Tuesday digest II
- The bible for aging hippies, Rolling Stone, has blessed us with a tearjerker on little Omar Khadr. You remember him, of the family that spent the bulk of the 90s in terror camps run by al-Qaeda, produced a daughter whose wedding Osama bin Laden himself attended in 1999, and fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. I suppose we're supposed to feel sorry for Omar because he has to stand, kneel and do other things like mop up his own pee at Gitmo all because of the torturous US government.
If that's "unspeakable abuse", I wonder what Rolling Stone would call getting your head chopped off on video for all the world to see via al-Qaeda propaganda videos.
- Some pics from a recent "peace" march in San Francisco, here.
- Oozing "Chavismo"? Pffft.
posted by Road Hammer @ 10:20 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
That is the thing, what the weeping left calls "torture" by the USA is not really torture.
I am not saying it is right or proper, but making people pose naked in a pyramid at Abu Ghraib is a lot different from chopping someone's head off or what John McCain went through at the Hanoi Hilton.
I read that dribble and chuckled. It reminded me of a program done 38 years ago on cbc portraying a guy who did some spy work for the soviets as a poor old man. I knew the guy. He was spying. I really want to see the coyote in the road runner cartoon portayed as a victum.
anythings possible with some fool to write about.
Although I think that we should hold ourselves up to a higher standard than the Islamofaschists, the weeping left always seems to have a hard time with the concept of proportionality.
Why does the standard against torture have to be the Geneva convention? I would hardly think that UN agreements are how we should score morality and the justness of a certain activity. As Farley points out, wearing underwear on your head and being laughed at by a woman is not equivalent to some of the heinous violence that goes on in terrorist-run torture chambers, but those who bash the US over the head with Geneva don't allow that distinction (but why would they when they're taking cues from an organization that would have countries like the Congo and Qatar decide how America should protect itself?).
In my view, Khadr is not a POW because of his nationality, he's a POW because he's al-Qaeda, so the Convention doesn't apply. In any case, even though the argument may go that al-Qaeda soldiers like Khadr are protected by it because Afghanistan ratified it (in 1956), it would laughable to claim they actually lived by it under the Taliban even as a state sponsor of terror, so their non-state wings like al-Qaeda have even less of a legitimate claim to its protections.
Anyways, point is that I think just as there are varying degrees of what some would call "child abuse", there are varying degrees of what others call "torture".
What actual, real torture occurs at Gitmo?
No, I don't read RS on a regular basis as I'm not much into college bands, fads, Al Gore or the sixties.
Even Alex Neve of Amnesty has said that you can't legally define torture. To place al-Qaeda's brand in the same category of what happens at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib is sheer intellectual laziness based on blatant anti-Administration political motivation.
Thus, we can only conclude that George W. Bush is both more evil and more a threat to international security than Osama bin Laden.
Post a Comment
<< Home