Ilario Pantano, in my opinion, is one of the heroes of this conflict who paid a severe and unnecessary personal price for fighting the war on terror the way it needs to be done; by killing the enemy.
We should be taking no prisoners; we should not be ‘kinder and softer’, we should be rough and tough and taking the fight to them, as the President has said.
This is war, people, not tiddly winks.
War should be a war of attrition; to see that the enemy dies FIRST.
Pantano’s comments on Murtha’s rush to judgement in the case of the Haditha incident which the media is all up in arms about- appeared yesterday here at the WaPo.
Murtha said,
“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
This is the kind of thing we heard from the pro-communist John Kerry during the Winter Soldier “Investigation”. Many of us have heard this crap before from leftists who oppose our war effort; if they cared so much about ‘innocent Iraqis’ they would keep their mouths shut so we could WIN this war and bring the boys home rather than prolong the fight and make it more difficult to fight it with bureaucratic red tape and cries from terrorists about ‘inhumane treatment’, blah, blah, blah.
How many suckerpunches to our armed forces are we going to tolerate from the media and their associates in government?
See California Conservative’s post on “Murtha’s Memorial Day Tribute: Accusing US Military of a “Coverup”"
See Kit’s post on her opinion of what happened at Haditha, lol…
Michelle Malkin Part I on Haditha and Part II
Listen to a marine who was there at Hot Air, hit by an IED before the Haditha incident.
Red Hot Cuppa Politics rounds up the key points in that video here.
Vinnie at the Jawa Report has a perspective I think I may have heard from a girl before.
Said Cao @ 4:11 am | Permalink
You really are pathetically mindless… you believe it is ok to murder unarmed civilians in a country we attacked for absolutely no good reason.. it is horrible that you think God is on your side and then support murder at the same time. Mr. Murtha recognizes the unbelievable burden that has been placed on the troops by an uncaring cowardly administration (none of whom ever saw active combat themselves) that used 9/11 as some sort of call to perform all kinds of subversive illegal actions against democracy in this country. This administration has done nothing but NOT catch Bin Laden, ruin our world reputation as amoral and just country, and trample on the rights of the civilian population in this country. They are a despicable lot and your support of them is unbelievable. You appear to be proof of how poorly educated Americans are these days.
Comment by yak — 6/2/2006 @ 12:09 pm
Hey Yak,
It is you that are the mindless one that just repeat what is said by the MSM and Murtha before any of the investigations are completed. We have a thing called innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and not a court of public opinion. When and only when it is proven that these Marines did anything wrong is it ok to say they committed cold blooded murder. I am guessing that you weren’t there in Haditha when the situation occured so you have no business accusing our Marines of doing anything wrong. i don’t hear all you liberals saying anyhting when the terrorists blowup 30-50 people with IED’s including our Marines. You traitorous liberals need to get on the right side of this conflict.
Comment by Jon — 6/2/2006 @ 7:18 pm
Number 1 you know nothing about my political leanings so get off your low horse… you obviously were not there either… but Mr. Murtha sits on the committee that has already heard evidence for this issue. He is way ahead of the curve of public knowledge and the media because he has inside knowledge. Furthermore I will love to see your reply when people are charged and tried. True each individual will have to be judged according to the facts.. no one is denying this .. but the coverup has gone on for 6 months now and probably progresses way up the chain of command… this much is now becoming clearer and clearer.
Nobody is trying to say that people that are planting the IEDs are doing the moral thing or that they are right, but likewise anyone that kills innocents civilians without cause is clearly in the wrong. If a few Marines did they wrong thing then they need to pay the price for their actions. Clearly most Marines are acting properly, but your attempt to justify murder and coverup is moral ignorance and cowardice at its worst.
Comment by yak — 6/2/2006 @ 7:40 pm
Thanks for your post outing Murtha. I wrote a similar piece on my blog yesterday about this and am glad I’m not some lonely voice cying out in the wilderness. At times, under the onslaught of negative media coverage and the Democratic Party, trying to get positive news about Iraq out is incredibly difficult. Thanks for linking to my site and I always enjoy yours.
Comment by The Great White Shank — 6/3/2006 @ 12:18 am
Thanks GWS. I just love this stuff; particularly when the leftists’ designer panties are in a bunch over it.
Moral relevance is a crime in my eyes, yak. Terrorists in Fallujah or Haditha don’t deserve the same kind of credit for living moral lives or conducting themselves in an honorable manner like our military does.
Our military wears uniforms that place a big bullseye on them as targets in a conflict, yet the terrorists don’t do that. Terrorists break so many of the ancient rules of warfare it’s unbelievable. Terrorists intentionally blend in with women and children, even using them as human shields against our guys because they know our guys won’t shoot at women and children. They use hospitals, mosques, and even ambulances to conduct operations and attacks; all of which are off limits for the military to shoot at under the rules of war. But if a terrorist is shooting at soldiers from a mosque, then it’s no longer a mosque now, is it?
The entire reason for wearing that uniform is to be able to distinguish the enemy from innocents, but that simple little fact is lost on people who are piling on the ‘cold blooded murderer’ mantra like the marxists of Code Pink do.
Supporting that “cold blooded murderer” mantra, is not very smart, but I don’t credit people on your side of the ideological tracks as having that much intelligence. You reveal what side you’re on by the things you say, and it constantly amazes me that people say things like ‘you don’t know what I believe’ but they’ve already said what they believe, so unless you don’t really believe what you said, I’m going to take what you said at face value.
You’re willing to adopt blind slogans and call people names rather than come up with evidence to back up your position. And who exactly is ‘mindless’ in this? People who think and parse through the news reports trying to weigh out what’s being said versus the truth, or people who just blindly accept what’s being said at the demoscummic underpants?
Murdering ‘innocents’? Another example of blind stupidity. Listening to the anti-American rants of the lamestream news and listening to John Kerry and Murtha who would prefer to believe our soldiers ‘committed murder in cold blood’? Or are you just reading Michael Moore, KOS and Code Pink’s websites?
I’ll tell you who was a cold-blooded murderer: Tookie Williams. I’ll tell you another one: Jose Padilla (who very might well have been the third terrorist Jana Davis talks about in her book). Here’s another one: Sheikh Abdul Raman…and Lynne Stewart who was his lawyer, convicted of passing messages to his terrorist followers.
Leftists complain about the mistreatment of enemy combatants who don’t wear uniforms and try to blend in with civilians, using mosques as sniper nests and car bomb factories.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a concept reserved for murderers and pedophiles in the world of a leftist; the military is always guilty of ‘war crimes’ and ‘baby killing’ regardless as to the mothers who have raised their children to strap on bombs and commit suicide.
Your ideology is showing whether you claim it or not, lefty.
A twisted culture and religion sanctions training mothers to resist maternal instinct and raise their children to commit suicide as long as it kills the infidel…as well as offer their children to die as long as they get a check. To me that’s blood money–or worse–but in that culture, they’re trained to rip flesh off of raw chickens with their teeth…and Palestinian terrorists rip the entrails out of an Israeli soldier and they dance with the blood dripping from their hands in the streets.
Standing on the chest of moaning person with a gash in his throat in order to prolong the agony and see the blood gush from slash in the neck is the kind of moral fortitude these people have. They are merciless animals who enjoy torturing innocents…many of the people they’ve done this to in Iraq don’t have training; they’re civilian contractors.
That’s the kind of balls your heroes have, yak.
To claim that the terrorists have rights over our boys is completely wrong and tilts the scale in favor of the terrorists. But that’s what you’re trying to do, isn’t it, Yak?
You weren’t there, of course, and neither was Murtha. And last I checked, although Murtha may be on some progressive committee somewhere - the people who are responsible for this investigation are the military and Murtha isn’t a part of the military.
Murtha is anti-military and anti-WOT and is a disgrace to this country.
May God have mercy on my enemies…because I won’t!
John Murtha and his leftist cohorts have already publicly declared that the Marines involved are guilty, and by doing that, they’re digging big holes for themselves and jumping right in.
Because whatever the true story is, we can see liberals are already targeting in on this case because there is nothing they love better than an orgy of America, military, and Bush bashing and they’re hoping that they can turn this into an even bigger pile-on than Abu Ghraib.
But, the real truth is that even Abu Ghraib didn’t come close to living up to the hype. Despite all the gnashing of teeth and endless column inches spent on the most overcovered story of the last decade, the events at Abu Ghraib didn’t turn out to be representative of Bush policy, the military, or America as a whole. To the contrary, it was just a bunch of bad apples who got of control and were punished for their crimes.
If Haditha turns out to be as bad as some people are speculating it is, which incidentally, is still far from certain (considering their compalints about this kind of thing in the past), it’ll just be the exception that proves the rule: that America’s military is professional, honorable, and will take action against soldiers who fail to live up to this country’s high standards.
Comment by Cao — 6/3/2006 @ 10:04 am
I love how you lump all the people in Iraq as terroists. You apparently are the mindless one. You can not distinguish between men, women and children who just want to live their lives and the people who are attacking troops. So let’s be sure I get your position… everyone except Americans and Allies in Iraq is the enemy… I guess that means by your logic we invaded a country not to make it democratic but to just take it over and to hell with all the people who live there.
Nowhere in my discussion did I suggest that the majority of the soldiers were engaging in immoral conduct.. those were your words again trying to create your straw man to attack and draw people to your rhetoric. Clearly, if your brain is capable of logic or reading that is, I said that those who are guilty should be punished. Never did I say that most soldiers were guilty. And nowhere in your diatribe did you say that the guilty should be punished… thus your moral relativism.
Abu Ghraib was an insult to all honorable Americans, soldiers included, but the dishonor goes all the way up the chain of command to the president and Rumsfeld who designed the new ’special’ rules for treatment of prisoners. If you read and listened to the former commander of the prison you would know this. But rather you turn a blind eye to all the evil that this administration is currently creating in the world.
As to my beliefs, you know but one belief and if that is all you need to judge people then you are truly one of the most shallow people in the world. You know none of my other beliefs.
Murtha has been pro-military his whole life you dingbat. Any search on google would show you that but then again research is obviously not in your vocabulary.
And God hardly talks to you a hate filled war-monger who thinks everyone who does not believe like you do is going to hell or should be killed. You better hope God doesn’t judge you by your standards.
People who commit atrocities on either side are immoral and evil. Nowhere in my discussion did I suggest otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty is for everyone but that does not mean you suppress and repress the facts of the case like you apparently wish to. Perhaps you are just choosing to believe like Nazis that we do everything right and the enemy is always wrong. Apparently you do absolutely no research except into the right wing vault that already supports your beliefs, thus you are indeed mindless.
Comment by yak — 6/3/2006 @ 11:08 am
Talk about dingbat,
just love the name-calling.
Anyone who aids and abets the terrorists is helping them do their job, so what would you call it? Have I said all Iraqis are terrorists? No. YOU said that I think that. Nothing could be further from the truth; listen to this Iraqi woman about the war in Iraq. There is a lot more evidence out there that contradicts what the MSM is spreading,
too bad some people are too daft to recognize it.
“Rightwing Vault”? bwahahahaha! Who are you, Michael Moore? hehehehe Actually, the little research I do that exposes the other side of the issues reveals to me how stupid the left is. Right there you’re revealing what side you’re on by talking about ‘the right wing vault’. You’re exposing a lot more about your beliefs than you think you are.
I will not speak to any punishment they should face unless all the evidence is heard and there are forensics done on all the evidence. When the investigation is over, then I’ll speak to it. From what I’ve heard, the families will not allow autopsies (I think I already said this, but you’re not paying attention to my ‘diatribes’ so what the hell). Forensic evidence is what cleared Pantano, if it isn’t allowed in the Haditha case, how am I to believe they will get a fair trial?
I see a lot of evidence to support the fact that terrorists who have no rights in this country are afforded rights…and guys like Jack Idema, who is an American citizen, is denied those rights. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with 100 military guys being accused of ‘mis-treating Iraqis’ and court martialed for it. I have a problem with the way the American military itself is dissing our men and women, giving them ’sensitivity training’ for how to handle a terrorist. That kind of bullcrap will get more of our guys killed, and that seems to be the point.
So right there, we will have a case where not all the evidence will be admitted into court. If it’s a kangaroo court that only allows evidence to convict, I will oppose punishment because the entire story will not have been heard. People are jumping up and down on the Jack Idema case, claiming he was’convicted’. He was ‘convicted’ in a Taliban court that wouldn’t allow evidence to be heard that would defend them. I’m noticing on the one hand, you want me to convict the marines in the Haditha incident before the investigation is concluded. You call me a moral relativist because of what exactly, or do you even know what that means?
I’m going to support our fighting forces and I’m sorry if you don’t like it.
Kit said it best at Euphoric Reality:
Look, war is a terrible thing and people die. Leftists seem to think if we ‘make nice’ with the terrorists they’ll stop wanting to kill Americans. They have been raising their children for generations to kill us; that’s not going to happen. Islamofascists are going to consider us weak if we punish our soldiers for killing; they are already laughing at us and rooting for the Anti-war movement at home to win this war for them in the propaganda efforts here.
We are dealing with the Arab mentality that respects strength and laughs at what they consider to be weakness. If we have any hope of winning this thing-we should approach this from a position of strength only.
There is only one way to respond to this; and I will not say in this situation when I don’t know what the results of the trial are–that they should be punished. They’re being punished enough by having their own brothers back home talk against them like they’re some kind of monsters while excusing terrorists for their horrible actions and totally dismissing the rules of war. Even a person with a tiny brain should be able to grasp that fact.
I support killing terrorists and anyone and everyone who supports them. I support squashing the enemy like a bug.
We are simply in a war for our very survival. These terrorists are also here at home plotting for our destruction. I don’t think it’s time to prove to each other how morally superior we are by convicting our own military who has the balls to fight.
Here’s a concept for you, lefty (from the Counter Terrorism Blog [Doug Farah]) : Civilian populations caught in conflict zones often make their calculations on who to support based on who they think can inflict the most pain if they do not cooperate.
This lesson seems to be lost in much of what is going on in Iraq, looking at Anbar province, and Afghanistan, with the rioting in Kabul. The Washington Post has an interesting article quoting the Sunni leaders of Anbar province on their reality:
“We hope to get rid of al-Qaeda, which is a huge burden on the city. Unfortunately, Zarqawi’s fist is stronger than the Americans’,” said one Sunni sheik, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of insurgent retaliation.
I know one belief? Hmmm. I know that you attack people who support our military, I know that you support Murtha who is a fraud, and I know that you nail people who support the marines in the Haditha incident as claiming all Iraqis are terrorists and call them ‘mindless’ without any evidence to prove it. I never said that, but it fits in with people of your ideology sticking words in other peoples’ mouths to achieve your propaganda goal. Now how many beliefs have I cited there that I know because you revealed them? Far more than just one, I’m afraid. Perhaps you should get out your calculator so you can add them up.
Would you care to provide any of what you’re saying with links, or would that reveal the side you’re really standing on, Yak? Don’t you feel kind of stupid when all you can do is call people names without backing up what you’re saying with links or sources? Interesting how my comments are replete with links and resources and other sources to back up my position, and all you have is that failed lefty rhetoric. Still, it’s amusing,
Zarqawi scares the hell out of the locals a lot more than the Americans do…that’s why they’re doing it. Zarqawi and his men are absolutely ruthless and brutal…and threaten people to do their bidding. There’s a difference between people like us who believe in freedom and fascists like Zarqawi who don’t. But I wouldn’t expect you to have any understanding of that.
In 2004, Zarqawi and his band of thugs claimed they “liberated” Haditha. “Liberation” is not what most people would call it if they knew what kind of daily terror the locals are living with, but our marines have been witnessing it. They know; they deal with it every day. Too bad you’re so far away from the military that you have no concept as to what they’re facing.
Perhaps you should start reading the milblogs or something. I haven’t seen a single milblogger who takes the attitude that you are towards terrorism versus the United States. Our military guys have been staring in the face of evil; they know precisely where they’re at. If you saw the interview at Hotair with the guy who was hit by an IED before the Haditha incident -he explains very clearly what they were facing and the surrounding events. Perhaps you should listen to someone who was actually there instead of Murtha, lol.
As far as Murtha is concerned, which you obviously haven’t researched and are accepting the leftist msm spew as fact–Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, a fellow Vietnam Veteran (and decorated, I might add) alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.
Murtha himself admitted that he didn’t deserve his Purple Hearts. So how does his parading around as an ‘honored veteran’ when he didn’t deserve those medals–how does that ‘honor’ his brothers at arms?
How does destroying support for them at home support the military? I’m confused.
Every Vietnam Vet I know can’t stand John Kerry for what he did…and completely hate people who pretend they’re something that they’re not. Murtha fits that bill.
World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox’s boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor’s office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds.
“Pretending to be a big war hero and boasting about having medals is a slap in the face to our veterans who were seriously wounded or killed in action,” Fox was quoted as telling the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper’s Nov. 1, 1996 edition. “He campaigned as a war hero and I’ve never seen any documentation that he earned any of these honors,” Fox reportedly stated.
Murtha is much like John Kerry in that his wounds were ‘lacerations’ for which he applied a Purple Heart.
In a 1996 newspaper article, Fox questioned whether Murtha deserved his Purple Hearts, alleging that there was insufficient evidence of injuries and that Murtha was never confined to a hospital.
“Of course Congressman Saylor wanted to help if he could, but there was nothing in the service record to indicate the wounds were of any severity and the documents specifically indicated that next of kin was not notified in either instance,” Fox told the Herald-Standard in 1996. “We were amazed that Mr. Murtha was asking for Purple Hearts for superficial lacerations,” he added.
You people who only listen to the MSM and the leftist side of things don’t seem to realize how easy it is to pick your arguments apart.
Bailey said during the time Murtha was being investigated for his role in the Abscam FBI sting in 1980, Murtha made a confession on the House floor.
“… you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn’t earn your purple hearts (sic) (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn’t even directly related to an APC [Armored Personnel Carrier] that ran over a small antipersonnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart [sic] you even declined to explain,” wrote Bailey in an open letter dated May 5, 2002.
Bailey is also a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. He served in the U.S. Army’s 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions and was awarded a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars.
“At the time (of Murtha’s alleged admission), you were feeling particularly vulnerable because it wasn’t too long after you had called me crying and sobbing, thanking me for ’saving your life’ before the ethics committee (on Abscam-related charges). There was no doubt in my mind that you were expressing to me that you did not believe you did anything sufficient to earn the purple heart [sic] and that you didn’t want to be active in my efforts to laud Vietnam veterans that served with us,” Bailey wrote in his May 2002 letter.
“You may deny that all you wish — but you and I know that that conversation took place,” he added.
In the Jan. 9 interview with Cybercast News Service Bailey affirmed the contents of his 2002 letter.
“The issue here is this idea or pretense that [Murtha] knows combat and he’s got two Purple Hearts. He’s a phony and a liar,” Bailey said.
Murtha’s entire political career is based on that phony war hero crap, and it’s a shame because he’s been in office for 16 congressional terms….much like Kerry who’s been in for 20 years.
Comment by Cao — 6/3/2006 @ 12:41 pm
Oh and one more thing while I’m at it. During WWII, we killed 300,000 civilians and wounded 780,000. This number made homeless aggregates 7,500,000. The principal German cities were reduced to hollow walls and piles of rubble. German industry was bruised and paralyzed. These were the scars across the face of the enemy, the preface to the victory that followed.
This isn’t moral relevance, this is remembering history and what we’re supposed to accomplish in a war. War isn’t about politics–it’s about WINNING.
You might be too young to remember…or perhaps you’re not even old enough to have witnessed Vietnam or Korea, but we haven’t been treating war like it’s something to be won in a very long time.
Today, we are crying about …how many was it again? 11? 14 Iraqi civilians? Puhleez. And Murtha’s statements are reaching around the world. I’m sure Bin Laden is pleased.
We have to toughen up here or we’re going to lose this thing.
It’s us or them. There’s no moral relevance in that. I’m not claiming terrorists are animals so we have to act like that; I’m trying to illustrate very clearly the differences and how I’m outraged that the American people aren’t standing behind our fighting forces the way they did during WWII.
But then…the media wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing now if we were living during that time–it would be considered treason.
Comment by Cao — 6/3/2006 @ 1:51 pm
Once again moral relativism is what you are all about .. the ‘we are always right mentality’ is no better than the ‘we are always wrong mentality’… and you seem to have the ‘we are always right’ mentality and the immoral thought that goes with it..
…
The fact is you do not wait 6 months for an investigation to barely start .. unless of course there has been a move to coverup that preceded it… the time to bring the truth out was right then and there… now we have witnesses speaking out.. but I am sure you would never believe them or any other witnesses would you… but I digress… because there has already been an effort to hide the truth it will now take quite a long time to find out what really happened.
You could care less about the Iraqi people that much you routinely make clear.. you lump everyone over there as terrorists and declare all Islamic believers as evil and claim I said that I support them when NEVER did I say that.. You are a pathetic droll of a human being who would distort my position to once again create the straw man you can trumpet some sort of cacophony of hate against. You preach hate against everyone who is not of your belief and the vitriol has poisoned your mind and made you blind to clear thought.
To quote you “Today, we are crying about …how many was it again? 11? 14 Iraqi civilians? Puhleez. ” You make it apparent that you do not value the life of innocent Iraqi civilians at all.
Mr. Bailey is also a liar..’Don Baily alleges’ is the same as saying ‘my aunt sisters sisters boyfriend heard from his friend’.. so much for facts… he has a clear political agenda which is to smear Murtha and anyone else who is not a right winger. The questioning of the purple hearts for Murtha was just a smear tactic they employed. You notice they did not even elaborate on the facts .. just smeared him and then left the issue without providing ANY evidence, cowards that they are. To quote the same source you used “According to a May 16, 2002, edition of the Washington, Pa., Observer-Reporter, Murtha “produced military paperwork indicating he was entitled to the awards,” and a Murtha spokesperson was quoted as saying that “the media for years has investigated ‘and found nothing.’” ” Here is your web link to answer the trash you spewed at Murtha.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/cnsmurtha.html
So there you have it … you could care nothing about the truth.. only the lies which you want to continue to spread.. you are indeed a mindless right winger who cannot even fathom that it is wrong to purposely kill civilians no matter whose side you are on. It is not right for Zarqawi or any other person, American or Iraqi.
Jack Idema was another straw man you brought into the rant.. it has nothing to do with this case. Name calling … that is constantly your style.. everywhere in your rants are slurs and libel .. you are right.. I should not lower myself to your level
.
As for your continual droll attempt to link Iraq and 9/11… give it up .. even the president has.. only (insult here) like you are still trying to link to completely unassociated issues.
Comment by yak — 6/3/2006 @ 4:21 pm
You know what’s irritating to me? When people use terms which they obviously don’t know the definitions of. You should check out what moral relativism is before you throw the phrase around. Moral relativism is not ‘high and mighty’. You don’t read that much now, do you? Is English your first language?
“We are always right”? I am merely defending my position. Perhaps you should stop judging and name-calling and try to defend yours. But you can’t can you? That’s why you sink to insults.
Here’s the definition of moral relativism since you probably don’t know how to use a dictionary:
In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references. Moral relativism also suggests that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
Moral relativism is what someone enters into when they say that both the Americans and the Iraqis are right and that there is no right or wrong. I am advocating a definite position; I believe there is a right side (ours) and a wrong side (the terrorist scum). So therefore, I cannot possibly be a moral relativist, because I believe in a right and a wrong, not based on circumstances or situations.
Morality is based on the ten commandments; thou shalt not lie, steal, commit adultery, etc. A moral person is someone who has a moral code. I definitely have that. So you’re just blowing out a bunch of hot air by saying I’m a ‘moral relativist’ and ‘immoral’. You definitely don’t understand the definitions of the terms you’re throwing around there, lefty,
Further, the bible doesn’t say ‘thou shalt not kill’, it says ‘thou shalt not murder’. And there are definite circumstances, according to the Bible, when you can defend yourself with force. The marines in Haditha were faced with that situation and that’s why I will not condemn them until all the facts and forensic evidence are in. And even then, I won’t condemn them. I have never been in a life-or-death situation like they face in Iraq every day-I can’t imagine what it would be like to think I could be blown up by someone claiming to be injured asking for help, or be blown up when I’m visiting someone in a hospital, or someone’s faking injury in an ambulance, etc. These people are liars; the worst most treacherous kind.
You’re pretty high and mighty, there, yak. It’s time somebody knocked you off your pedestal.
No evidence, no links, just spin and you say I haven’t done any investigating when I provide links and information a plenty, including an audio from an Iraqi woman who supports President Bush and the destruction of Saddam’s regime.
Here’s a good example of the crap the media is spewing about this incident: two pictures. Both from Haditha…but notice…these people were murdered by terrorists-not by the marines in Haditha.
The Times published these two pictures. It’s a shame that people like you are dumb enough to swallow without question what is being handed them by the media.
This is the one the Times said shows the bodies of ‘innocent victims’ at Haditha.
The doctor who originally wrote their death certificates wrote at the Baathist Uruknet. It appears as though he was affiliated with terrorists and wrote on the terrorist-supporting BRussels Tribunal (a radical terrorist-supporting organization) and is probably the guy who filled out their death certificates and wrote about the Haditha incident and being mis-treated by the Americans himself in December.
This second picture is the same shot; taken at a different angle. Nortice the caption on this picture: “Insurgents (read terrorists) executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium.”
20 years ago my dad showed me pictures out of the New York Times - of supposed Seattle rioting and some other riot in a different city. The photographs were identical. It was then that I learned not to trust the media spin; and even today people are tracking it–like over at the Media Research Center, Frontpage Magazine, etc.
Frontpage Magazine’s David Horowitz, himself a very knowledgeable former leftist, put together “Discover the Networks” where you can see some of the associations between leftist organizations. It’s a mind bending trip to read what he has over at Frontpage and the blog at Discover the Networks as well as the War Blog.
I’m an amazingly well-read person, in contact with an extremely large base of people who discuss these issues, including members of the MSM. If I didn’t read Uruknet, I wouldn’t know that it was Baathist; I wouldn’t know a lot of what I know if I didn’t at least check out the propaganda from the other side. I would be like you; swallowing all the crap from the msm, horrified to read the conservative bloggers and the previously uknown facts they come up with, trying desperately to debunk it, but not knowing how. But I bet it’s gnawing at you to think that we may be right. I bet it is.
Interestingly enough; I’ve never witnessed using the same pictures to illustrate different events on the ‘rightwing’ websites…only on those with the ideology of the left, who believe they should be in control of the information flow, and believe they are the only ones who should politicize tragic events like Katrina or the Haditha incident.
But then we’re not moral relativists–we believe in a right and a wrong–like lying, for example. I don’t believe in lying; I believe in telling the truth. Today, we have people who excuse our elected officials for sodomy in the Oval office and any number of other transgressions because of their ‘moral relativism’. They clearly don’t believe there is a right or a wrong. And that behavior, like murder, can be excused in some cases…like in the case of Tookie Williams, for example. He was the founding member of the CRIPS and he murdered and entire Korean family in cold blood. He sat on death rows until his appeals ran out, and when he was walking that last mile, people were in the parking lot of the prison holding candle light vigils objecting to capital punishment, claiming he had ‘rehabilitated’. The guy never showed any remorse, never apologized, nothing. Those people in the parking lot excused the murders and made pleas for his life. That’s moral relativism; he was a murderer, was convicted to death, and he deserved to die.
What the media is propagating is called communist propaganda. Look it up. And a lot of the members of the media and who control the media are members of organizations such as the “Committees of Correspondence”. Look it up.
Your elitist arrogance is showing, Yak…but your lack of knowledge is showing worse. I’m embarrassed for you at what you’ve revealed and said here–it’s indicative of the leftist mind, though. To you, conservatives are toothless rednecks, regardless if they live in New York or any of the states up North, and regardless as to what they do for a living or anything else. You have stigmatized people of a certain ideology and made yourself a bigot. Much like the Hitler Youth believed jews should die.
Do you believe that, too?
Comment by Cao — 6/3/2006 @ 4:39 pm
More propaganda:
AP runs My Lai photos as Haditha News
Propaganda doesn’t concern itself with such ‘minor’ details….
Comment by Cao — 6/3/2006 @ 5:46 pm
You cannot even think when presented with a definition… moral relativism in this case is when one thinks murder by one group is just fine and justifiable but thinks that murder by another is evil and unjustified… that is you and your thinking… if there were some Marines who murdered the innocent civilians they are just as wrong as any terroists killing innocent people with IEDs… neither can be said to be better than other except by you apparently…
To quote you”The marines in Haditha were faced with that situation and that’s why I will not condemn them until all the facts and forensic evidence are in. And even then, I won’t condemn them.”
So by your own terms YOU ARE A MORAL RELATIVIST. You justify the same actions of murder by 2 different parties and say well, ours are relatively good because they are on the good side even though they may have committed murder. Sorry bucko but the bible says murder is murder no matter whose side commits it. We around talking about killing terrorists here, we are talking about walking into the nearest house and gunning down a family. Can your small brain wrap around that thought or is this too big a thought for you.
And another quote about the general Iraqi population from you “These people are liars; the worst most treacherous kind.” Yeah right.. you never said they were all bad did you… oh thats right you say it constantly in your diatribes against Islamic people.
Haditha… little girl witness ..ever hear of her or see her.. Pictures of the interior of the houses.. reports from Americans who came there shortly after it happened and witnessed the family remains in the houses.. there is much evidence out but still none of it seen by the public is conclusive… but what is conclusive is an attempt to coverup the entire incident by people in the military at some level. This should and would have been resolved 5 months ago if there was not an active coverup going on. Perhaps you forget how long it took to uncover the My Lai incident because of the military coverup. But it took years before most of the facts were known… you were probably making the same comments to others back then as you are now. Discussing how no soldier could possibly be accused of murder during a war… surefire moral relativism at work.
Then you gotta bring a whole bunch of off topic issues into this discussion… come on now focus … I know you can do it .. try it for a change .. or do you have to keep bringing in straw men and other issues to keep yourself from thinking too much … focus .. I know you can do it.. Haditha … remember that was the topic and Murtha remember… come on now give it a try.
PS.. You clearly have a lot more research to do.. perhaps you should look up how the US during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years supported and propped up the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein.. or did you forget that part.. the military parts sold, the war intelligence provided by the US for his war we approved of against Iran… you know the whole support your favorite inhuman dictator thing they did during those pre-gulf war years… try to think, try to read, try to learn.
PSS… you are hardly just a conservative … you demonstrate a clear far right leaning .. very far… I can almost hear the goose-stepping now.
Comment by yak — 6/3/2006 @ 7:45 pm
Explain to me how a nazi is right leaning. You’re still revealing way too much about your tendencies–because as a friend of mine said when comparing Mein Kempf with the Manifesto, the only people who think that nazis are on the right are the ones who are on the left of the nazis…and those are communists.
Much of this is too complicated for your mind to absorb, obviously.
You again have taken the term ‘moral relativism’ out of context.
A moral relativist believes there are no absolutes; there is no right or wrong.
So I can’t possibly be one because I believe in right and wrong.
I hope that is clear; I simplified it for you because Wikipedia’s language was obviously too sophisticated for you.
I’ll try to pick this up tomorrow. I feel sorry for you, lefty…I really do. Your world is so boxed in by your bitter bigotry and hatred of Christians and Jews…
By the way. If I’m a nazi–and we could agree that nazis hate the jews…then how come I’m a Christian and support Israel?
Something to think about. Hitler wanted to destroy both Christianity and Judaism, and he embraced Islam, just like the leftists of today.
Comment by Cao — 6/3/2006 @ 8:42 pm
Once again you’re thinking is unclear … to quote Wikipedia…”In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.”.. a moral relativist is YOU.. a person who believes the circumstance dictates morality.. that is you.. you believe that a person on your side is by definition ‘right’ and therefore by defacto cannot possibly be guilty of the crime of murder while all those on the other side are guilty of murder .. you believe the same crime is relative depending on whose side you are on … I believe a murderer is a murderer is a murderer no matter whose side they are on… Moral relativity is NOT a belief in no moral beliefs, but a belief that the morality depends on the issues surrounding it, therefore aka YOU, who beliefs that our side could never be guilty of murder. A belief in right or wrong alone is not even part of the equation, that is just morality.. a belief that it depends on which side you are on is the relative part.. that is your position as you have repeatedly stated… learn some science.. read .. think..
As for your right wing beliefs, the Nazi party as a far right wing group just chose the scapegoat of the Jews just as you chose the scapegoat of Islam.. its just a different scapegoat but the Nazis like you believed there were always right also… they demonized the middle to the left as you do.. they preached hatred against straw puppets like you do.. they preached a don’t think just follow the leader policy like you do… they persecuted those that disagreed just like you propose (calling all who disagree traitors).. there are many similarities between you and the Nazis sympathizers.
I am hardly anti-Chritian or anti-Judaist and you will not find any evidence to support that straw man… just keep making stuff up .. that seems to be your only way to make a point.
Comment by yak — 6/3/2006 @ 9:55 pm
It’s so funny, your trying to explain to me what a ‘moral relativist’ is. I don’t believe that circumstances dictate morality; I believe in the Bible. I believe in moral absolutes. I don’t know where you got that-you’re not listening, apparently. The Bible teaches that the soldier has an admirable profession; the Bible teaches to defend ourselves. Islam and its scholars declared war on Christians and Jews; and they declared war on American on 9/11. I think there is absolutely no other conclusion to draw from that.
What I believe is our cause is just, the Islamofascists’ cause to destroy Western Civilization and murder all Christians and Jews is not. Their goal to install sharia law over this land and to wave the flag of their moongod over the whitehouse should be squashed, or we will lose what we have and women will have to start wearing burkas in our streets. Is that clear enough for you? When the US is under attack and being assaulted, there are certain situations that warrant responding with force, and that’s a biblical principle, just like capital punishment is a biblical principle. This isn’t rocket science, you know.
What you’re hung up on is the world ‘moral’ coupled with the word ‘relativist’.
Wikipedia says it right there…that there are no moral absolutes with that philosophy; that quite simply, to a relativist, there is no right and wrong.
Here’s another definition that might be simpler for you:
Relativism is a theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
The definition of relative: not absolute.
These are people who say that both sides in the war on terror have their points and don’t acknowledge that it’s a choice of either them or us, or that we deserve to even survive! They think if we ‘make nice’ with the terrorists, then this whole thing will be over.
These are the same peopole who say shhhh! Don’t show the cartoons of Mohammed, you don’t want to insult them!
These are the same people who say 9/11 was America’s fault. Are you with me?
I doubt it. Here’s another example of what a moral relativist would say:
So if this individual lived in Iraq, for example, he would be siding with the ‘freedom fighters’…(not the people who are happy that Saddam is not in power, like the guys at Iraq the Model.)
I’m thinking very clearly; I don’t have a bias or a mental block because you have a certain viewponit; however you dont seem to have the intelligence to grasp the concept.
The two basic premises of any sort of relativism can be described as…
1. One thing is relative to some particular framework or standpoint. Here things could be moral values, beauty, taste, meaning …etc …while the standpoint could a culture/race/conceptual frame work..
2.No standpoint is uniquely privileged over others….
And that doesn’t describe me at all.
I am a moral absolutist; (not relativist) I believe in the bible, the principles outlined in it like the Ten Commandments. Simple principles for every day living, just like the founding fathers did. There isn’t anything extreme about that…what’s extreme is the fact that the country has moved so far to the left. 20 years ago, there were a lot of people who held the same views that I do and it wasn’t considered extreme, you are too funny!
Here’s Wikipedia on Moral Absolutist:
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. “Absolutism” is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 5:23 am
You write/speak the words but continue to miss the point … your absolutism does not preclude your moral relativism .. you demonstrate both quite clearly..
For you, someone killing a civilian in Iraq is murder if it is someone from their side… but if someone from your side kills a civilian it is not murder. You are the one being relativistic… you are the one who allows the cirucmstances to dictate whether it is murder or not… For me it is clearly murder in both instances … Your absolute moral relativism allows you to believe that the culture determines whether it is murder or not and that you are absolutely on the right side aka, incapable of murder when it involves people on their side…
How clear can you get ..you repeat the same lines over and over but miss the point entirely.
The funny thing is how you use religion and God to justify your position. Somehow I do not think God cares who’s side you are on… Murder is Murder is Murder… The 10 commandments do not say they only apply to Jews do they and yet they were written long before Christ when there were no Christians. They are intended to apply to all people regardless of their culture or belief system. They are rules of conduct for all of mankind, not just Jews. You seem to think they do not apply to people who would commit murder on your side of the war.
And of course, nothing could be further from the truth. You continue to be a moral relativist simultaneously that you are an absolutist. A conflict you apparently are incapable of seeing because you are blinded by the bias you have.
20 years ago things were actually a little more centered than they are now.. the polarization this administration has caused in this country is doing long term damage to the very foundations of democracy. The problems in this country are indeed growing because political power is bought and sold by both sides. Where corporations and lobbyists hold more power than the electorate because the general population really does pay more attention to American Idol (a FOX product) than the politics of this country.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 6:16 am
You’re still not listening. Terrorists do not follow the rules of war. They shoot at us from mosques, from ambulances, from hospitals - and they target civilians on purpose.
The Haditha incident is an example of -we don’t know. I’m not willing to make a judgement based on the inflammatory and irresponsible actions of Murtha who is a fraud and liar like John Kerry.
Does that make it pretty simple for you or do I need to draw you a picture?
Our boys are wearing uniforms and abiding by a code of ethics; the terrorists are not. Should this change how we’re reacting in battle and on the battlefield? Yes it should.
If the terrorists are shooting at us from a mosque, then our boys should be allowed to shoot back.
As I’ve said before, this isn’t rocket science, Yak, this is merely common sense.
We don’t know if the guys at Haditha did what the MSM accuses them of, and I’m going to go with respecting the marines. My dad is a former marine, my son wore the uniform, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to convict them before they’re been proven guilty.
And I’m going to be very skeptical of the trial proceedings because Khalilzad is the Ambassador, and we’re hearing a lot of the same false claims of abuses that we heard during the Jack Idema trial in Afghanistan when he was Ambassador to Afghanistan.
The terrorists believe that war=deception. I’m not going to go by the claims of known terrorists who lie for the sake of Islam that they’ve been ‘mistreated’.
That’s not relativism! I’m not excusing irresponsible behavior on the part of those marines because I don’t know that it was irresponsible. And I have personal knowledge of what kind of training they receive, and the code of honor they have.
Terrorists have no code of honor and are accomplishing their goals by lying, by pretending to be injured and asking for medical attention, and then turning around and detonating a grenade or picking up their weapons.
If they pick up a weapon or detonate a grenade, they’re not ‘innocent’. And that’s the kind of thing our boys are facing–and many times these ‘grenade’ toting people are children whose mothers are sacrificing them for jihad.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 6:35 am
You should read-THEY JUST DON’T GET IT by a retired Colonel, David Hunt, that works for FOX News. On page #200, he quotes an al-Qaida manual which states:
———–
“Missions Required of the Military Organization (al-Qaeda)”
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.
—————-
In plain language, terrorists not only have a reason to lie about their capture, treatment, and make up torture stories, they have a “God given” purpose and directive to do it.
Wake up and get a grip; these people are not ‘honorable’ -you’re comparing them to us as if their belief system is the same. It is not. They have no moral code; they are achieving their goals with deception and people are falling for it.
If you consider the pictures the Times put up of the Haditha incident which was really the result of terrorists against their own people (Iraqis)-you can see that the media is joining in the deception and is actually helping them with their cause. Consider the doctor who writes at a Baathist website; the doctor who wrote their death certificates. Do you think that what he wrote in their death certificates to implicate the marines in some kind of crime is the truth?
I certainly hope the truth comes out, but there are many reasons I am doubtful that it will. I will always side with our side because our cause is just; theirs is not; our boys are on the whole honorable, and pointing to Abu Ghraib which was the exception and not the rule (the perpetrators were tried and given consequences-unlike the terrorists)–is merely giving the enemy more ammunition against us.
Is that really what you want to accomplish?
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 6:48 am
Todays news source ABCnews
New pictures offer the first independent evidence suggesting that Marines may have covered up what really happened in Haditha, Iraq, where 24 Iraqi civilians were killed in November. The pictures show a house pockmarked with bullet holes, despite the initial claim that a roadside bomb was responsible.
And a new witness has come forward. Iman Waleed Abdul Hameed, a 9-year-old girl, said Marines killed her father, mother, brother, two uncles and grandmother.
Local doctors said the dead included eight women and five children.
“Most of the dead,” said Dr. Waleed Abdul Khaliq al Obaidi, in Arabic, “were shot in the head and chest.”
The New York Times reported today that senior commanders learned the original Marine account was wrong two days after the incident last November — but failed to act. The paper quoted an unnamed Marine general familiar with the investigation as saying, “It’s impossible to believe they didn’t know. You’d have to know this thing stunk.”
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 6:59 am
Well at least you came up with one thing; although it’s from the lying lamestream media.
I have illustrated all the reasons why I’m skeptical about these proceedings.
You come back and quote from ABC. WEAK.
The investigation is now centered around one or two rogue Marines who may have gone on a several-hour long rampage, and also upon several other Marines who may have tried to cover it up — which would of course depend on whether they knew (or reasonably should have known) that what they were reporting was false. Assuming, that is, that it was false. Too many assumptions here.
If true, this is an atrocity; not along the magnitude of My Lai as the media reports, but rather than indicting the entire Marine Corps, the investigation appears to have narrowed the focus.
I’m still going to have faith in our boys and will wait for the results to be released, and they certainly will be released publicly, before leaping to any conclusions….something you’re not willing to do, apparently; merely depending on the mainstream media for your news.
You ought to broaden your horizons there, lefty.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 7:03 am
The facts are not yet all in .. but..
you apparently have already decided to not listen to the reports… you believe that no reports should be done implacating marines because that would undermine support for your cause… that is called obstruction of an investigation and stifling democratic free press. The truth is that the My Lai incident would never have been investigated if there had not been press reports.. it would never have seen the light of justice and that appears to be what you want to happen here. Coverups begin when you do not allow reporting. That seems to be your point, otherwise you should be outraged that it took so long to investigate this incident. Clearly this should have been investigated long ago, it is only because of the reporting that there is any investigation at all.
You sound like you would rather let massacres occur rather than have unpleasant press for your cause.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 7:08 am
I have cited my reasoning already, at length. You, apparently, are willing to dismiss the pictures from the Times and the information about the doctor who did the original autopsies. Are you aware of what a Baathist is? Baathists are socialists; remnants of Saddam’s old regime-these people are liars like Saddam, and also promote and practice ‘takeyya’ (lying for the sake of advancing Islam). I’m sorry for your unwillingness to accept anything other than what the MSM is spinning on this.
I’m sorry you have no faith in the American military.
I’m sorry you’re willing to convict them before all the evidence has been heard and the investigation is complete.
I’ve illustrated my reasoning and the links and backup for why I believe we should wait before we make judgement- very clearly. I don’t think you realize how slanted those news reports are in favor of the terrorists, and that in itself makes me wonder about your level of education and intelligence.
I feel sorry for you that you’re willing to accept all of that at face value without examining what they’re saying more closely, but of course that’s your prerogative; people are generally lazy.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 7:12 am
The reality of Iraq is not lost on me .. we have honest men and women, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, being place in harms way constantly. But that does not mean justice should be ignored or injustices covered up. You want to prevent ‘bad press’ aka crimes committed by some soldiers, to never become known or see the light of day because it would damage your cause. Sorry, but that is just the price free democratic societies pay in order to keep free democratic societies. When you stop paying that price then welcome to autocratic demogogary/dictatorships.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 7:15 am
I’m not saying justice should be ignored. I’m saying we should wait until the investigation is complete before passing judgement (something Murtha and his comrades haven’t done); there’s a difference.
I’m also saying the ‘bad press’ is irresponsible. Those pictures circulated by the Times were terrorists’ victims who were bound. You think the world of Islam isn’t going to be outraged by them? The Times reported falsely that those were the Marines’ victims at Haditha! That’s completely irresponsible and false reporting!
We are free, but I wonder for how long when people like you are so willing to rush to judgement based on what irresponsible men like Murtha say, who rely only on the lying mainstream media for their ‘facts’. There is no reason to be spreading lies and disinformation (like those pictures above)-or to distort what happened like comparing this incident with My Lai…other than to win the propaganda war against the War on Terror.
What the Times did and has done repeatedly is manufacture propaganda for a political agenda. Take a look at those pictures again and tell me that isn’t what they’re doing.
We quite simply don’t have the whole story yet. I’m willing to reserve judgement until we do, and I recommend that thinking citizens do the same.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 7:22 am
You continue to decry free speech of a free press and it makes me wonder why you live in a country whose foundations are based on precisely those freedoms. It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that the press often is the only pressure that can be applied to discover the truth where others in control can coverup the evidence. If you want a state controlled press that only reports favorable to their causes perhaps you should look to move out of a democratic nation.
Benjamin Franklin Quotes. “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 7:23 am
Free press? Is that what you call those pictures published at the TIMES? Then that’s what you must consider Al Jazeera, then, which is also known as the Voice of Al Qaeda! You make me laugh.
You’re right. I’m not giving up liberty, that’s what you’re doing by throwing up your hands, trusting that the mainstream media is telling you the truth.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” —John Stuart Mill
“I have been in Iraq for two years. I realize that the Islamic world declared war on the West back in the mid-sixties. Unfortunately, the vast majority of westerners have not come to that realization. I have spent the last 11 years living in Islamic countries and understand that Islam and the concepts of democracy and toleration are incompatible. Either the West presents a united front or we will be taken down one at a time.” —Baghdad, Iraq
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 7:25 am
You want to control the press thus giving up liberty. Clearly you are the one that wants to stifle free speech in order to prevent damage to your cause with little concern for justice.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 7:26 am
Clearly one example of the pictures is not representative of the day to day workings of the press. I could clearly demonstrate how FOX “news” regularly uses byline reporting to promulgate their right wing opinion as news when it is little more than propaganda.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 7:29 am
I don’t want to ‘control the press’. Where do you get these ridiculous statements? Where did I say that?
The press already has control over you, obviously. And you don’t acknowledge it! All of the statements I’ve made here which would make a thinking man start to question what he’s reading or hearing in the MSM have just fallen on deaf ears with you. Are you that much of a rightwing hater and bigot to not see any of this? Guess so!
I just want the truth to come out and the press isn’t telling it. And for that you sink to more insults. Apparently you don’t recognize that the press isn’t telling the truth, I guess. See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil, is your philosophy–God help us. If there is no problem, then you don’t have to do anything about it, then.
Keep your head in the sand and see how that works for you.
Thank God there is still the internet; once that is regulated, there will go the last of our First Amendment rights.
The selective MSM coverage–is hyping the parts that damn the Marines most
Terrorists used kids in Haditha
Now, Lance Cpl. Crossan does suggest that Marines crossed the line (the part of the interview that will become the most publicized), though it should be kept in mind that he had been helicoptered from the scene and did not witness the alleged atrocities:
If you watch the interview, you’ll note the KING 5 interviewer sounding perplexed about the idea of children being used by the insurgents. I suggest she and other MSM reporters shocked, shocked by this concept familiarize themselves with LGF’s Palestinian child abuse slideshow. A few photos:
***
Terrazas’ father backs the Marines.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 7:37 am
“All of the statements I’ve made here which would make a thinking man start to question what he’s reading or hearing in the MSM”
Clearly I do a lot more reading than you… I do not rely on just one source, right wing biased as it is, for my information.
another quote “rightwing hater and bigot”…. clearly you are the one most adept at insults… No question here who is the one that wins in this category.
A free neutral press is one that is not overly tainted with a pre-determined position be it left wing or right wing … while I am more that happy to read from both extremes I choose not to decide based on diatribes but based on the evidence. You clearly wish to subjugate evidence to cause and justice be damned.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 7:49 am
I don’t rely on only one source. Show me how you come to that conclusion. Perhaps you don’t appreciate the fact that the MSM lies are being debunked by my sources, and that causes you to draw the conclusion that I only depend on the ‘rightwing press’.
You seem to share the same ideology as Mariah Blake who now works for the Miami New Times who writes her man hating Bettina Aptheker-type pieces over there. Mariah Blake said in an interview that ‘we should not be allowed our own facts’. The leftist conclusion is that their facts are the only ones that people should take a look at; and that the ‘rightwing alternative universe of faith-based news’ should not.
That ‘rightwing hater and bigot’ statement seems to be the truth, it wasn’t meant as an insult. Have a problem with calling things by their real names, do we?
We don’t have a ‘free neutral press’, that’s clearly illustrated a lot of places. We have secular newsrooms today which eliminate and stress only certain ‘facts’ to serve their political agenda.
I want justice; but I want justice after all the evidence is in.
You DO admit that the investigation is not over yet, don’t you?
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 7:51 am
The investigation is clearly not over yet and that means reporting on the issue should continue unabated and unhindered. There has been little more that reporting of the accusations and what is public evidence and that is the normal process. That is what happens here in this country when somebody robs a bank and a suspect is capture. We report on the incident and the details, that does not make the suspect guilty, only a trial does that. But on this event you wish to prevent that type of reporting. Moreover you wish to prevent the investigation. Why else would you attack all who would bring the incident to the public. Clearly the 3 months it took to even acknowledge that there was an incident and the 3 more months of foot dragging by the military investigators is a demostration that someone is impeding the investigation. That much is obvious… it sounds mostly like you just want it to go away and not be reported unless it sheds a favorable light on your cause. That is not the way free press is supposed to work in a free democratic society.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 8:00 am
The only demonstrated bigot would be you .. the one who lumps all Islamists as evil.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 8:04 am
As far as ‘right wing hater..’, I decry all wingers left or right who chose to villanize everyone that does not agree with their position and lumps them in the evil category.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 8:07 am
Reporting on the issue should remain unbiased. That is not happening. Out of all the things that the marine said above, the media stresses one statement. That’s why hundreds of thousands of people are parsing through the reports, pointing out the lies.
The investigative team is not military–it is from the Naval branch of the military, but it is an independent team so what you’re saying there just indicates to me that you don’t know the facts.
From the WaPo:
NCIS stands for Navy Criminal Investigative Services. Guess what? It’s the Navy Department’s Counter Terrorism and law enforcement arm.
You don’t know some of the most elementary facts in this case and yet you claim to be the end-all authority on it, citing very few links or facts to back it up and you say you’re well-read? Puhleez.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 8:07 am
Navy=military arm doesn’t it…
hello?
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 8:15 am
The military is conducting two investigations into the alleged murder of about two dozen Iraqi citizens by U.S. Marines in Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in western Iraq. One is a criminal probe into the actual events that day last November, and the other is looking into whether soldiers told the truth about what happened or if there was a cover-up.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 8:16 am
“Lt. Col. Bryan Salas, in a March 23 e-mail response to questions, said Zilmer directed the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to look into the allegations.
The Nov. 19 incident came one year after another high-profile incident that enflamed tensions between U.S. forces and Iraqis.”
That is 4 months after the event .. hardly a timely response.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 8:28 am
It is not in the military chain of command–in spite of its name. They are ‘federal law enforcement professionals’ according to their website. They’re not like JAG.
NCIS is primarily responsible for investigating actual, suspected or alleged major criminal offenses involving the U.S. Department of the Navy, or Navy or Marine Corps personnel. A major criminal offense—or a felony—is defined as an act punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by imprisonment of more than one year, or punishable under similarly framed federal, state, local, or foreign laws. Examples of such major criminal offenses include, but are not limited to, homicide, rape, espionage and fraud. NCIS does not investigate UCMJ offenses of a purely military character, such as desertion or UCMJ violations involving consensual sexual activities.
Sweetness and Light finds the reporting of a former CNN embed that undermines the massacre allegations. In fact, her story notes the way Marines refused to return fire unless they specifically identified targets:
The NCIS is conducting both investigations. One is an investigation into alleged misconduct; the other is an investigation into the coverup, as you said.
I’m quoting the Times, the Washington Post, and numerous other mainstream media in addition to bloggers when discrepancies are found in the reporting. I think the people reporting on this need to be responsible and not stretch the truth; and certainly not spread blatant lies and propaganda like the TimesUK did with those photographs of terrorist victims and the AP running that photograph of my lai.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 8:40 am
The Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) began an investigation in February after a Time Magazine reporter passed on accounts he had received about the incident. I’m sure, if they had received information sooner, that they would have moved sooner.
In April, Marines were relieved of duty. Three leaders of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, which had responsibility for Haditha when the shooting occurred are: Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and two of his company commanders, Capt. James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell. McConnell was commanding Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion, the unit that struck the roadside bomb on Nov. 19 and led the subsequent search of the area.
The Marines’ announcement in April didn’t tie the disciplinary actions directly to Haditha, saying only that Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, had lost confidence in the officers’ ability to command.
They were relieved because of “multiple incidents that occurred throughout their deployment,” said Lt. Lawton King, a spokesman at the Marines’ home base at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to which they recently returned. “This decision was made independent of the NCIS investigation.”
(from Knight Ridder)
And I also love this quote since you made your little nazi remark toward me:
“[A liberal] wrote me last week to call me a ‘hypocrite’ because I, a) criticized gay activists for putting swastikas on a conservative student’s picture and posting it on the internet, and b) called them the ‘Georgia Tech Gay Gestapo’ for doing so. [He] said that was an example of a ‘hypocritical double standard’ because I called liberals ‘Nazis’ for calling conservatives ‘Nazis.’ But I respectfully dissent. It was wrong for the gay activists to compare the conservative student to the Nazis because she had never placed swastikas on the Internet. In other words, I was really applying the following standard to everyone: If you don’t put swastikas on stuff, I won’t call you a ‘Nazi.’ If you do put swastikas on stuff, I will. This all leads to a simple life lesson: If you don’t want people to call you a ‘Nazi,’ don’t put swastikas on stuff. Or alternately stated: Liberals are victims of their own behavior more often than they are victims of conservative hypocrisy.” —Mike Adams
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 8:47 am
Quit bringing in other info that has nothing to do with Haditha into this investigation. The fact that 99% or more of the time they do correctly does not excuse the .1% of the time an incident does occur.
NCIS is still under the military even though they are independent of the “normal” chain of command. That means that they are still subject to military command in some form or another. They are subject to military pressure from higher ups and their resources are subject to military parsing. To suggest that there has been a timely response is laughable. There has been either a coverup or incompetence since the time gap is just too long…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:08 am
Army Times source
“Time magazine spent 10 weeks interviewing local residents affected by the incident and, in January, shared these accounts with military officials in Baghdad. The accounts directly conflicted with the Corps’ initial stance that the civilian casualties were the result of the insurgent attack.
Officials with Multi-National Corps-Iraq launched an investigation Feb. 14 after Time brought the allegations to their attention. Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of MNC-I, directed further review March 9 after he was presented with initial findings of the investigation.
Chiarelli then handed the findings to Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the new military commander for western Iraq.
Lt. Col. Bryan Salas, in a March 23 e-mail response to questions, said Zilmer directed the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to look into the allegations.”
Nov.19th to March 23rd NCIS is 4 months…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:11 am
But not 4 months since they were notified about it…. You’re playing that stretch the truth game.
NCIS officials said the Nov. 19 incident was not reported to them as a criminal case until nearly four months later — on March 12 — and the failure of the Marine Corps to request assistance from investigators sooner could create legal complexities.
We can only speculate as to why it took so long…I’m inclined to believe it was because of the Times reporter that it was reported at all, and we can already see what kind of picture the Times is attempting to paint on this thing.
Why not point to other events? What’s the problem, you don’t recall or want to relate to history? What I’m saying is–the left is trying to make Abu Ghraib and what the media has reported the RULE rather than point out it’s the exception. What’s wrong with pointing that out? Does it weaken your position or make you feel foolish?
Look, I own this blog, quit being a nazi by telling me what to do and think in my own space.
Remember that in November Haditha was not a ‘paradise’ with doves flying in the air. It was a snakepit full of terrorists using children as scouts. I haven’t found any evidence to suggest precisely when that changed, or if it is any different today–just evidence that the locals are more afraid of Zarqawi’s terrorist thugs than they are of the Americans.
Three NCIS agents based in Iraq went to Haditha within 24 hours, they responded quickly.
Haditha is crawling with terrorists. The Associated Press points out that “in just three days last August, six Marine snipers were killed in Haditha and 14 Marines died in nearby Parwana in the deadliest roadside bombing of the war.” Most-wanted al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is reported to have lived in Haditha. The Washington Post quoted a military lawyer noting that Nov. 19 was the Marine 3rd Battalion’s “hottest day” in Iraq.
“In addition to drone surveillance that day,” the paper reported, “AV-8 Harriers were dropping bombs, helicopters were evacuating wounded, and a large firefight occurred about one-third of a mile from the site of the civilian shootings, said several people familiar with the investigation.” Audio of radio traffic that day reportedly contradicts Rep. Murtha’s claim that the Marines did not come under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion, according to one of the Post’s military sources.
We know this, too: Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials have not turned their backs. Time magazine, which initially broke the story of survivors’ accounts that prompted the military probe, reports that Haditha residents — who have yet to be visited by any of Iraq’s own officials — “were gratified by [the investigation’s] thoroughness” and “were especially impressed by the NCIS investigators” conducting three separate inquiries.
Finally, there is this incontrovertible fact: There are countless numbers of anti-war zealots on the American Left rooting for failure. They believe the worst about the troops. They’ve blindly embraced frauds who’ve lied about their military service and lied about wartime atrocities. They’ve allied themselves with socialist kooks and coddled murderous dictators. They are looking for any excuse to pull out, abandon military operations and reconstruction, and impeach the president.
They insist on giving suspected foreign terrorists more benefit of the doubt than our own men and women in uniform. And that, I know, I am not willing to do.
I will wait. I will pray. And I will remind you that while the murder of civilians is and remains an anomaly in American military history, it is the jihadists’ way of life.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 9:15 am
Time magazine spent 10 weeks interviewing local residents affected by the incident and, in January, shared these accounts with military officials in Baghdad.
Clearly the ball was in the court in January…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:26 am
Further if you read the article you would see it took the military until Mar23rd to get NCIS involved…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:27 am
YOU seem to forget that America often coddles foreign dictators as part of its foreign policy. Under both Reagan and Bush Sr., Saddam Hussein was treated as an ally and sold military weapons and given military intelligence. During that time he was committing genocidal chemical warfare on his own people and the president at that time did nothing about it. In fact that administration actual sought to suppress the information since they were supporting Saddams regime…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:34 am
What I’m saying is NCIS moved very quickly. What you’re saying is the military dragged is feet and didn’t report it.
We can only speculate as to why that is. You’re willing to think the worst, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than demonize them without knowing the facts.
But that’s what this is all about, isn’t it? A rush to judgement.–you’re making a premature judgement about their guilt based on Murtha’s statements and irreponsible MSM reporting that stresses the worst.
You’re not reading my comments so I have to repeat myself,
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 9:36 am
You wish to tell everyone to shut up until the trials are over… that is not the way news reporting works now is it. Nor should it be. I want to know today about the crime committed today and the suspects caught today and the fraud discovered today.. that is the job of a free press and you seem to forget that…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:39 am
YOU seem to forget that America often coddles foreign dictators as part of its foreign policy. Under both Reagan and Bush Sr., Saddam Hussein was treated as an ally and sold military weapons and given military intelligence. During that time he was committing genocidal chemical warfare on his own people and the president at that time did nothing about it. In fact that administration actual sought to suppress the information since they were supporting Saddams regime…
you are not reading my comments so I have to repeat myself
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 9:41 am
But your ‘free press’ is distorting these accounts, as I’ve pointed out very clearly. You think that’s ok, I don’t. They’re using pictures of terrorists’ victims, portraying them as the marines’ victims in the November Haditha incident- and you think that’s ok too, apparently. They’re using photographs of the my lai incident when we don’t even know the results of the inquiry trying to paint our guys as murderers of children. And you don’t think that’s premature?
That is not a ‘free press’ that’s a press with a political agenda; the agenda of the Revolutionary Communist Party who wants to “Drive out the Bush Regime” and who are standing with Code Pink (Marxists), International Answer (Communists) and all the other extremist anti-war the media just calls “activists”. Know your media code words!
Listen to Ilario Pantano who was ‘accused of killing innocent Iraqis last year’ at the WaPo which I cited in the original post which we’ve moved so far away from:
You can do as you like, I have no control over what you do, although I think you’re acting like a fascist when you call me a nazi and discount everything I say because you think I’m a ‘rightwing fanatic’ or something.
I do wish people wouldn’t rush to judgement, as Pantano says here, and I also wish the media was more honest about its reporting and didn’t have a political agenda to ruin the war on terror. These people are not going to stop just because we lost the stomach for the fight; they’re willing to accomplish their goals over generations and they willingly sacrifice and encourage their children to blow themselves up-commit suicide!- to do it.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 9:41 am
That crap about coddling dictators is a convenient sidestepping of an important issue; it’s the very phrase people use to support Saddam’s regime -that we had no business going in to free those people from that sadistic man.
I don’t support coddling dictators like John Kerry, lol–you have your communists and rightwingers confused.
America may have coddled dictators in the past, but not with my approval or sanction.
People have even gone so far as to say ‘America created Saddam Hussein’ - so I guess we should have left him to kill more of his own people then.
John Kerry turned his back on the POWs in Vietnam by refusing to acknowledge there still may be men left there under the communists’ control, and we ‘normalized relations’ with communist Vietnam. I’m not in support of that; that’s a communist trick he pulled. But he’s got a history of that reaching all the way back to when he was wearing the communist armband of the Vietcong when he returned and presumably went awol.
I am anti-communist, so ‘coddling dictators’ isn’t policy I support in the least. We should pull out from the United Nations and quit trying to suck up to them; they’re not interested in our freedom, our capitalism or anything else; they’re interested in stealing from us and taking advantage of us - just like Vincente Fox.
The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex President Undermines Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 9:52 am
Once again setting the straw man up to be pummeled… leave Kerry out of the discussion .. that is completely off topic .. and expected from you of course…
No the real thing is that you have no retort for what Reagan and Bush Sr. did in propping up Saddam. Anti-communist does not mean that you do not support coddling dictators .. dictators come in all different leanings from left to right… the right wing in this country has willing coddled right wing dictators as long as they were anti-communist and no matter how repressive they have been.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 10:08 am
I’ll do what I like. There should be no problem using examples to back up my position. What was it you said about it being ‘a free country’? So whose freedom are you encroaching upon by telling me what to say and what subjects are verbotin to this discussion?
What are you a fascist?
You say ‘America has coddled dictators’ I’m taking that one step further. You want to use it as an excuse and an outrage, apparently, that we took Saddam Hussein out of power. I’m saying that’s no excuse.
Your sweeping generalizations with no specific examples do not stand here. Your lack of sources, historical knowledge and unwillingness to look at the ‘big picture’ is a big problem as I see it.
What are you a nazi interrogator?
This is leftist authoritarianism at its best, lol–you’re telling me how to conduct my end of the discussion because you don’t like the parallels I draw.
You opened up a can of worms with the statement that “America coddles dictators”.
Yes, we have communists within our midst who are coddling dictators, but I am not in support of it, nor do I sanction it. You have a problem with my pointing out who they are? Too bad. You shouldn’t have brought it up, then.
People are known for the company they keep. George Bush quotes the Bible. Kerry is comfortable in the company of Langston Hughes, Joe Cannon, and through them, Stalin. If you have a problem with my pointing it out, maybe you should stick to the subject at hand.
And please. Stop telling me how to respond, what to say, what subjects to you are off limits because of your myopia, and calling me names on my own blog. It is bad manners.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 10:19 am
Cannot stick to topic can you.. try as you men you have to bring in the other straw men to try and draw attention away from you lack of factual evidence and knowledge.. … try .. concentrate .. you have yet to refute that fact that conservative presidents condoned the behavior of Hussein right up to the attack on Kuwait… and Hussein was a right wing demogogue by the by not a communist…
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 11:44 am
There was plenty of evidence over the years of earlier conservative administrations colluding with Hussein. Here is a quick link
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03142003.html
Much scientific evidence was procurred to support the chemical warfare attacks Hussein used by the then administrations refused to look at the evidence or rather to do anything about it.
Comment by yak — 6/4/2006 @ 11:52 am
Hussein and Terror.
Ahh here your REAL sources are starting to come out…Counterpunch. Now there’s a real ‘objective’ source, lol…that’s about as leftist as you can get. What the next one I’m going to see? The Smirking Chimp?
What can I do about something that is in the past, yak? Can you do anything about John Kerry and his fake purple hearts? Not that you would, you’re obviously in support of these people so that’s a rhetorical question.
Well you could face it and try to get him out of office because it’s a disgrace, the same as Murtha, but you’re not willing to face that regrettable fact; you’re in support of your fake war heroes.
Let’s get back to Haditha (this isn’t a pissing match by the way, even though you’re trying to turn it into one):
Haditha Reporter’s Thanksgiving With The Taliban
Incidently I think it’s a rather important fact to point out -not only was the doctor who did the autopsies on those bodies a Baathist who has written at Uruknet, but the reporter who supposedly first broke the Haditha story for the western media was Tim McGirk.
While we are on looking into the backgrounds of the major players involved, it is perhaps interesting to note that two months after 9/11 Mr. McGirk was spending Thanksgiving with the Taliban.
And he considers them to be nice guys.
From the DNC’s favorite magazine, Time.
Kind of like Ted Turner saying the communist dictator Fidel Castro is ‘a nice guy’. Oh…by the way, did you know that Fidel Castro was the one who gave Ted Turner the idea for CNN? That’s why a lot of us call CNN the communist news network.
Here’s another example of leftist hypocrisy, although what do you expect from the Saudi-owned Reuters?
In Journalism 101 you learn that you shouldn’t write passive sentences. But Reuters’ love of terrorists prevents them from writing what they should have written: “Sunni Terrorists Murder 24 Sunnis, Including Teenagers.”
And we can’t have the truth. Not from Reuters.
Still, I’m sure this latest in the endless stream of senseless brutal terrorist murders of unarmed Iraqi civilians will drive Haditha off the front page.
I’m kidding of course.
The one-party media establishment is never troubled about Terrorists killing -or muslims killing each other…
They’re only interested in Haditha. So even though you might think this would be frontpage news that would displace Haditha, it won’t. That would be common sense. That would be fair reporting.
“Free press”? You make me laugh!
Also…in true hypocritical fashion, you’re lavishly adored ‘free press’ will be publishing as many photos of blood and gore as they can from the Haditha incident, even if they aren’t from the incident at all as we’ve already seen…while the anniversaries of 9/11 come around and they publish nothing. Don’t forget that. That is certainly no accident; it is by design. Abu Ghraib photos published ad infinitum, 9/11 photos lost or not published at all even at the anniversaries of those 3,000 innocents’ deaths.
Comment by Cao — 6/4/2006 @ 12:02 pm
Yak, you’ve failed to prove to me that Clinton could have done nothing about the terrible things the republicans did to create Saddam Hussein, the monster. Actually, I think Saddam’s uncle the nazi had a lot to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein respected Hitler, carried a copy of Mein Kampf in his back pocket, etc. But then you wouldn’t know about Arab Nationalism’s connection with the Nazis, now, would you? And why then, did Clinton do nothing? Because he hates the military, that’s why. He wouldn’t even let his daughter ride in the limousine with someone in uniform. Leftists don’t believe there should ever be a military solution; that’s why they have to produce fake heroes like Murtha and Kerry now.
Millions of people poured into the streets of cities from Melbourne to New York on Saturday February 15, 2003 to protect Saddam Hussein from an imminent American attempt to disarm and dethrone him and disable his arsenal of chemical, biological and proto-nuclear weapons. They professed concern about Iraqi children (bearing mock bodies to symbolize their alarm) but marched in solidarity with Palestinians and Arabs who kill their own children by strapping bombs to them and telling them to blow up other children — Jew children — so that they will go to heaven and their families will receive a $25,000 reward.
Today’s “peace” movement — the innocent-intentioned along with the malevolent rest — is a fifth column army in our midst working for the other side. Already their leaders have warned that if the United States remains determined to oppose this totalitarian evil and stay its intended course, they will act within our borders to “disrupt the flow of normal life” and sabotage the war. This is ultimately the most ominous threat Americans face. Abroad we can conquer any foe. The real danger lies at home.
I don’t understand your point about Bush the 1st. You mean to say that you think I can jump into a time machine and do something about that? How about you do something about Clinton’s inaction and ABLE DANGER?