Here's one for Bill & Marvin's Flash presentation. Trent Telenko passes this on, noting that our enemies reveal themselves in their actions, and show what they are:
"Twenty-four Iraqi children were killed by a suicide car bomber targetting US soldiers as they handed out chocolates in a Baghdad neighbourhood they had entered to warn of a possible attack. Some 20 more children were wounded in the blast, while a US soldier died and three were injured, hospital and US sources said."
And...
"Abu Hamed whose 12-year-old son Mohammed was killed, said: "I was at home. I heard the explosion. I rushed outside to find my son. I only found his bicycle." He found his son in the hospital morgue. "I recognized him from his head. The rest of the body was completely burnt." Among the young bodies at the morgue, some headless or missing limbs, two children still clutched blue chocolate wrappers."
Contemplate that picture for a minute. This was done deliberately, knowingly, by someone who could see clearly what was in front of him and knew exactly what he was doing.
"You can only call the ghouls who did this evil" says Trent.
Too true. Hostes Humani Generis.
So what do you call the folks who can't (or won't) understand the concept that these people are evil, or deny that evil exists? And what role do they play in all this?
Was it Hannah Arendt who coined the term "the banality of evil?" All the NYC and SanFran (and wherever else) lefty cocktail set who always ask "Why do they hate us?" or worse, secretly hope the ghouls somehow win, fit the category. The ovens are never meant for them, they believe, and in the coming commie world government, they believe they will all be commissars. Little do they realize, should what they desire come to pass, a scimitar in chop chop square or a section of quicklime filled ditch awaits...
It is evil to use kids as human shields or informers. Why else do you think the soldiers give candy to the kids
You have a very warped POV "a".
a - you keep using that word. ("evil") I do not think you know what it really means.
A.L.
Is it "Evil" when American bombs kill children (lots), or when soldiers fire upon a car and kill innocent people in front of their kids?
Sandusky, intent is a component of any rational ethical system.
The above comments indicate why the Democratic Party is falling apart.
A fundamental inability to acknowledge evil, and oppose it. It reaches to all areas:
*Crime ... Dems/Media (the same really) think there is too little crime and we need to release more criminals. They'd rather see Karl Rove in jail than Joseph Duncan executed.
*National Security ... Dems hold that the US has no right to self defense, and that anything our enemies do is justified.
Why is this? Because avoiding moral judgements obviates the need to take action to fight evil.
The Dem Party was not always so. From FDR's determination to fight Hitler, to the Civil Rights movement, Dems proudly defined what evil was and fought it. However, after the Vietnam War Dems are unable to define ANYTHING as evil, anywhere, anytime. Saddam, Castro, Mugabe, bin Laden, Basayev, Taylor, Miladec, Milosevic, all have their Democratic defenders.
Actually, AL, people like 'a' know exactly what evil means.
That is why they keep abusing it and calling everything they don't like "Hitler class evil." It is an on-going attempt to remove the real meaning from the word.
Sharp, objective, right/wrong, good/bad descriptions of human actions hurts their post-modern, everything is a subjective and complicated shades of grey, heads.
I view Lefties who go around calling everthing "Nazi" or "Hitler class evil" as the new Holicaust deniers.
Ok, I was disturbed enough by the story, but more so by these posts, RR and AL excepted.
Do not go there that since Viet Nam Democrats can not call anything evil. There is plenty of irresponsiblity and the banality of evil on the part of the Republican party. Lott, Gingrich and Bush as governor objected to the use of American troops abroad during that time frame. Look at how hard they fought getting involved in Balkans.
Name names Jim Rockford do not call them. I will agree or disagree but the blanket statements will not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
PS I have a big problem with anybody who f@#$% w/ children. this includes Rabbis, Priests, the relative next door whom is more often than not heterosexual and anyone else whom exploits them in any fashion. Getting blown is really to good for the terrorists.
a's use of "evil" reminds me of the book 1984 - changing the meaning of words so they can't be used in un-approved contexts.
Sorry, but the US army goesn't give out candy because it has a good heart. There is a tactic behind it. Namely to use the kids as a human shield which is despicable. Just as despicable as bombing the soldiers surrounded by kids.
ps. In this kinds of wars the battle is about the people. If they intermingle with the counter insurgants force than they win. If they don't that the revolutionairies win. Making them intermingle can be done by giving candy to the kids so it is for the insurgants important that that doesn't happen.
Sandusky, intent is a component of any rational ethical system.
Fascinating. So when we firebombed Tokyo in 1945, we didn't "intend" to kill any children? We just knew there were a lot of children in Tokyo and that we were preparing to burn it down?
Don't rely on that definition of "intent" to stay out of prison, is my free legal advice.
a., nice to have you explain and justify the deliberate murder of children, and show where you're coming down. The historical note that American forces seem to give candy to kids wherever they go (incl. to German children in WW2), and that they had entered the neighbourhood specifically to warn it and keep its members safe, never hits your radar.
The short step from believing that all American actions have an evil motive (hpowever ridiculous that belief must be to justify itself), over to apologia for people who deliberately murder large numbers of children with malice aforethought, is nicely encapsulated in your answer. Its arc neatly defines the vast majority of today's Left.
The religion/politics of 170 million skulls can always use a few more, I guess.
Anderson, nice to know which side your legal advice came down on in World War 2. There was a lot of that going around, I understand, especially before the war.
World War 2 was a modern industrial total war. Read this article to begin to grasp what that means.
Now, the people flying those B-29 bombers did not deliberately set up a situation where children would gather, then drive with open eyes to that point and detonate a bomb to kill them with malice aforethought. So yes, intent matters, and no, there is no equivalence. Not from the Luftwaffe over London. Not from the USAF over Tokyo. The Japanese and Nazis were considered war criminals, but it was for other kinds of conduct.
But ponder this: the above link describes the modern total war framework. It has not gone away, though its costs have been raised significantly higher by the presence of nuclear weapons in the background.
Now contemplate that:
[1] Terrorism of the kind al-Qaeda and its allies demonstrate is effectively an ongoing declaration of Total War. Tokyo and Dresden demonstrate what that means. In some cases, al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies are clearly engaged in something a step beyond - Genocidal War.
[2] The essence of asymetric warfare is the waging of Total War or Genocidal War, in the expectation that the other side will stop short of playing the conflict by the Total War rules.
[3] At some point, as long as one side of a conflict remains committed to Total War, the current level of rising technological proficiency means a future 3 Conjectures scenario trends toward 100% odds.
The Islamists' actions in Iraq, which you seek to excuse and minimize with your facile and ignorant tu quoque argument, are evil even by the standards of Total War.
Your display of 'la belle indefference' and inability to grasp that concept, however interesting it may be as a psychological commentary, also have the practical effect (as is so often has, historically) of bringing a real and very mutual Total War with a determined enemy that much closer.
Should that day come, you and those like you will be remembered with the same contempt attached to Oxford Peace Resolution of 1934 and its like-minded supporters - whose equally sordid moral equivalence helped to create the very situation you had the temerity to write about.
It's hard to comment on such things. The horror of the acts is so extreme that whatever you try to say about it becomes ridiculous.
I do not believe that whether numerous Westerners, including dear and old friends, "get it" matters any more. Nor does it matter why they never "get it". As long as they aren't quite numerous enough to derail the war, it will be won without and despite and against them.
In the face of absolute evil, what matters is to win the war, to annihilate the evildoers and guard the children. That's all.
The bombing of London by he Nazi's was a clear example of a war crime. They bombed London to break the will of the British people and not because they wanted to destroy the British potential to fight war. If they wanted to do they would have continued to bomb Coventry and the airfields. It is even often sad to be a bad military decision because it didn't destroy as much of the military as bombing the factories.
I don't say it is an evil motive. Selfpresevation is rarely evil. But they don't give out candy without reason. And feel good is not a reason you normally find in the army. The US army gives candy so the local civilian population likes them more and because you have a human shield with kids around you. That the insurgents will take that collatoral damage is not unsurprising and those deaths can only be attributed by the American policy to give out candy.
The religion/politics of 170 million skulls can always use a few more, I guess.
Are you claiming i'm a communist. I spit on their kind and their neo con offspring.
Actually, "a", it's surprisingly common for American servicemen to do things for the local population simply to make them feel good.
Case in point: the Berlin Airlift "Candy Bomber"
Victor Davis Hanson's column today addresses the lefty attitudes in this thread:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp
Total war is not Genocidal war. Two totally different concepts.
Total war is the complete use of your civilian capabilities for the war effort.
Genocidal war is the large scale killing of your enemy civilian population.
The Germans fought a genocidal war in Namibia but they didn't fought a Total war.
The Iraq war is a clear example of a colonial war and in such it would be extremly surprising to see America fight a total war. Nor is it likely that the Iraqi's can fight a genocidal war because their are not enough civilian Americans to do that. Especially because colonial masters don't count as civilians but as illegal immigrants or illegal combatents
David Blue (#17) has the right of it - and this thread has "Exhibit A" as to why.
Joe, you didn't notice that after justifying the murder of children earlier, "a" is now justifying the murder of the any remaining civilians.
Robin - it's not that I didn't notice. It's that, having shown his hand so clearly, I've said all I think needs to be said. His own words condemn him, as does his accustomed habit of simply making 'facts' up (i.e. what is a war crime). Res ipsa loquitur; what is there to add?
Indeed, Joe. The thing speaks for itself.
Odd, here I was thinking individual soldiers were giving out candy. "a" is implying that the US Army has a policy of doing so. I would be interested to see if "a" has any proof that orders were given to that effect.
Though I suspect it's more likely that "a" is projecting his own sickening depravity upon the US Army.
Do you really think they can give a part of their ration without consent. Especially if it is done on a large scale. You do realise that they could also have shipped bullets instead of candy.
"a", at times you make statements that make me wonder about you. The above is a good example. Where would anyone get the idea that the US Army would require permission to be given for a soldier to give candy away?
What world do you actually live in, "a"? Because it isn't within two astronomical units of my world.
a frantically dodges with:
"Do you really think they can give a part of their ration without consent."
You really think they can't? Cite the regulation that forbids it. Add it to the rest of your homework.
Well?
Should i point to all the cases in the history of the world where soldiers were reprimanded (and worse) for giving food away?
It is also not exactly cheap and easy to move food to the battlefield. Spilling it on kids is not something that comes naturally to an army.
"Should i point to all the cases in the history of the world where soldiers were reprimanded (and worse) for giving food away?"
No, you should point to specific cases where the United States Army reprimands soldiers for giving away candy (not food, though that's a nice try) in Iraq. Otherwise you're trying another fallacy with a fancy Latin name assigned to it. Probably meaning "it happens there so it must happen here" in English.
"a", your comments are getting more bizarre.
Candy is high energy food. Claiming that it isn't food is just plain weird.
a, theres noting in US militray regulations that would prevent US soldiers from spendin there own hard earned money on as much candy as they want and then giving it to whoever they want.
Was the US army also using German, French, and Japanese children as human shields in the aftermath of WWII? Or even dutch children for that matter?
The thing is 'a' you have this huge worldview built up in your mind and you 'fix' all incoming data into it. It's worse though, when the incoming data doesn't fit you worldview, like Sistani being a different kind of Shia than the Iranian mullahs, it's just thrown out without even being considered.
Another panelist talked about the many tasks of a squad leader and the difficulties a heavy combat load presented.
“The loads have at least two kits,” said 1st Lt. Nathan P. Ruge, platoon commander, 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. “Soccer balls, candy, dolls (for humanitarian and community relations efforts), plus the combat load slows us down,” he said. “We can not catch the Iraqis who take potshots at us and run.”
Reading this you can only conclude that giving toys and candy is of military use. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to carry this while they are patroling under potential fire.
Each day Baker and 1st Platoon Marines hit the streets in their company’s area of operations and conduct missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Children in the neighborhoods the Marines patrol through have come to associate their presence with presents, he said.
“We’re always giving them candy and toys,” he said. “They’ll usually come running when they see us because they know we’ll give them something.”
They give them candy every f*cking day. No wonder that kids hang around them as a human shield. Claiming that this is not policy is claiming that the pedofile gave candy away because he loves children (in a non sexual way)
And than i forget to include the money quote
“We did some good today because those children are going to remember the kindness we showed to them,” he said.
The US army is responsible that those kids have been killed as collatoral damage.
"a", your attempts to recast as malevolent our forces' attempts to improve public relations between our forces and the population they are patroling among remains quite despicable.
You do realize that we, among the blogs, sent those toys don't you?
So your just as guilthy.
attempts to improve public relations between our forces and the population
Attempts to buy off the population so we can steal their natural wealth
...and "a" only has handwaving and projection upon others as proof. What a surprise.
Not.
I'm getting bored with this.
If you don't want to see the truth that so be it.
Using children as shields against jihadists is like using a bloody steak as a shield against a swarm of sharks. The whole idea just doesn't make sense.
"a", frankly I got bored with your falsehoods a long time ago. I'm glad to hear you are finally boring yourself.
I know there is nothing much i can say to help all the controversy, i mean i'm only 15 but as a friendly suggestion we shouldn't sit around mourning the losses because it makes everything worse. I know I pray. It may seem stupid and pointless at a time like this. It may even seem like a falsehood. This probably sounds cheesy but praying for the war to be over is non-existant. The greater power, gods, God whoever if at all, answer in the way that is best for people. I know this from experiance. I guess you could say i've had some mericals happen in my life. I mean if the whole country sat downand prayed I think it would help. I'm not saying you have to pray. To me just saying one every night for the children in Iraq is somthing. I believe that things will work eachother out. Somthing called equivalent exchange. If a very horrible thing happens a good thing comes out of this. It's not right to use kids as meatshields I know that. But if you think about it you can't really just march over there to iraq and the middle-east and say. "STOP! This isn't right." Unless you are a soldier. So if you want to take my advice go ahead. But if you think I'm just stating nonsense please keep it to yourself. I believe every one has a light in them and every one deserves a chance. Even the terrorists. So pary for them, the kids and the soldiers if you wish.
~jii