Torture
The theory of when to apply the thumbscrews is being put to the test now. Right now.
Two days ago, a group of scumbag militia types in Baghdad kidnapped a US soldier at gun point, stuffed him into a car and took off. Today, during a sweep of Sadr city -- a Shiite stronghold (read hotbed of lunatics inspired, financed and armed by Iran), they found three of the suspects hiding inside of a mosque. Now apart from the blantant hypocrisy of hiding behind Islam that this represents, we are confronted with the hypothetical we dread: these guys know where the captive soldier is. We may not have very much time to find out where from the suspects. In fact, the news that the suspects are in captivity might have compromised that soldier's life already. "Suspects" is a pretty loose term in that we have pretty good intelligence of the abduction and even that the tips hotline identified mosques as the likely place where he might be found.
What to do? Start a polite interrogation to find out the whereabouts of the captive? Or wire the M-fers to some current, apply various psychotropic drugs, and ask some serious questions? There is a US life at stake here and these scumbags were caught hiding in a mosque -- which we typically DON'T SEARCH WHEN LOOKING FOR WEAPONS OR INSURGENTS (what are we totally f-in crazy ... that is like giving drug lords a safe house and only going after to street pushers ... no its worse, it is the same sort of bullshit that prevented us going after the Soviet ships and Chinese trains that poured weapons into Vietnam). We might not have even had time to wire them up -- word of capture spread quickly, better to pull out a Black and Decker on the spot and loosen up some lips. The brutality of the questioning would in no way affect the outcome or treatment of the captive: the enemy already enjoys sawing people's heads off with pocket knives -- slowly. That is not hyperbole, either. The internet -- heck even Al Jazeera -- is full of footage of that stuff happening.
Two relevant things here: (1) I don't and you should not give a rat's ass for the life of any of those in custody found hiding in a mosque -- they cheated and therefore should have forfeited any rights at all; and (2) the life of an American soldier is at stake.
And Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Windbag Kennedy, and a host of others would tell you that we have to abide by the rules. What rules, assholes? What rules? If not for your cowardice, your total failure to back our troops, petty political gamesmanship at the expense of American lives, these scumbag kidnappers would not be able to use mosques to hide in, stash weapons in and plot murder in. We would be able to assert CONTROL over designated territory.
Have we learned NOTHING from Vietnam? When you tie one hand behind your back as a result of "rules of engagement", you hand that engagement over to the enemy. Here as in Vietnam, they want to kill us so that they can drive us out -- to establish their own brand of oppression on the general population. Forget that hearts and minds stuff: their hearts are poisoned and minds narrow. We are infidel. You can't beat that. The only thing we can do is to train Muslims to police their own and prevent widespread murder ... for the benefit of any particular group's form of Islam.
And the mosque where they were found? Level it.
Two days ago, a group of scumbag militia types in Baghdad kidnapped a US soldier at gun point, stuffed him into a car and took off. Today, during a sweep of Sadr city -- a Shiite stronghold (read hotbed of lunatics inspired, financed and armed by Iran), they found three of the suspects hiding inside of a mosque. Now apart from the blantant hypocrisy of hiding behind Islam that this represents, we are confronted with the hypothetical we dread: these guys know where the captive soldier is. We may not have very much time to find out where from the suspects. In fact, the news that the suspects are in captivity might have compromised that soldier's life already. "Suspects" is a pretty loose term in that we have pretty good intelligence of the abduction and even that the tips hotline identified mosques as the likely place where he might be found.
What to do? Start a polite interrogation to find out the whereabouts of the captive? Or wire the M-fers to some current, apply various psychotropic drugs, and ask some serious questions? There is a US life at stake here and these scumbags were caught hiding in a mosque -- which we typically DON'T SEARCH WHEN LOOKING FOR WEAPONS OR INSURGENTS (what are we totally f-in crazy ... that is like giving drug lords a safe house and only going after to street pushers ... no its worse, it is the same sort of bullshit that prevented us going after the Soviet ships and Chinese trains that poured weapons into Vietnam). We might not have even had time to wire them up -- word of capture spread quickly, better to pull out a Black and Decker on the spot and loosen up some lips. The brutality of the questioning would in no way affect the outcome or treatment of the captive: the enemy already enjoys sawing people's heads off with pocket knives -- slowly. That is not hyperbole, either. The internet -- heck even Al Jazeera -- is full of footage of that stuff happening.
Two relevant things here: (1) I don't and you should not give a rat's ass for the life of any of those in custody found hiding in a mosque -- they cheated and therefore should have forfeited any rights at all; and (2) the life of an American soldier is at stake.
And Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Windbag Kennedy, and a host of others would tell you that we have to abide by the rules. What rules, assholes? What rules? If not for your cowardice, your total failure to back our troops, petty political gamesmanship at the expense of American lives, these scumbag kidnappers would not be able to use mosques to hide in, stash weapons in and plot murder in. We would be able to assert CONTROL over designated territory.
Have we learned NOTHING from Vietnam? When you tie one hand behind your back as a result of "rules of engagement", you hand that engagement over to the enemy. Here as in Vietnam, they want to kill us so that they can drive us out -- to establish their own brand of oppression on the general population. Forget that hearts and minds stuff: their hearts are poisoned and minds narrow. We are infidel. You can't beat that. The only thing we can do is to train Muslims to police their own and prevent widespread murder ... for the benefit of any particular group's form of Islam.
And the mosque where they were found? Level it.
posted by Zaphod at Thursday, October 26, 2006
1 Comments:
And Oliver Stone and Michael Moore are purveyors of "truth."
I disbelieve the Pentagon as a matter of routine ... similar to statements for "the benefit of the American people" by ANY politician, lefty or whacko right.
By the way, that blowhard's name is RUMSFELD. And I would LOVE to see him removed, something that should have been done two years ago when it became apparent that he had not the slightest clue about how to proceed in Iraq.
For news and information I DO NOT refer to United States based sources as the primary provider for the contents of my internationally oriented blog posts: with respect to the Middle East, I read Al Jazeera, Al Ahram, and the Jerusalem Post for primary information. For secondary information, I read the London Times, Le Figaro, The Independent (where that turd-heap Fisk contributes) and others. Pentagon?
No, the issue/problem may be that US press would have us believe that all that emanates from the Pentagon is false (as distinct from merely the bulk of it).
Foley: send him to Saudi Arabia for trial under Sharia. I come from Boston ... lots of "interesting" priests 'round here. But now that you mention it, Congressman Gary Studds (D Mass), could have been Foley's mentor: in contrast to merely sending dirty messages to young male pages and assistants, Studds admitted to having sex with them. Strangely, nobody seemed to mind when the first openly gay congressman did those things. No calls for resignation, no questions on the floor of the House, no editorials in the NYTimes. A double standard perhaps? Or is it merely because Studds was not a hypocrite in this case? As an aside, what is it about Foley that reminds me of Jim Bakker? Where is Tammy Faye?
Post a Comment
<< Home