Posted on 05/14/2004 2:12:56 AM PDT by tommydagun
It's easy to say he should not have been in Iraq, but Nicholas Berg was a type familiar to all danger zones: an adventurous and naïve young man who was perhaps keen to do a bit of business, but keener yet to test himself; old enough to understand the danger, but young enough to defy it. It is impossible not to feel grief, and horror, at his terrible end.
The claim of this young American's murderers that they were retaliating for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is a cruel ruse. They killed him out of the same madness that drove their comrades in Al Qaeda to slaughter thousands on Sept. 11, 2001. But this manipulative attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the gruesome execution of Mr. Berg and the torture of Iraqi prisoners is now being mimicked by some hard-core supporters of the American war in Iraq. They are cynically trying to use the images of Mr. Berg to wipe away the images of Abu Ghraib, turning the abhorrence for the murderers into an excuse for demonizing Arabs and Muslims, or for sanctioning their torture.
Mr. Berg's parents have legitimate questions for the United States government about how he came to be in Iraqi police custody immediately before his kidnapping, what happened to him there and what knowledge American officials had about his situation. The occupation authority needs to stop passing off those questions to the Iraqi police force, which does not exist other than as an agent of American power. The Berg family deserves answers so they can grieve for their son's death in peace.
Anything to keep the months-old Abu Ghraib pictures coming.
These people are fifth-columnists. Nothing more to be said for them.
| The Democrats' Political Football (not suitable for the sensitive) |
||||||
| Posted by Happy2BMe to Prime Choice; All On News/Activism 05/14/2004 1:42:51 AM PDT #5 of 5 |
||||||
Where is their reaction to Ted the Swimmer Kennedy?
Kennedy: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management."
Is this not a cynical attempt to demoralize the US in war time? Why isn't the NYT toying with the thought of a recall vote and a condemnation vote for Kennedy? They are a partizan rag that occassionally tries to lure people in with brief moments of honesty.
"But this manipulative attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the gruesome execution of Mr. Berg and the torture of Iraqi prisoners is now being mimicked by some hard-core supporters of the American war in Iraq. "
Ho-hum. NY Times says it is manipulative to establish moral equivalence between the beheading and the prisoner abuse. So which one is it that they want us to forget? Why, the beheading, of course. Because it's far less important than the prisoner abuse. Let's not have any of this moral equivalence, after all.
And notice that supporters of the war are "hard core". There are no soft core supporters of the war. That's because all the soft core people are against the war.
And how is that "hard core supporters of the war" are "mimicking" the claims of moral equivalence? Is it perhaps by claiming that these deeds are not morally equivalent? That's mimicking?
What tangled webs we weave when we start writing editorials for the NYT.
We are at war, our troops lives are on the line, Iran and Syria are helping fuel the insurgency,a young adverenturer is brutally beheaded and NYT wants us to investigate why we did not protect the man, who insisted on travelling in dangerous Iraq. Why not a profile of the murderous gang of terrorists?
By trying to create hysteria over the prison scandal, NYT is set on undermining our efforts to create a free Iraq.
We are in a battle with the leftist media who would rather we fail in Iraq, rather discredit and defeat this administration than protect this nation. They and those like them are an enemy to our survival.
Classic cartoon.
"They are cynically trying to use the images of Mr. Berg to wipe away the images of Abu Ghraib, turning the abhorrence for the murderers into an excuse for demonizing Arabs and Muslims, or for sanctioning their torture."
Torture? Even the dog attack incident wasn't torture:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1135366/posts?page=1
"...Sivits said Graner punched one detainee in the head so hard the man fell unconscious [no reason given why or who was hit], and another inmate was bitten by a police dog after Graner "provoked" the detainee to "go after him," the Times reported..."
Great cartoon!
I noticed that, too.
There is a cynical attempt here, but it's not on the part of supporters of the war. (And what "torture"? Abuse, certainly, but torture?)
BTW, did you happen to notice whether the NYT also editorialized about the porno pix run in its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Boston Globe, that purported to be pictures of American soldiers raping Iraqi women? I'd look myself, but I have to wash my hair. And take a shower. And clean my oven. And brush the cat.
Re the Globe pictures: I heard on Howie Carr that the camouflage worn by the soldiers (that convinced the city councillor of the pics' genuineness) was jungle camouflage, not desert camouflage.
Cynicism, anyone?
Dazed from the impact, she struggled out of her restraints in desperation to keep her head above the rising water. The icey blackness yeilded no clues to possible escape. The water rose faster and faster, her waste, now her shoulders. The deep clarity of panic rose in her that cut through the shock that was griping her mind. Now the water was up to her neck. She couldn't think straight, where was the door? Everything was tuned around. The water covered her head, the icey blackness closed in on her...
Mr. Kennedy, you know about torture, don't you?
Ron Popeil is more believeable.
The New York Times: Infomercial News
Ouch. Kerry and Kennedy are quite a pair. "I destroyed entire villages."
Hillary: It takes a village.
Kerry: I destroyed villages.
Kennedy: The village drunk.
MEG, it's actually a lot worse than that- our lives- civilians in America- are potentially at risk... do you recall that "Terrorist Manual" that was online a couple of years ago? It mentioned our Malls, schools, day-care centers and even golf courses as targets.
Mark my words, the head-sawers want our heads as well.
Here are a few choice words of mine:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135259/posts?page=31#31
***We are in a battle with the leftist media who would rather we fail in Iraq, rather discredit and defeat this administration than protect this nation. They and those like them are an enemy to our survival.***
Absolutely right!
The anti-war people are COWARDS. WEAKLINGS.
They make a lot of noise to cover up their fear. They want to give in to the bullies so that they won't take their lunch money.
If attacked, every one of them will start screaming, "Allah is good. Allah is good."
They're a bunch of girly boys and pampered sissy girls.
Come again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.