A few days ago, American forces discovered an Al Qaeda torture manual, complete with illustrations like the one at right (see The Smoking Gun for details). Horrifying, but hardly surprising; we know too well what barbarity the warriors of the "Religion of Peace" are capable of. The news mostly left me frustrated that the lamestream media essentially ignored this story whereas they trumpeted even false stories of American "torture" that was positively loving by comparison. Wretchard says it very well:
The problem with the word "torture" is that it has been so artfully corrupted by some commentators that we now find ourselves at a loss to describe the kinds of activities that the al-Qaeda interrogation manual graphically recommends. Now that the term "torture" has been put in one-to-one correspondence with such admittedly unpleasant activities as punching, sleep deprivation, a handkerchief pulled over one's face and loaded with water, searches by women upon sensitive Islamic men or the disrespectful handling of Korans -- what on earth do we call gouging people's eyes out?
Answer: we call it nothing. My fearless prediction is that not a single human rights organization will seriously take the matter up. There will be no demonstrations against these barbaric practices, often inflicted upon Muslims by other Muslims, in any of the capitals of the world. Not a single committee in the United Nations will be convened nor will any functionary in the European Union lose so much as a night's sleep over it. The word for these activities -- whatever we choose to call it -- will not be spoken.
Read the rest of his post, too. Michell Malkin noticed Wretchard's comments as well, and she also has a great roundup.
Meanwhile, in our upside-down world, Americans will continue to be condemned and even sent to prison for "torture" such as exposing Muslim prisoners to Playboy centerfolds, and Al Qaeda is not condemned for gouging out eyeballs, drilling holes in hands, amputating fingers and genitals, endless beatings, and beheadings.
Makes you want to run right out and vote for a liberal Democrat, doesn't it?
Well obviously these news organizations aren't codeming Al Queda because they endorse them and don't want to look bad by now condeming them. That was a hollow attempt at sarcasm. Al Queda is a terrorits organization and has all the ill-repute that goes along with that, I don't think it is really possible to condem them anymore - is anyone out there singing Al Queda's praises? Republican's are not and nor are Democrats, despite what many would have you believe or may believe yourself. International public opinion is not and will never be with Al Queda, so I don't know what you would expect?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your point... Are you really trying to say (as it sounds like you are) that because public opinion is not in favor of Al Qaeda, then there's no point in the press condemning them?
ReplyDeleteIf that really is your point, then I most heartily disagree. The fact that our lamestream media is not faithfully telling the story of Al Qaeda and their evil deeds must be part of the reason why a significant number of Americans don't believe Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and have a generally benign attitude about the group. The nutroots Democrats are only the most obvious manifestation of this, with their fervent desire that we withdraw from the field of battle and leave it for Al Qaeda.
If one really believes in Al Qaeda's existence, in their capacity for evil deeds, and in the threat they present, then one could not simultaneously take the position that these Democrats have: that we must withdraw from Iraq, at any cost.
Slightly Loony, you have made the same conflation of points that many have already. I don't think doubt was ever about Al Queda and 9-11 happening it was about Iraq and 9-11. Iraq was not involved in 9-11 and Al Queda was not there before we invaded. I am sure there are plenty of countries would could invade in the Middle East that currently don't host Al Queda but that Al Queda would be happy to enter into and set up shop once we arrived and had no control over the place.
ReplyDeleteBy the way I agree with you that the media has become too complacent on many, many issue, and for one have no problem with them reporting on Al Queda torture methods or techniques - my only fear is now that too many Americans have been plied into such a state of fear and panic that they will be using this as an argument as to why we should be adopoting those methods (as many already have).
Al Qaeda not in Iraq before we invaded?
ReplyDeleteI suggest you do some reading on the subject. In recent months there has been a lot of intelligence disclosed about significant Al Qaeda operations in Iraq -- not only before we invaded, but even before 9/11. I've seen no evidence of Iraq's direct complicity in 9/11, and personally, I rather doubt that they were. But Sadaam Hussein's active and substantial support of Al Qaeda -- including funding, materials, refuge, and training -- seems incontrovertible at this point, and not denied by any serious historian or observer that I have read. Amongst others, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Commission on 9/11 were agreed on this point.
All of which goes to your other point. The difference in Iraq is simply that Al Qaeda was operating there. The only other place (outside of Iraq and Afghanistan) where I am aware of Al Qaeda having significant operations is in Darfur, Sudan. Why we have not pursued them there is beyond my ken...
Slightlyloony, I guess I will have to do more reading because I was under the apparently false impression that Saddam was the head of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden was head of what is often referred to as Al Queada (but usually meant to reference to other terrorits organizations) and that Saddam was a political dictator and Osama Bin Laden was a religiously charged zealot who was angry at the United States after the 1991 Persian Gulf war not because we fought Saddam, but because he wanted for Arabs to take down Saddam like his organization (with U.S. help) had done in ousting Russia from Afghanistan. I considered myself somewhat versed on the subject, but knowing how in cahootes Saddam was or that he even was voluntarily allowing Al Queada to operate bases in Iraq I will have to go back an check, but i think you might want to as well. There was never any chance of Saddam and Osama or these organizations coming together (Iraqi's and what we refer to as Al Queada or the actual organization of Al Queada).
ReplyDeleteGood one. Well, if torture is part of their barbaric, sick, evil, sub-human, perverted, vile and demented culture who are we to say it is bad?
ReplyDelete.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
ignore human rights abuse
give terrorists free pass
villify the best countries
.