Shocked. Indignant. Outraged.

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by PoliticalChic, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,662
    Thanks Received:
    15,567
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,777
    1. "Why does it seem that the only time the American government expresses shock, dismay and horror, it is over the conduct of its soldiers on the battlefield?

    2. ...crude homemade video that emerged in January apparently depicting a Marine sniper team in Afghanistan urinating on the corpses of some Taliban fighters. The press jumped on the incident like it was Abu Ghraib all over again, and the highest leaders in the land came out in fire-breathing condemnation.

    3. “Deplorable … reprehensible,” President Obama said through his spokesman. “I condemn it in the strongest possible terms,” said Leon Panetta, the defense secretary. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “total dismay.” Civilian and military leaders promised the guilty soldiers would be found out and punished to the full.

    4. Why was everyone so upset? ...The biggest reason is that they are deathly afraid of offending Muslims. U.S. leaders continue to hope, against all evidence, that avoiding offense will solve problems.

    5. Their man in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai, called the soldiers’ act “simply inhuman.” Is Karzai an authority on moral and ethical conduct? He said he was “deeply disturbed” and that the incident was “condemnable in the strongest possible terms.”

    6. But where is his condemnation for Talibani atrocities far worse than this?... Clearly the ones in the driver’s seat—dictating to both Afghan and U.S. leaders about what is an appropriate response—are radical Muslims.

    7. Taliban leaders in Pakistan called the marines’ conduct “barbaric” and claimed, “No religion that follows a holy text would accept such conduct. This inhuman act reveals their real face to the world.”

    a. Behold: a sermon from the Taliban about what is barbaric and inhuman. They have never condemned the torture, beheading or murder of a single non-Muslim. They have murdered thousands of civilians with roadside bombs. They execute people without trial for crimes like laughing at soldiers. They hang the dead bodies of defectors from lampposts to serve as a public warning. And we are supposed to listen to them condemn these marines?

    8. Are Hamid Karzai or American leaders “deeply disturbed” by the Taliban’s sanction of polygamous “marriage” that allows old men to rape young girls? What about the Taliban commander ordering that an 18-year-old girl who fled her abusive in-laws be punished by having her nose and ears cut off? Who is condemning these acts “in the strongest possible terms”?

    a. The Taliban deliberately assassinate civilians by the hundreds. They exploit children not just as soldiers but as suicide bombers, strapping explosives to them and sending them to their deaths. They consider anyone who is actively trying to rebuild Afghanistan—doctors, teachers, construction workers—worthy of death.

    b. The New York Times has reported that insurgents in Afghanistan kill twice as many civilians as they do uniformed government or coalition forces.

    9. America’s leaders have allowed their moral standard to be skewed out of all proportion by extremists whose goal is to use every ounce of leverage possible to cripple America.

    10. It is political correctness run amok: dismissing Muslim evils as irrelevant—after all, who are we to judge them?—while viewing Western actions through a distorted but harshly exacting moral lens."
    Shocked. Indignant. Outraged. - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
     
  2. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    The current leadership grew up hearing "Babykiller!!" directed at our military.

    It's hard-wired. They have a built-in contempt for the military.
     
  3. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUCJlV6s0dU]Bush Regrets Saying "Bring 'em on" - YouTube[/ame]
     
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Stop using our troops as pawns in your poltical talking points
     
  5. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Well, the way our soldiers behave is our responsibility. That the taliban are a bunch of morally corrupt mouth breathing evil dregs from the bottom of the barrel of those opposed to civilization is, of course, unquestioned. It is the nature of the bests that they behave beastly. Snakes hiss, and bite with poison. One does not blame them for their nature. You merely eradicate them when found.

    The US Military is the fighting expression of America. Truthful, just, compassionate to the innocent. When US soldiers, being human, screw up it is a reflection on the whole country.

    When mistakes are made they must be owned up to and corrected.


    But it does seem that there are those in the current administration and in the news media generally who are more dedicated to the screw ups than they are to the successes, and feel vindicated by the screw ups. When it comes to choosing your news source or who you elect you need to bear in mind who thinks that all the US military is the equivalent of the taliban. And vote accordingly.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,001
    Thanks Received:
    6,876
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,864
    I was "shocked, indignant, and outraged" when Bush and the Republicans stood by and let the Christians in Iraq get slaughtered and chased from their homes.
     
  7. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    Don't pretend you wanted a religious war.

    Oh, and can you point out Democrats who insisted we do something about that? Kthnxbai.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,662
    Thanks Received:
    15,567
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,777
    Funny, in a sardonic way, how history turns....Progressives from the start idealized war...

    1 For some thinkers in Germany and the US, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes, war was truly a source of moral values. For many progressives war represented a way to enroll the masses in a regimented collective.

    a. Progressives saw WWI as an opportunity to change America and enforce collectivization. “In 1917, as Woodrow Wilson prepared to take the United States into the European war, the leading collectivist intellectuals of the day, John Dewey and Herbert Croly of The New Republic, beat the drums for American participation. …Dewey wrote that the progressive opponents of war were blind to the “immense impetus to reorganization afforded by this war.” He hoped they would work “to form ... the conditions and objects of our entrance.” In other words, they should exploit the opportunities war bestowed for collectivizing America. Croly was pithier: “The American nation needs the tonic of a serious moral adventure.” War Is the Health of the State

    b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op- (Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism")

    c. . In the essay The Moral Equivalent of War by William James, James considered one of the classic problems of politics: how to sustain political unity and civic virtue in the absence of war or a credible threat. The standard solution for the problem of sustaining political unity and civic virtue has been either war or a credible external or internal threat, anticipating the use by political leaders of imagined internal or external threats to achieve and maintain their power and the political unity that would discourage opposition to them. The essay may be origin of the idea of organized national service, to the depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps, to the Peace Corps, VISTA, and AmeriCorps.
    Jon Roland: Introduction to The Moral Equivalent of War

    e. The use of the idea if not the reality of war may be seen currently in liberalism’s use of ‘the war on cancer,’ ‘the war on drugs,’ the War on Poverty,’ and the exhortation to fight any problem as ‘the moral equivalent of war.’

    f. Herbert Croly believed that life should be like a ‘school,’ and as such frequently demands ‘severe coercive measures.’ James Bovard, “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen,” p.8 Like Roosevelt, Croly looked forward to wars as the vehicle of progress, and saw as the Spanish-American War’s greatest achievement that it gave birth to Progressivism.

    g. So, whence the hatred of war and soldiers by the Left? Maybe here: You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid. -- Rahm Emanuel
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,001
    Thanks Received:
    6,876
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,864
    Why should the Democrats always be the ones to hold the moral high ground? Can't Republicans ever be responsible for anything they do?
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,662
    Thanks Received:
    15,567
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,777
    " ...the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html
     

Share This Page