Oh, Please, Allow Me

Andrew Sullivan:

I doubt whether even Donald Rumsfeld will describe what has been done to two young American soldiers as a "coercive interrogation technique." But you never know. Some people wonder why I remain so concerned about torture, and the surrender of our moral standing with respect to this unmitigated evil. Maybe the news of captured, tortured and murdered Americans will jog their conscience. Or maybe it will simply reinforce the logic of torture-reciprocity endorsed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales. As usual, complete silence from Instapundit. Almost radio silence from the Corner, except for the torture-advocate, Mark Levin, who is urging reciprocal atrocities. Give him points for consistency. And so the cycle of depravity and defeat deepens ...

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some folks saw Sullivan's post as unworthy of a response. And it's unclear what it is that needs be said by anyone, other than how terribly sad a day today is, even without the usual suspects determined to see every tragic event as simply more fodder for the political grist mill.

I'd also suggest that silence is a much better memorial to two fallen warriors than the ugly prose from Sullivan. But I will at least respond as appropriately as I can.

Asshole!

Update: A more well thought out response to Sullivan from another Dan.

 

Comments

[rwilymz]

"nobody was ever tortured in Iraq while Saddam was in power..."

Of course not, because Iraq is only a mess "thanks to the USA invasion".

.

btw, pass the koolaid.

[Kool aid drinker]

"You are missing something. We don't PURPOSELY send our warriors out to slaughter innocents."

Ha. No you disguise in the guise of acceptable collateral damage (civilian casualties). Remember Shocking and Awful? Why do you use cluster bombs. Why do you refuse to sign land mine treaties? etc. But I know civilian casualties of dark-skinned people on the other side of the world are sad but slightly less important than who wins American Idol (to the average American) --- you must admit I have a good point there. :-)

Me? Smoking Koolaid? Why does almost every Iraqi want the USA to leave .... including the formerly oppressed (by Saddam) Shias. Because life is better than before? hehe. Any decent analyst should have known that invading Iraq would create near impossible situtaion between Shias Sunnis, Kurds, Iran, etc --- especially without some preparation. Kool-aid? Anyone who somehow still thinks this was a good idea and that violence will abate this decade is the one smoking koolaid (to mix a metaphor).

Its amazing that years later you keep rolling out the same arguments: Like Saddam was evil therefore anything we do is acceptable.

Of course Al-Qaeda is evil. But you think the invasion of Iraq has made a) Iraq safer? b) the world safer? c) terrorism less prevalent?
d) the US more likely to get world support to fight terrorism?

And this is only the micro view. You don't think Iran's plunge into craziness is not related? Or North Korea's?

Anyway back to my kool-aid. Enjoy yours.

[annie]

I think that many people have forgotten that here in the UK it was not that long ago that we had the IRA terrorists with bombs going off right, left and centre!!

Might I also add, that these evil creatures were supported by people in the US giving them donations so they could then go and buy more weapons and bombs.

They took prisoners and tortured them to death, and it was a common occurrence in the areas they lived to 'kneecap' anybody who disagreed with them.

Thousands of people died at their hands, many were women and children. One little English boy I remember had gone with his parents shopping one Saturday, and a bomb had been put in a rubbish bin in a crowded shopping mall. It went off as he and another little boy were passing and his face was blown off and the other little boy killed. He lived for a while after, but this boy who had previously had a lovely face, eventually died.

That was the sort of thing the money from the supporters in the US was contributing to. I think it would have been a good idea to have printed some of the images of the deaths and mutilations which were the results of the bombings and distributed them in the US.

I did not see much indignation from the left wing media, because they were sympathetic to the IRA cause, just as many in the US were.

Just a point I wanted to make. Terrorism is not peculiar to Iraq or Muslims, in the case of the IRA it was Christian Catholic (though many would disagree they were Christian, nevertheless, they probably believed they were).

Now, the leading members of that Organisation appear to have been 'bought off'. Some are even politicians!! We don't hear about IRA terrorists much anymore.

Perhaps, if the idea to democratise Iraq is persisted with, in a few years time all the terrorists there will have disappeared as well, and people will be left wondering what it was all about!!

I personally think that this is what will happen, and it is worth the struggle.

As regards torture, well, I for one would not be averse to using it if I thought it would save the life of innocent people, and I would like to know whether Rick would be willing to stand back, and know that if he did not advocate the torture of somebody in order to discover where his children were, his own children would themselves be tortured to death.

In all honesty, could he really say that he would just turn away and let that happen!!

[rwilymz]

Stevie, son, it's only in the sanitized worldview of the grossly ignorant that "collateral damage" is even a concept, let alone discussed. 30 years ago in this country it was called "war". In parts of the world that aren't as "enlightened" as the antiseptic West it is called "war".

And frankly, kiddo, the "brown-skinned people" argument is hollow at best. When we side with light-skinned group of muslims against light-skinned, christian killers of muslims, we don't get the self-righteous fops accusing us of being anti-christian or anti-light-skins -- nor about being pro-muslim.

In Iraq we are siding with two groups of dark-skinned muslims against their dark-skinned, muslim killers and the self-righteous imbeciles are creating a race war where none exists, cutting it out of whole cloth.

If you're going to criticize, at least make it a relevant criticism.

"You don't think Iran's plunge into craziness is not related? Or North Korea's?"

Right. Iran embarked on their head-first dive into religious fundamentalism and the attendant terrorism in 1979 because we invaded Iraq in 2003. North Korea currently has a missile on the launch pad capable of hitting your brethren in Berkeley, and which has been 6, 8 years in design and manufacture because Bush, 5 years ago, called NKorea an insulting name.

If you're going to get your Wayback machine out of cold storage, bud, why don't you use it for good, instead of trying to browbeat people on the net?

[wjo]

Hey Koolaid:

Your post shows these things:

1. A poor education;
2. A poor understanding of military strategy, tactics and armaments;and,
3. All the symptoms of BDS.

30 plus years of despotism will wreck a society. Yet, the Iraqis have voted in three open elections, adopted a constitution, and now have a duly elected government. All this against the background of violence, threats and sabotage. Call me a huckleberry, but I'm rooting for that team to win. They have real guts. They are facing real risks in doing as they do.

The main actors in this insurrection are foreign whack jobs and proxies of Syria and Iran and former regime members. Neither group has any compunction or reservation in killing those who oppose them. They are brutes bent on brutalizing and terrorizing their way into power. Soulless men know no reason, compassion or mercy.

Koolaid, these nuts have been murdering people for longer than you've been alive. When they murdered my countrymen, I took it as a hint they probably meant to murder me too.

I am thankful that we have men and women in this Republic with the guts to stop them. Go read some history of the country not written by English literature professors and you might understand my sentiment.

[James]

"The main actors in this insurrection are foreign whack jobs and proxies of Syria and Iran and former regime members."

I think our own military has debunked the "foreign whack jobs" are the main actors.

Why the personal attacks?

[koolaid]

thank you both for reminding me why I usually avoid these forums.

Too many just can't reply without hurling insults.

Someone said I had :
1. A poor education;
2. A poor understanding of military strategy, tactics and armaments;and,
3. All the symptoms of BDS.

then added:
"When they murdered my countrymen, I took it as a hint they probably meant to murder me too"

hehe ... who is they? are you referring to 9/11 and somehow linking the violence in Iraq to this.

"I'm rooting for that team to win" LOL Who? Which one of the armed factions would that be?

Then another called me grossly ignorant:

"it's only in the sanitized worldview of the grossly ignorant that "collateral damage" is even a concept"

If you think it is grossly ignorant to decry the use of 1) cluster bombs (that leave unexploded shells that maim kids daily),
2) White Phosphorous, 3) Land mines (that maim the innocent), 4) mass bombing in civilian areas (shocking and aweful), Torture, etc

Then we are just frankly miles apart morally and philosophically. Fair enough.

He also said:
"If you're going to criticize, at least make it a relevant criticism."

It was a very relevant criticism. My point is that the majority of Americans with their "visit the mall / American idol" lives are so far removed from the violence of Iraq as to not really care when the civilian casualties pile on. But come alive when soldiers get killed.

"Right. Iran embarked on their head-first dive into religious fundamentalism and the attendant terrorism in 1979 because we invaded Iraq in 2003. "

In the early 90s Iran was close to the tipping point of "westernizing". As recently as 2 years ago, the US rejected approaches for negotiation by Iran because cheny supported analysts thought that regime change was imminent. Not imminent now with the great satan causing havoc next door.

Anyway thanks for the insults. I am no fool and am not going to:

A) exchange insults
B) assume I could ever change your minds

so sorry for invading your neocon party.

The US attitude to world affairs while it is temporarily the sole super power is erving to ensure Cold War 2 (or worse) as China grows in strength and countries select its influence over the USA - we see it already developing now. It shouldn't have to be this way.

[Philip McDaniel]

Perhaps we should institute the policy the British used in the Sudan in 1898: bury dead Muslims in pigskins. It effectively stopped terror tactics and torture. The can't get into paradise.

[wjo]

Koolaid:

Reason with me if you want to change my mind.

"They" are all the fanatics who have been murdering Americans for years. They murdered Americans in Lebanon, in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Yemen, and here at home. They are sociopaths from the Middle East bent on forcing their will on others by callous violence and brutality. Men whose stock in trade is murder, mayhem and destruction.

A few points:

"Shock and awe" referred to the early air campaign at the outset of the war. Which areas of Iraq were mass bombed? Where is the Dresden of Iraq?

A cluster bomb is meant to destroy an enemy formation in open territory. When has one been used other than in the land campaign of 2003?

Land mines? We only use them to defend South Korea against North Korea. Where have they been used by US troops in Iraq (other than against them)?

White phospherous is mainly used as a smoke screen. It can be used as an incendiary. Show me examples where it has been used indiscriminately.

Reasonable minds may disagree about the morality of using such weapons. However, you provide no grounding for your objections other than to imply they are used all the time, indiscriminately and wantonly.

As for torture, what torture do you refer which is the policy of the United States?

As to which side I want to win, the one who respects the rule of law, peaceful existence and inalienable rights. The side who used ballots and not bullets to make their voices heard.

Your moral preening is a cariacature. You are my moral superior because you care "more" about civilian casualties "piling up". Dammit man, who do you think is trying to stop that? The letter writers of the world? Take the scales off your eyes.

Koolaid, if you are an American, I am questioning your patriotism. Who wants to see their country fail?

If you are not American, may your future Chinese overlords not employ you in their gulags. As we know, the present government of China is noted for its exemplary record on human rights, democracy, and religious tolerance.

[Korla Pundit]

Twist in the wind, enemies of America. You can whine all you want, and call this country every evil name you want. Fortunately, it will avail you nothing. The knee-jerk response you got from Clinton in Somalia, and even from Reagan in Beirut, and certainly would have gotten from Gore or Kerry if god-forbid they had wormed their way into the Oval Office, you will not get from Dubya. Isn't it frustrating you have to deal with somebody who has actual -- get this concept -- guiding principles about right and wrong?

You want to talk about torture? You have any clue about what's going on in North Korea? Did you ever eat grass for sustenance?

All you jerks who make excuses for the enemy, and who compare the murder and torture perpetrated by Al Qaeda to our treatment of these same murderers and torturers, are not worth debating. But it is fun to watch you suffer the knowledge that your lame protestations fall on deaf ears.

May poetic justice find every "human shield" at the end of a jihadi's knife.

[rwilymz]

"I think our own military has debunked the "foreign whack jobs" are the main actors."

It depends entirely on what you mean by "main actor".

It should be evident by anyone paying attention that the grunts, the street-level fighters, of "al Qaida in Mesapotamia" are predominantly Iraqis and Sunnis. It should also be evident to anyone paying attention that the leaders of these folks are foreign imports coming to Iraq specifically for the purpose of whipping the locals into a frenzy, giving them the arms and the money to buy arms, and the ammo to use in those arms... et cetera.

Without either component -- the foreign imports to lead the local hotheads, or the masses of local cannon fodder to die for the foreign leaders -- the Sunni insurrection dries up and becomes background noise.

So please, define your terms and be explicit. Using vague and equivocal language leads the idiots all feeling up the same elephant to widely different conclusions.

[rwilymz]

"hehe ... who is they? are you referring to 9/11 and somehow linking the violence in Iraq to this."

"They", in this case, is pan-islamist extremists. Some call them "islamofascists"; others call them "terrorists". Still others try to endlessly parse them into named and separable factions -- Hamas, al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, etc -- and assert that one of these named groups is nothing like the next, and has no connection whatsoever, conveniently ignoring the unmistakable fact that these groups share:
1] funding
2] personnel
3] basic ideology
4] resources

Hamas is a known supplier of cannon-fodder to Islamic Jihad and al Qaida; Islamic Jihad has supplied al Qaida with leadership in their main office [Doc Ayman is "#2" under Osama-baby] and their Iraqi franchise as well [al Mujahir was just transferred from I.J. to a.Q.] ... so you can't rationally dispute these.

It's nearly to the point, and for all practical reality it IS the point, that all the pan-islamist terror groups are one and the same. And it is they who are "they".

"Then another called me grossly ignorant:"

You certainly give that impression.

"My point is that the majority of Americans ... [do] not really care when the civilian casualties pile on. But come alive when soldiers get killed."

Funny; I get the exact opposite impression. My impression is that the majority -- certainly the loudest of the crybabies -- does their panty-wetting when the Iraqi civilians [who support insurgency and pan-islamism, and are their foot-soldiers, by the way] get killed and get a semi-gleeful and smug smirk when a GI bites it. But that's the way it works with differing perspectives.

"In the early 90s Iran was close to the tipping point of "westernizing"."

...and then Khamieni imposed new rules on who could be a political candidate in Iran, essentially disposing of anyone who was not willing to sign the Loyalty Oath.

"so sorry for invading your neocon party"

That's funny. I've worked for DoD since the v-e-r-y early 80s, under every party, and when I spent the 90s explaining Clinton's foreign policy I was called the opposite names from the same "neocons" you think I'm one of.

Such is the way of idiot partisanship.