These Recent Pics From Abu Ghraib ARE Worth Looking At

[Annie]

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/02/new_abu_ghraib_.html

Then again the media wouldn't want you to which is why you have to look to the blogs...

 

[CSM]

Heaven forbid we should see anything like these most recent photos in public!

 

[Annie]

Heaven forbid we should see anything like these most recent photos in public!

I know! Right away I just thought, 'blasphemy!'

 

[trobinett]

What`s unsettling to me, is most people don`t understand how long this type of journalism, by the elite(read left)media has been going on.

When they finally do understand how they`ve been led down the primrose path by the elite media, they`ll be a reckoning.

 

[Hobbit]

Great article, but I was particularly interested in a certain ad.

Now THAT'S my kind of girl!

 

[Mariner]

and they provide an important service--reminding us that the vast majority of Americans are good people with good hearts.

They no more excuse or negate the "other" pictures from Abu Ghraib than showing a terrorist at a happy family event negates the ill he does later. But they do provide an appropriate balance to the "it's all bad" stories sometimes seen in the liberal media.

Perhaps the world is more complicated than either the far right or far left think?

This month's Atlantic magazine has a editorial that suggests that if only an American politician could seize the center--as Sharon did in Israel, rejecting the extreme elements of his own party and recognzing that most people fall in the middle--he could gain immense popularity. It happened in Japan too. There has to be some force that opposes the polarization of the electorate into bickering camps.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and they provide an important service--reminding us that the vast majority of Americans are good people with good hearts.

They no more excuse or negate the "other" pictures from Abu Ghraib than showing a terrorist at a happy family event negates the ill he does later. But they do provide an appropriate balance to the "it's all bad" stories sometimes seen in the liberal media.

Perhaps the world is more complicated than either the far right or far left think?

No. We're right. They're wrong. THere's no halway with evil. You are either resolved to fight it, or you "learn to live" with it, or appease it. Did you read the article? There is no third way.

This month's Atlantic magazine has a editorial that suggests that if only an American politician could seize the center--as Sharon did in Israel, rejecting the extreme elements of his own party and recognzing that most people fall in the middle--he could gain immense popularity. It happened in Japan too. There has to be some force that opposes the polarization of the electorate into bickering camps.

Mariner.

Seize the center? Sharon got paid off, I'm sure, then assassinated.

 

[Nienna]

When did they switch camouflage? It used to be a tan/sand sort of color; in those pic's it seemed to be a grayer tint. Seemed like the tan would have blended better with the environment.

Great pic's, BTW, Kathianne. I love that first little baby.

 

[Mariner]

I think Sharon is a very interesting person for the U.S. to look at. Here's one of the original Israeli war hawks, a leader of the Israeli terrorism which helped clear the land of Palestinians, who converted to a belief in tolerance, a two-state solution, undoing the settlements in occupied territory, and withdrawing Israel to its older borders.

His conversion, the reasoning behind it, and the huge popular support he got for it all say something of value about the hard-line versus more moderate approaches to terrorism.

As usual, you're just saying "we're right and they're wrong." Well, when an Abu Ghraib U.S. soldier committing inappropriate acts against an Iraqi prisoner (who has never been convicted of anything yet), who is right and who is wrong? When an innocent Afghani is beaten so badly he looks like he's been run over a bus--and dies--who is right and who is wrong?

As I'm constantly repeating here, you have to distinguish one "they" from another. Bush made the same mistake repeatedly, when he talked about "the Iraqi people" as if they were all one "they." If he'd paid more attention to the complexities of Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd, he may have chosen not to invade, or could at least have anticipated the insurgency and risk of civil war. The Muslim peoples are incredibly diverse. There's on one "they" there. There are Palestinians upset about Israel, Pakistanis jealous of India, and Saudi kings who are our allies. Let's distinguish. I agree with everyone here that Islamists and their most extreme element, terrorists, are big trouble. I don't agree that all Musims are.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

I think Sharon is a very interesting person for the U.S. to look at. Here's one of the original Israeli war hawks, a leader of the Israeli terrorism which helped clear the land of Palestinians, who converted to a belief in tolerance, a two-state solution, undoing the settlements in occupied territory, and withdrawing Israel to its older borders.

His conversion, the reasoning behind it, and the huge popular support he got for it all say something of value about the hard-line versus more moderate approaches to terrorism.

As usual, you're just saying "we're right and they're wrong." Well, when an Abu Ghraib U.S. soldier committing inappropriate acts against an Iraqi prisoner (who has never been convicted of anything yet), who is right and who is wrong? When an innocent Afghani is beaten so badly he looks like he's been run over a bus--and dies--who is right and who is wrong?

As I'm constantly repeating here, you have to distinguish one "they" from another. Bush made the same mistake repeatedly, when he talked about "the Iraqi people" as if they were all one "they." If he'd paid more attention to the complexities of Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd, he may have chosen not to invade, or could at least have anticipated the insurgency and risk of civil war. The Muslim peoples are incredibly diverse. There's on one "they" there. There are Palestinians upset about Israel, Pakistanis jealous of India, and Saudi kings who are our allies. Let's distinguish. I agree with everyone here that Islamists and their most extreme element, terrorists, are big trouble. I don't agree that all Musims are.

Mariner.

Give up the hearts on minds dream of yours. Are you not seeing the muslim rioting over a cartoon? This outta give you some small idea of what you are trying to deal with. Psychotic adherents to a violent religion. Go ahead--ask them if they are willing to work out a compromise on anything.

 

[Mariner]

are totally not willing to compromise, hence we must deal with them uncompromisingly.

Most Muslims, however, are perfectly willing to compromise and work with us to varying degrees. Consider Saddam Hussein happily doing business with Dick Cheney's Halliburton during the 90's, the Saudi kingdom helpful holding down the price of oil when it might shock us too much if it went up, or the Pakistani gov't sort-of helping with our "war on terror." With enough Realpolitik, an idea that I think is going to come back in favor, we can work with most Muslims. See the article I just posted by the neoconservative Francis Fukuyama.

Mariner.