Skip to main content

Torture: It's what they do.

It's really tempting to look at the deaths by torture of two American soldiers and, through the anger, contribute it to the *nature* of the terrorists. It's what they *do*. They are evil.

We've always known that the chances of getting back, alive, any of our people was next to zip. We've always known that anyone captured would be tortured and probably would end up beheaded on video. If we had any secret hopes it was that, somehow, it would be quick.

Yes, somewhere there is a video. The terrorists videotape *everything*.

I want to point something out, though. The terrorists did not do this because they are evil. They are, but that's not why.

They hoped to accomplish something. And we shouldn't think they had only one reason, one goal. Most likely they had a whole list.

The excessive brutality, desecration, booby-trapping the bodies and the place where they were found were not spur-of-the-moment exercises of opportunity or expressions of emotion. This was not to show us how much they hate us or get a proxy revenge for Zarqawi.

Terrorism functions by instilling terror, by manipulating responses by targeting innocents.

They watch our news closer than we do, people. Terrorism depends on conscripting an army from the enemy population by making us do their work for them out of fear. Fear for our own safety, or in reaction to countermeasures taken... over-reactions and oppression associated with the efforts to stop the terrorists.

What do they hope to accomplish? They know how we reacted to the accusations about Haditha. More of that would be good for them. Maybe they'd score some counter-action by the young men's families, sure to get national coverage if they blame the US for actions freely taken by the terrorists. If they can energize the anti-war faction to greater and louder calls for withdrawl it would be worth it right there.

A whole lot of people are going to step up and willingly take the roles that the terrorists want them to take.

Wanna bet one of them is named Murtha?

Comments

Anonymous said…
So tell us: Why does the U.S. use torture?
Anonymous said…
Anywhere got torture... So what's reasonable? :D
Synova said…
The US practices torture the same way Saddam goes on hunger strikes.

He doesn't. Skipping a meal or two is not a hunger strike.

Nor is "unpleasant" a reasonable definition of "torture." Nor is humiliation "torture" or insults or threats or confinement.

The outrage about torture has been all used up on misbehavior that doesn't even come close to being real torture so that when we actually have an example of horrific barbarism the only thing some people can do is use it as a tool to bash the US, yet again, for "torturing people".

If you can hear of two young men who were captured, brutally mangled, dismembered, defiled, and then beheaded and the first thing that comes to your mind is using that horror to slap your country as "doing the same thing" because they *embarassed* someone...

What do the terrorists have to do to earn some condemnation? Move to America and become citizens and then sneer at someone?
Anonymous said…
I think WW and Scope were referring to the use of panties over the head or the flashing of a females thong torture. Both of these practices have long been noted in the civilized world as barberic atrocities. I understand the Geniva Conventions on treatment of prisoners will be updated to ban the practice of using panties as a means of coercing prisoners to give information on beheaders.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...