After I had finished a merry laugh at the incongruity between Pepe's alleged placement on "The Graph" and the evidence these past two thousand posts have brought before our eyes, I came across this article which raised this incongruity in a stark way. Remember, Pepe, all that sturm und drang on your end over the Horror of Abu Ghraib and the Evil that is the USMC?? How the Yanks are the Bad Guys (behind blue eyes) while Freedom Fighters blaze forth to preserve Dignity, Tolerance, and the Chiracian Way? Yet this article reminds me that there is no such thing as a Yank soldier who has survived his captivity in Iraq, never mind be allowed to live in fine Fidelian torture fest [for to hope he merely suffer "abu ghraib" would be like a gal hoping for roses, chocolates, and sweet sincerity from Mr. Pig-ton] . And yet, not once, ever, I have read so much as the mildest protest, or sense of discomfort, or even a sybillant hint that one should even care for such things, from Kastle Le Pew.
Am I shocked, shocked at this contradiction? No, of course not. For no doubt Pepe would aver it is only a "seeming" contradiction. There are theses, there are antitheses, and contradictions are mere apparent and ever resolved by the proper application of the Dialectic. As long as, in the End, it is Yanks who moulder in the grave.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Those who have led the outcry over what they hysterically decry as U.S. "war crimes" in Iraq have a particular obligation to speak out against genuine atrocities of the kind committed by these terrorist insurgents.
That will be a cold day in Hell when a gauchiste will do that -- you know it, and I know it. At best, their heart is set in cold stone when it comes to the US soldiers -- at worst (and I think a significant portion of the pinko-lefties are there) they ullulate with joy when one of our soldiers gets killed, or maimed, or tortured by the enemy.
So the only question to Pepe should be -- does he merely brush this off as something that doesn't concern him (though of course, if one of those soldiers had turn the gun on his assailant, and had killed him in self-defense, Pepe would have woken up and started to howl with anger at the horror of it all), or does he actually enjoy it when this happens?
I am unsure i see a connection between the "graph" and this post but on the topic of this unfortunate incident, I've always found it amusing how you are prompt to point at these atrocities as indicative of how barbaric your enemy is, while pointing that similar behavior on the part of your troops is simply a bad apple in an otherwise deeply noble institution kinda thing. There are now so many instances of appalling behavior on the part of the US troops, including rape, torture, summary execution of individuals and entire families, blatant cover-ups by the higher ups, etc... that being shocked at this behavior on the part of the enemy is somewhat surrealist.
Seriously people, the islamists are a bunch of pigs ? no fucking shit. What bothers and surprises me more is that the americans are often no better.
As a final observation, this sad story exemplifies how the administration's habit of paying nothing more than lip service to concern for the geneva convention results in putting its own troops at risk.
"Oh my", you will say, "but look at these ugly muslims, do they care about the geneva convention" ? Nope, they don't and that doesn't mean you shouldn't either.
oh, you know anonymous above is pepe of course.
Those who insist so loudly on following Geneva Conventions rules regarding captured terrorists need to take a long, hard look at the latest atrocity in Iraq, news of which broke yesterday.
The message here is that, if the enemy doesn't respect GC, neither should the americans. As if some benefit would be derived from behaving like the "terrorists" (is that what these guys are or is anyone killing US soldiers a terrorist?).
The murder of helpless captives is a stark reminder of the barbaric nature of the enemy that American-led forces face in Iraq.
And the murder of helpless captives by US troops is a reminder of what?
Frankly, complaints about degrading photos and alleged desecration of the Koran can't hold a candle to the savage abduction and execution-style murders of brave soldiers.
This is a summit of hypocrisy: as if the worst that US soldiers do is spit on sidewalks while the barbarians slaughter them for kicks.
Those who have led the outcry over what they hysterically decry as U.S. "war crimes" in Iraq have a particular obligation to speak out against genuine atrocities of the kind committed by these terrorist insurgents.
Yeh, it's not like that 14 y.o. who was gang-raped before her entire family was butchered didn't ask for it. To call this a war crime is hysterical: the little slut asked for it.
The NY post is still holding up to high standards of journalism...
Talk about a target-rich environment you have provided, Pepe! Thanks for stocking this barrel with so many fish.
First, do you think your boys in Iraq are gonna be held accountable for their actions? Where's the 16 years in Leavenworth, mon ami?
Secondly, as well-armed as the US troops are over there, if there were whole barrels of bad apples instead of a couple, I think there would a whole hell of a lot more wanton killing than we've seen. Perhaps as much as the Arabs are inflicting on each other. They are apparently fish in a barrel themselves, aren't they?
Often (and by yourself once that I remember) terrorism is justified as the only way underequipped militias can fight organized military forces. But then, by the same token, those organized national military forces, if allowed the, er, tactical luxuries afforded the poor little brown man would cause wholesale slaughters to make the earth tremble.
You haven't a leg to stand on, Pepe, and this is the proof that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists captured in the field.
First, do you think your boys in Iraq are gonna be held accountable for their actions? Where's the 16 years in Leavenworth, mon ami?
They are really not: the lower-ranked perpetrators may get a light sentence but i predict that those that provided the context for this to happen won't. In any case, the fact that there may or may not be judicial consequences in the long term is somewhat irrelevant.
Secondly, as well-armed as the US troops are over there, if there were whole barrels of bad apples instead of a couple, I think there would a whole hell of a lot more wanton killing than we've seen.
You know damn well this is the tip of the iceberg.
I am still not clear on why you are so bent on not respecting the GC.
The connection between "the graph" and this post is what was precisely stated, both are examples of incongruities, or contradictions if Herr Komrad Pew prefers, in the things anonymous says.
His stance now seems to be "the Islamicists are a bunch of bunch of pigs? No fucking shit. What surprises and bothers me is that often americans are no better".
So let's see. Islamicists get a pass, because, well, Pepe expects their standard ain't our standard. So why pretend to judge them by our standard? On the other hand we should judge ourselves by our standard. So it is all ho hum that every single Yank soldier ever captured is slaughtered. Islam gots ta do what its gots ta do. But our systematic murder of the prisoners we take is done by Kufr, and so there's no fucking excuse for it.............Oh? What's that? There is no fucking systematic murder of the prisoners we take? Well, let's attach the qualifier "often". Oh, What's that? There is no fucking "often" murder of the prisoners we take? Well, then, let's move beyond prisoners and talk about all murders of Iraquis. Oh? What's that? There is no fucking "often" murders of Iraquis? Sweet Baby Jaysus, how is that possible? Ain't Anonymous just used the word "often"? Oh? What's that? You don't think 4-5 incidents of murder of innocent civilians in three years of warfare qualifies as "often"?? Lordy you right wing warmongering fascist baby killers wanna make me puke righteous puke.
Look, Pepe, this is so fucking obvious that I suppose you need to have it all spelt out clear like. Just like Les Lumieres in the days where people yet Dared to Know.
First. It is the fucking POLICY of the enemy to kill every Yank they can get their hands on. It is not a contrarian few within their ranks, or even a case of "often", it is their systematic policy. Those are the Orders. This shows itself in subtle signs, such as for example their fucking leaders joining in the slaughter, joining in the laughter, and giving big public Bejos to the merry boyz with the nice no longer shiny knives. Except for one muslim soldier who apparently had linked up with the other side, every single Yank captured has had the singular honor of adding to the sanguinary bliss of the commanders of the Islam Militant in Iraq. Now, we have captured far far more of them than they have of us. Over these three years, tens of thousands have been captured by americans, many of whom have subsequently been released to their families [no, am not counting the initial fighting with Sado Hussein], and I can only find up to two instances where a death of a prisoner was deliberate on our part. And the perpetrators were arrested and charged with murder. That is a subtle sign, yes, that there are no orders to injure or kill prisoners, that commanders are following the rules of war as set out by our standards. But then such sublime subtlety is lost on the nuanced and sophisticated.
Second, it is the fucking POLICY of the enemy to deliberately target innocent Iraquis for murder. And they are very good, very effective, at that. The fruits of their honest labor appear before us almost daily. They have slaughtered tens of thousands with this deliberate intent these past three years. But, hey, when the kiddies die before an Islamic sword, yer ain't gonna find Pepe wasting his breath condemning that there sword. After all, it has to be saved for baying at the Yanks who, in that same span of time, have had 4-5 total incidents of soldiers murdering civilians. Again, all of which were very much against policy, and all of which led to criminal investigation, arrest, and trial under the charge of murder. One might think this meant, however sublimely subtly, that our forces take seriously the injunction against deliberate targeting of the innocent. An injunction which has led to a most unfair number of Yanks dead because they held or hesitated to fire in situations where innocents might suffer. But in Versailles no one even pretends that one can hear a Yank scream.
Third, a rube, a peasant, a right wing warmonger fascist unFidelian pig might hesitate to apply the word "often" to those infamous 4-5 incidents in three years. A rube, for example, might point out that there are well over a 100,000 american young men, fully armed, at any point of the last three years in Iraq. That these men have been given orders to fight minimally, with all sorts of political constraints on the rules of engagement, which do not usually hold for combat. [This, you can blame Bush for] They have died in thousands, and been injured in more thousands, and have never seen one of their comrades survive more than a few days in captivity. The enemy offers nothing but Death. Our political leadership has been [although one HOPES Bush now knows better] binding those who face this enemy to little more than policing actions and sitting duck duty.
And while the world, with its Pepe's and MSM's, no longer bother to hides its utter indifference to whatever mass murder emanates from Islam Militant, the Yank is put in the slammer for years because of the Terror that is West Virginia skivvies on Fedayeen heads.
With so much stacked against them, and with the offer being that "heads you lose your head, tails you lose your tail", it is bloody amazing that in three years these 100,000s of armed young men have been so disciplined, so restrained, that there have been so FUCKING FEW incidents. And if you but compared that to any other war with so many men at arms in dangers way, hell, if you but compared that to a couple of blocks of East St. Louis,hell, if you but compared them to the UN Bleus you take such a gander to [in far more mild and unprovocative situations] the word "often" would make no sense at all. That is, would not make sense to one such as I, ["rube, blah blah blah"]. In truth, it would smack of mendacity of the grossest sort to use the word "often" here.
But apparently it makes great sense to Pew, Bravo of the Winebar, he who carefully husbands his confrontations with Evil to the surly pate' chef at his fave bistro. And it is Evil that is the modus operandi of our enemy. Systematic, deliberate of policy, in a moral vacuum that immediately suffocates all compassion and lets breed only monsters, and is Celebrated for all to see. And Pepe can only point to the handful of cases where evil [ very unsystematic, deliberately against policy, and judged harshly for all to see] has shown itself in our forces?
Imagine what Le Pew's rhetoric would be if the murder rate of our soldiers in Iraq was to be even 50% of the national murder rate here in the USA. Or, worse, 25% of the murder rate of his compeers in Nawlins. It is a very bloody joke the Left is pulling here.
OK, boys, the respective positions are crystal clear, at least on this topic. AA made an impassionate plea, but I'm sure it will have the same effect on Pepe as would have had Berg's (or anyone else's) pleas before the Zarkawian knife slit through their throat, all the way to the bone. When it comes to the lives of US soldiers -- or any American, for that matter -- the pinko heart is forever cold as a stone on Pluto. Don't waste your breath, AA, it's hopeless.
When it comes to the lives of US soldiers -- or any American, for that matter -- the pinko heart is forever cold as a stone on Pluto.
ai - this is not an emotional issue: it is a purely political one. One can't in all honesty use the military to implement policy and then turn around and argue that opponents of the policy are really abandoning the troops. The troops are first and foremost instruments of policy.
Of course it is emotional. To the extent that you care about the nature of society and the world we win in is to the extent there is an emotional stake in it. If one cares for the democratic and open societies which are confronted by Islam Militant, then cheering the death of our soldiers and exulting at the triumphs of the enemy is a political statement with inescapable emotional consequences.......Think, for example, of how emotional a certain american residenct of convenience became when it was suggested that affinity for the Petainist stance heralded back to his grandfather. And that didn't even involve a soupcon of exultation at seeing French die.
cheering the death of our soldiers
who is doing that ?
If one cares for the democratic and open societies which are confronted by Islam Militant
Is that what this administration is doing? I was under the impression that they had started a war under false pretenses, did a mess of things to finally substitute a dictatorship for a full-blown civil war, moved into damage control mode and pretty much abandoned the idea of making that society democratic and open.
You, and all good citiziens of Chomskiana
The democratic and open society our soldiers are fighting for is ours, and the West [or what remains of it] in general. Now cheer on your vision of the future.
The democratic and open society our soldiers are fighting for is ours
aa -that is the soundbite: marketing from the neocons. not reality.
uh, no, that is reality. We are in Iraq for our sake first and foremost. Which is precisely why you relish the prospect of our defeat so intensely. And that is reality also.
oh right - you are fighting in iraq to preserve the american way of life ? you are saving apple pie from the mohamedans, perhaps ?
Pepe -- sorry to say, but you are descending into incoherent non-sequiturs while trying to uphold an untenable position. And, all those shallow cliches ("marketing from the neocons"?) that you regurgitate ad-nauseam don't make for a cogent argument, if you know what that term means.
all those shallow cliches
pick your cliche ai, but calling this useless war a fight for democracy in the west is really a summit in that department.
Yes, fighting Islam Militant on its turf is useless to one who can barely contain his anticipatory delight at joining zarky boyz bending before Imams
after 3 years it is pretty clear that the only thing that the US has been successful at in iraq has been to nurture radical vocations all through the middle east, not at fighting militant islam on its turf!
Post a Comment