engaged in justifying the horrors, they just have honest differences about what factors are important to understand the conflict, and address the difficult problems raised therein. To suggest otherwise is to remove yourself from reasonable discourse.
Yes, there are lunatics out there, on the left and the right, who are unwilling to admit that terrorism must be met with force, and there are those on the right who are unwilling to hear alternative explanations without resorting to the “you support terrorists” argument. And frankly, I don’t consider them to be part of a constructive dialogue either.
Lastly, yes, I realize Kate never actually wrote “justified” or “justifiation”. I’m not misquoting her. Yes, I read her post. I’m responding to something that I have seen elsewhere, and that I believe is implied in her questions. If it is not implied, then I have no problems at all with what she wrote. If it is then my comments above apply.
Cordially,
The liberal left is flying in concentric circles, decreasing concentric circles. Kos flies up/down?
“Leading Democrats” call for “cut-and-run”.
To wit: Einstein’s Law Of Butt (No Gravity Required).
“If you travel at an ever increasing rate of speed in ever decreasing concentric circles you will eventually fly up your own butt.”-Einstein …
Democrats unveil Iraq plans
Los Angeles Times | June 20, 2006 | Maura Reynolds
WASHINGTON – Leading Senate Democrats called Monday for a “phased withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Iraq, outlining what they hope will become a consensus position on the war that will help their party speak with a more unified voice. freerepublic …-
B L O G S H O C K E R ! Daily Kos Embraces Pro-Troop “Move America Forward”
freerepublic
You attack an innocent people, ya get what ya deserve.
Whining “Al Qaeda!” is so over. Wno needs Al Qaeda? The Iraqi people hate the American-terrorists guts. And why not? So they’re dispatching a few of the baby-raping pukes. Paybacks fairplay!
Neutralizing ilegal armed invading aliens and mass murderers isn’t “terrorism”…..its a job well done. God bless these heroes! Thankyou Jesus.