Amen, eye candy.
This is the American way of life!
Posted on 05/08/2007 2:14:08 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
Recall the lurid photos of Private Lynndie England, United States Army. At Abu Ghraib, she was pulling an Iraqi man on a leash.
Liberals said it was "torture." It violated the Geneva Conventions.
Conservatives, hard-wired to "support our troops," said it was no big deal. Rush Limbaugh compared it to a fraternity hazing. Heh, heh.
"Most Muslims did not view it as a torture story at all," writes Dinesh D'Souza in his book, "The Enemy at Home." To the Muslims, Abu Ghraib was a story of sexual perversion. D'Souza quotes a Muslim businessman in Turkey: "What the female American soldier in uniform did to the Arab man, strip him of his manhood and pull him on a leash, this is what America wants to do to the Muslim world."
Before we say: Nonsense! — we might consider D'Souza's argument. His book makes other claims I set aside, but on the 9/11 question — Why do they hate us? — he argues plausibly that their objection is our spreading of an immoral culture.
(Excerpt) Read more at archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Actually, having women humiliate and control them is a really good idea.
The dismissal as a “prank” at what happened at Abu Gharib by conservatives has always rubbed me the wrong way. Of course it was during full Bush Bot days, but it still didn’t seem to actually fit the conservative mold.
Really is to bad you couldn’t post the whole article. People should read it.
You didn’t see the full-on “ABU GHRAIB TORTURE! ABU GHRAIB TORTURE!” media blitz we got, here.
It wasn’t approval of the behavior, that caused conservatives to dismiss it. It was that we were sick of it being overplayed by the Left as some sort of proof of the U.S. military’s moral bankruptcy, which was absurd.
Muslims are just like us, we don't behead anyone.
They don't like all the free sex, neither do I.
We didn't defend them. When did they ever defend a Christian? I remember reading of them killing Christians.
Heck, they don't even stand up to the people hijacking their religion. Not feeling the love.
Amen, eye candy.
This is the American way of life!
“What the female American soldier in uniform did to the Arab man, strip him of his manhood and pull him on a leash, this is what America wants to do to the Muslim world.”
Well...this is a good start.
“As one example, I kind of like going to he beach in the summer and seeing beautiful women in bikinis. The burka thing doesn’t do much for me.”
There is quite a spectrum between bikini and burka. For a large segment of the Muslim world, burka’s are as unattractive as the habits of some Christian women’s religious orders (from pre-Vatican II days) would be to most Christians today. Standards of modesty in dress have a wide range around the world, as youthful readers of National Geographic used to happily discover (before general availability of Hustler-level pornography in every corner of the media, and the use of same even in public school “sex education” programs made National Geo tame by comparison).
Dhimmi rant of the day.
That's what the Army intelligence people who were actually giving these National Guard troops their instructions (and who quietly disappeared when it all went into the impeller) told them to do. Break their pride, and they'll babble like babes about where the munitions caches and Mukhabarat cells are. (That's who we were having trouble with -- Ba'athist hard guys fighting a rear-guard, "werewolf"-style action.)
The intel people told the Guardsmen to humiliate the captives, and Gen. Janet Karpinski, OIC of the whole shooting match, stayed in her office and played dumb.
What was on the table was, the Ba'athist hit teams were killing U.S. troops on the street, driving up casualties and trying to recruit the eventual jihadis.
Pretty serious stakes, to be concerned about Arab cultural sensitivities. It would all have stayed in the prison, too, if some idiot hadn't taken photos......and Mary Mapes, rabid Bush-hater and left-wing ideologue, got her hands on them.
“I went to the site and read the whole article.”
Thanks
“Muslims are just like us, we don’t behead anyone.”
No, however our country has been known to use nukes and
area bombing to level entire cities, men, women,
and children. Indiscriminate slaughter wholesale
rather than retail. No doubt if the jihadi beheaders
get nukes or similar WMD they will attempt to emulate
our country’s past behavior in that respect as often
as they can.
“They don’t like all the free sex, neither do I.”
A point of commonality, then.
“We didn’t defend them. When did they ever defend a Christian? I remember reading of them killing Christians.”
Yes, there is still widespread oppression of Christians
in the Muslim world, and the Hindu world, and the
socialist world. A good place to monitor this is:
http://www.persecution.com/
“Heck, they don’t even stand up to the people hijacking their religion. Not feeling the love.”
If your religion was infested with murderous fanatics
who are particularly vengeful in taking out those who
are seen as apostates (note that far more Muslims are
dying in Iraq at the hands of other Muslims than the
casualties being inflicted on US personnel) then you
might not be very vocal in publically denouncing them
either.
I’m not feeling the love either. We face a ruthless
enemy, and strenuous resistance is called for. The
form and content of that resistance is the issue. Next
to “know thyself”, knowing your enemy is a key to either
defeating or transforming him. The latter is much more
difficult than the former, but it is what we must
eventually accomplish. Love is not a feeling, although
it may eventually generate appropriate feelings that are
sometimes mistaken for the cause.
The neighborly Samaritan had compassion for the “man
fallen among thieves”, and took care of him. In the
chapter before this account, the one who taught it was
thrown out on his ear, along with his companions, by
Samaritan villagers. (Luke 8:51-56, 10:25-37)
I think he would say the same thing to you that he
said to the “lawyer who tested him”: Go and do likewise.
The average medieval caliph wouldn't even get out of bed on a day when he felt like he wasn't up to killing 20,000 Hindus.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot that Americans have ceased discussing anything and only SHOUT now.
Too bad the chances of ever agreeing to have a government funded unbiased news network would be pretty much nil. That may be an oxymoron anyway.
The prank thing was not that far off, but it was a sexual prank. I have wondered, and wondered some more, about why the media did not pick up on the sexual angle. I stated at the time (and several times after) that Abu Gharib was nothing more than a couple of perverts, with a couple of accomplices who were granted sexual favors, getting their jollies. It was much more about having a woman in the service, in the wrong place, than anything else.
“Dhimmi rant of the day.”
Nope.
“I went to the site and read the whole article.”
Thanks
“Muslims are just like us, we don’t behead anyone.”
No, however our country has been known to use nukes and
area bombing to level entire cities, men, women,
and children. Indiscriminate slaughter wholesale
rather than retail. No doubt if the jihadi beheaders
get nukes or similar WMD they will attempt to emulate
our country’s past behavior in that respect as often
as they can.
“They don’t like all the free sex, neither do I.”
A point of commonality, then.
“We didn’t defend them. When did they ever defend a Christian? I remember reading of them killing Christians.”
Yes, there is still widespread oppression of Christians
in the Muslim world, and the Hindu world, and the
socialist world. A good place to monitor this is:
http://www.persecution.com/
“Heck, they don’t even stand up to the people hijacking their religion. Not feeling the love.”
If your religion was infested with murderous fanatics
who are particularly vengeful in taking out those who
are seen as apostates (note that far more Muslims are
dying in Iraq at the hands of other Muslims than the
casualties being inflicted on US personnel) then you
might not be very vocal in publically denouncing them
either.
I’m not feeling the love either. We face a ruthless
enemy, and strenuous resistance is called for. The
form and content of that resistance is the issue. Next
to “know thyself”, knowing your enemy is a key to either
defeating or transforming him. The latter is much more
difficult than the former, but it is what we must
eventually accomplish. Love is not a feeling, although
it may eventually generate appropriate feelings that are
sometimes mistaken for the cause.
The neighborly Samaritan had compassion for the “man
fallen among thieves”, and took care of him. In the
chapter before this account, the one who taught it was
thrown out on his ear, along with his companions, by
Samaritan villagers. (Luke 8:51-56, 10:25-37)
I think he would say the same thing to you that he
said to the “lawyer who tested him”: Go and do likewise.
It’s the same as inner city idiot, lazy, uneducated males. “Yo, U B Diss’n me?”
Like, we are supposed to view the world from their loser point of view.
Your exercise in moral equivocation is beginning to annoy me.
One, we did not engage in indiscriminate slaughter of civilians during World War II. U.S. doctrine always targeted military and industrial installations. Even Hiroshima was an arsenal town, and the alternate targets were important manufacturing or military centers. Tokyo was so dense with dual-application industry, that LeMay just took the whole city out -- but not the imperial palace.
If the terrorists obtain and use a nuclear weapon, it won't be because we used them in World War II -- it will be because they obtained nuclear weapons, and because they're destructive, period.
Osama obtained a fatwa from some tent-shouting small-time mufti that allows him to kill 4,000,000 Americans. That fatwa was not based on Japanese casualties, but on some dumbass fantasy about how many Arabs, including children, the U.S. has supposedly killed.
We've done nothing of the sort. The fatwa is an exercise in cynicism: Osama thinks he can kill 4,000,000 U.S. citizens -- fine, we'll invent a reason why he should be morally justified in doing so.
Muslims don't do sexual perversion? I guess sodomizing little boys is really a healthy expression of sexuality, eh? The Psychoanalytic Roots of Suicide Terrorism (excerpts from the link)
"According to Minnesota based psychoanalyst and Arabist, Dr. Nancy Kobrin, it is a culture in which shame and honor play decisive roles and in which the debasement of women is paramount. In an utterly fascinating and as-yet unpublished book, which I will be introducing, the Sheik's New Clothes: the Psychoanalytic Roots of Islamic Suicide Terrorism, Kobrin, and her Israeli co-author, counter-terrorism expert Yoram Schweitzer, describe barbarous family and clan dynamics in which children, both boys and girls, are routinely orally and anally raped by male relatives; infant males are sometimes sadistically over-stimulated by being masturbated; boys between the ages of 7-12 are publicly and traumatically circumcised;"
I don't want to hear this holier-than-thou nonsense from cowards like D'Souza or anyone else!
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.