First, I believe I’m usually quite clear (to those who don’t want to deliberately feign ignorance of my point) as to my meaning.
Secondly, what the hell are you talking about? **Milum **seems to perceive hypocracy on the part of the lefties in this forum in regard to the lack of outrage over the beheading of Paul Johnson, I point out what appears to be his point, *and I’m somehow saying they were silent and uncaring over 9/11?
*
Your propensity to put words in the mouths of others would save a lot of work on the part of us other posters since we could just sit back and let you speak for us, but you just get everything wrong!
As others have pointed out already, people have expressed outrage at the American abuse of Iraqi prisoners because Americans aren’t supposed to torture people. We are outraged at this not because there was abuse, but because the abuse is disjoint with our values as a nation and a people.
It’s harder to be outraged at Terrorist Bastards™ doing Terrorist Bastard Acts™ because that’s what terrorists are supposed to do. Which is not the same as saying no one cares (I haven’t seen anyone in this thread shrug off the beheading as “no big deal”), but simply that the beheading is consistent with the terrorists’ values.
The idea that neither you nor Milum can grasp this simple distinction worries me.
rjung, I see now…it’s not the *act *that is outrageous; it’s who’s committing it. Right? Much worse for a few renegade U.S. prison workers to misbehave than for an innocent man to be kidnapped and, while his family and friends tearfully and anxiously await his fate, he is barbarically beheaded and body displayed as an example of what awaits further kidnap victims.
This is what always amazes me about those on the left. Their concern for human rights seems to stop at the border.
Now, having said that…rjung, take a chill pill, man! And take a lesson from perhaps the greatest president America ever had–Ronald Reagan–and realize that even though we may disagree, we’re all still Americans and we’re all still friends come 5:00 p.m.
Starving Artist , do you see any moral difference between the actions of an executioner, who applies a state-sanctioned dose of electricity to a prisonner after all the correct legal channels have been followed, and someone who decides that theie child is annoying them and electocutes them to death?
Indeed, I do…and your point is well taken. I believe Milum’s OP, however, was in response to the overwhelming majority of left-wing posters to this board who were so filled with outrage at the wrongdoings of a very small band of miscreants at the prison in Iraq and who used it as a base from which to attack the U.S. war in Iraq and to illustrate how we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. And then, when something happens to further illustrate the types of people we’re dealing with over there and which would add fuel to the fire of those in favor of the action we’re taking, these same people are strangely silent.
The problems lies in the fact that they used prisoner human rights as the criteria by which to judge and critisize the U.S. and the war in Iraq, but seem to be unconcerned about the human rights violations of the other side. If the issue is outrage over human rights violations, it should apply to humans everywhere. It seems to appear to Milum, and it certainly does to me, that the outrage over human rights abuse in the Iraqi prison was just a handy weapon with which to bludgeon the U.S. over military action that most if not all of the left-wingers on this board disapprove of, and that when much, much worse human rights violations occur on the other side, this outrage is nowhere to be found…thus pointing out what we on the right suspected all along, which is that the outrage over prisoner abuse isn’t really motivated by human rights concerns so much as it is by condemnation of U.S. action in the Middle East.
And you’re getting all pissy about the wrongdoings of a very small band of miscreants in a cave in Afghanistan.
You still don’t seem to see the point that we were pissed at the American torturers because, as a point, America does not torture. We are “better than that.” That is why we are fighting “evil.” Well, we USED to be able to say that. We EXPECT this kind of behavior from evil asshats. Just like the actions of a few Muslims got you all up in a tissy about all of them, we keep giving them more and more justification for their terrorism. The actions of those “few miscreants” have great repurcussions on both sides.
Says who? You? My primary criticism, and the primary criticism of most of my ilk (got ilk?), was about lies and false premises in order to justify a war that was unneccessary, counterproductive, and all around just plain stupid.
It is perfectly plausible to criticize from an entirely cynical realpolitik viewpoint: we are struggling for “hearts and minds”, the prisoner abuse didn’t just shoot ourselves in the foot, its shoving a stick of dynamite up our butt and lighting the fuse. Even if you aren’t interested in right and wrong, its still stupid!
Do you imagine, in your most feverish fantasy, that the average Iraqi on the street stopped dead in his tracks when he heard about the Johnson outrage and said “Whooah! The Americans must be right to invade my country, look, some Saudi guys are assholes. Well, that settles that!”
Sorry, I don’t think thats very helpful. I could just as easily accuse the right-wing as of jumping on the beheading as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, but that wouldn’t make it true.
Thank you for proving Milum’s and my point. The outrage expressed over prisoner abuse was a cover-up for the real outrage which was our action in Iraq, and which was being used as a straw man in the battle for the “hearts and minds” you surprisingly admit to.
I should get real? What a crock this last paragraph is. Where in the hell did I say anything that could, even by the most twisted and convoluted logic, be construed that I would think something this silly? C’mon, do you want to be taken seriously or not? If so, I would recommend a much more rational question than that.
You are quite right, of couse. However, I wound up involved in this thread by trying to explain what some of the posters seemed to be confused about, mainly the motivation behind the OP. If you’re going to scream about human rights violations in Abu Ghraib (sp?), you look hypocritical if you don’t scream about a beheading. The main thrust of my posts has been that the ultimate reason for human rights concerns is the suffering of the human beings involved, and that it appears this isn’t really the motivation of left-wing outrage so much as it is a way to try to condemn U.S. action in Iraq, and to win the battle for the “hearts and minds” of others and persuade them to adopt the left-wing point of view. To the degree this is so, it is disingenuous and hypocritical, hence the OP.
Just like righties look hypocritical for ignoring the dictators that they set up and human rights violations that don’t happen to align with their political goals.
I wouldn’t call it hypocritical. There is nothing we can do to prevent Al-Quida from committing atrocities. However, when our side steps out of line we can put pressure on our politicians to try to stop it from happening again.
This is true, and I have no problem whatsoever with our doing so. Once again, your point is well taken. The hypocracy comes into play when outrage is expressed over suffering if it will bolster the left-wing agenda, and ignoring it or downplaying it if it may lend weight to the right-wing agenda. What’s right is right, is what I’m saying.
If I am mugged, I may seek redress or seek to have the mugger apprehended, but I do not have to whine that he violated my rights: that is a given.
If a policeman murders that mugger in cold blood, I can still point out that that murder was wrong without being a hypocrite.
As I am the injured party, most people will be well aware that I have been injured (and that the injury was unfair). I am not under any moral compulsion to make public statements about how unfair the mugger was to me. Without a moral compulsion, my failure to make redundant complaints is not hypocritical.
Personally, I’ve seen both the left and the right use this strategy. However, I’d be very dubious that there is any evidence that one side uses it more than the other. Your argument is only valid if you assume that the right is somehow more honest than the left, otherwise it’s simply an accusation.
I find the argument that because I didn’t start a thread about the horrific crime committed against Paul Johnson I must be a hypocrite on the issue of human rights absurd and insulting. I didn’t start a thread because what is there to say except “how terrible, my condelences”? Surely we all already know that terrorists have an atrocious disregard for human life. Whereas with Abu Ghraib there is a lot to talk about, sadly the events there are a huge boost to Al-Quida, making it much easier to paint the US as the agressor. Leading to more recruits for them, and more low-level support from the population at large.
To me, Abu Ghraib says nothing about whether we should have gone to Iraq or not. It just says that having gone there we should have put higher importance on the rights of the Iraqi people. Both for the sake of human rights themselves, and for the sake of an effective war on terror, which simply cannot be fought by military means alone.
