Well, at least Kos didn't say "Screw 'em"

Well, he might have, but who can rely on it staying there?

Beat ya to the Screw Him reference.

I didn't link to the video except indirectly (I linked to the LGF thread).

Paul-

You won't find a link from lefty sites nor will you hear an apology from any Muslim states nor will you hear a word of sympathy from "swimming Teddy". There is a reason.

The left thought they had finally found the silver bullet that would take Bush down. Berg puts a crimp in that.

...And you won't hear any commentary about how this is damaging to the Muslim cause, and which Muslim leaders/clerics should resign because of it.

Paul,

God forbid that I should "bang the drum" about Abu Gharib, but the original post that you're pointing to was put up before I read about the beheading. Not to mess up your theory or anything.

Ted you just damned yourself.

So after you heard about the beheading it did not warrant its own post you just tacked on an update to something you already wrote?

Yeah man, you are were just a lump of seething rage.

Hell, you just proved my theory.

I'm not exactly a major lefty blog (only at Slithering Reptile level), but I'm what you might call saddened by the video, rather than outraged. I linked to Hannity's grab of the video, rather than yourself.

Why am I saddened by the beheading, but outraged by Abu Ghraib? Part of it is a subtle racism -- I expect Americans to be civilized, but I've learned to expect the worst from Islamic fundamentalists.

I'm also outraged over Abu Ghraib because the men and women who abused the prisoners were representing me when they did it ... and I rather resent that.

That's a fairly decent sized disconnect right there.

Christopher:

Could you elucidate please?

When the disparity between the conduct is as stark as it is here, to draw an equally large disparity in your reaction to it (but in the OPPOSITE direction) displays at best, a moral compass that isn't quite calibrated properly.

Whether it's from party loyalty or something else, I will not speculate, merely noting the disconnect between the conduct and the reaction to it.

Funny how you don't mention how the right-wing didn't have a role in this:

[The rest of this was snipped by the editor. Paul, not Kevin.]

I'm all for heathy debate. I've argued that, to a point, partisanship is a good thing.

However, I'm not going to let whacky conspiracy theories about the right-wing having this guy killed get any ink here.

Keep the tin-foil hat stuff at Indy and DU.

I'll forward the text to Kevin and give him the final say.

Paul

Your note is, well, noted. I think that my reaction has less to do with my party identification than with my nation-state identification.

When confronted with reprehensible conduct of people with whom I identify -- that is, American soldiers -- I have a great deal of anger toward them because they're part of the same group that I am. I don't consider myself a person who would abuse a prisoner in my care, so when I find somebody with whom I might identify (and American) conduct himself in such a manner, I have a visceral reaction because that conduct is toing to be imputed to me as an American.

There's also the novelty/shock factor -- I usually consider my fellow Americans not to be the sort who would indulge in that sort of behavior, so my emotional reaction is incredibly intense.

The Berg execution, on the other hand, elicits sadness and disappointment from me chiefly because I see it as a continuation of existing hostilities -- after Pearl, suicide bombers, and Fallujah, I have been conditioned to expect Islamic extremists to act as the individuals in that video act.

Make no mistake, however -- in both cases, I expect the people who perpetrated the abuses to be punished appropriately. I expect the Abu Ghraib soldiers to be disciplined -- probably through prison and expulsion from the service -- and their commander to be reprimanded. I also expect my government to evaluate its policies and determine why the Abu Ghraib guards believed their behavior was acceptable.

I also expect the Berg executioners to be punished. I expect them either to die on the field of battle or, if they are captured, for them to be put on trial, their guilt to be ascertained, and a penalty -- probably execution or life imprisonment -- to be extracted.

Why on earth did you suggest that I "lamented" the idea that it would make us dedicated to beating the terrorists? I meant no such thing.

My point was clear: barbaric acts like this will not accomplish al-Qaeda's aims of beating us. It will just make us mad. Likewise, barbaric acts on our part won't help us win. How did you manage to extract a partisan point from that?

Most of us have watched those science fiction movies in which an aliens from another planet invade and suddenly all of the people of the world forget their political and religious differences and unite to defeat a common enemy.

Well, the civilized world has been invaded by a monster that is so evil and dangerous it may as well be from a different planet. Yet, we still continue to let our political and religious difference stand in the way of uniting against Islamic terrorists.

Frankly, I think that if invaders from outer space did attack us, someone would point a finger at George Bush. Someone else would find a way to bring their opinion about "lefties" into the picture.

I can just imagine what Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity would have to say about it...

"If it weren't for the LIBERALS, Ronald Reagan would have put giant laser weapons on the moon the protect us."

"Hollywood liberals are in league with the aliens. If they hadn't destroyed Joe McCarthy, we would have beaten the Soviets in the 1950s and been prepared for this alien attack!"

Or, what CNN would report...

"Donald Rumsfeld addressed Congress today to explain why the U.S. was not prepared for this alien invasion. A White House memo dated March 2001 clearly spelled out the possiblity of an attack from outer space. Yet, no specific plan was formulated. Many are now calling for Rumsfeld to resign."

Can't we leave partisan politics out of this? Nick Berg was an American. He was killed by terrorists for being an American.

The terrorists don't care if you're a lefty or a neocon or an American like me who prefers to think for himself rather than ascribing to a political philosophy that has been invented by the media.

While you are counting trackback pings, Osama Bin Laden is counting the number of Americans he's killed. The terrorists don't care what Andrew Sullivan and Kos have to say. They'd kill either one of them with equal zeal.

Pennywit-

So let me make sure I understand what you’re saying:

“I'm also outraged over Abu Ghraib because the men and women who abused the prisoners were representing me when they did it ... and I rather resent that.”

Are you saying that your shame over an isolated incident of improper conduct (not death to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib - at worst a shameful display and breakdown of military discipline to which those responsible will answer in military court) takes the high moral ground to sawing, yes, sawing off an innocent American’s head in retaliation for shaming Iraqi thugs?

For your own well-being, pray that America can successfully prosecute the war on terrorism. I can’t imagine your shock if you actually came face to face with one of these persecuted ( I believe you used the term “subtle racism”) Iraqis.

And don't be mistaken, they will continue to kill Americans as long as we allow them to.

But, they do share your moral relativism - except in reverse. A bit of irony, I suppose.

Bob --

I was referring to my personal reactions as a form of "subtle racism." I expect Americans to behave better than the Muslims. It's sad that on an emotional level I believe that.

Now, to questions of "moral high ground." I don't think that the prison scandal or the Berg video occupy any sort of moral high ground over each other. By common account, many of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib shouldn't have been there. And the prison scandal, if you recall, includes killings -- that's right, killings -- of prisoners.

As for the Berg executioners? I don't condone their actions one bit. On some reptile level, I would say, "Give me those five men, give me a gun with ten bullets, and we'll see what happens." Believe it or not, I want those men dead. But my sadness and disappointment comes largely because I know that the Muslim people can do better than this. I know that there are good people in the Middle East, but they seem largely absent.

I am sad and disappointed because of the world in which we live -- a world in which five masked men abuse the name of their god, and for what? Not for some political gain, not for some bit of war, but just to slake their thirst for blood.

Nicholas Berg died because of them. A senseless, useless death.

Thank you very much, Bob. You've helped me trace my thoughts a little more. It's not the murderers' behavior that saddens me -- it's the fact that yet another person has died for the extremists' insane, blody crusade.

As a lefty of little consequence, I didn't link up for two reasons -- one, I didn't know it was available until just this moment and two, I don't intend to watch the video.

I also don't intend to watch the alleged video footage of rapes at Abu Ghraig either. I don't need to see it. It should be available publicly if others have the need to watch it, but I nearly burst out crying from seeing the burned and dismembered bodies of U.S. contractors last month. Seeing a guy decapitated is something I don't want. It happened. It's awful and atrocious.

I'm not sure what this is about. Are you just upset that more people don't want to watch someone be decapitated?

Kevin, I needed a verb and I picked "lament."

I did not call your response partisan per se but you must admit that in aggregate the reaction from the left wing bloggers was far different than the ones on the right.

-----

Fritz, I calls 'um like I sees 'um.

Don't shoot the messenger. I just noticed something and posted on it.

Three things:
1. Typical leftist reaction, actually... I'm not shocked.

2. Pennywit just seems to care more for herself than for anyone else -- feeling bad because the Abu Grahib was done representing her, as opposed to being outraged at the sheer brutality with which a fellow American was killed. The priorities are clear -- the worst things in the world are those that make her look bad, followed by those that don't.

3. Maybe I missed the sarcasm or I'm misinformed, but wasn't Nick Berg one of the contractors at whom the "Screw Them" comment was directed?

Mac asked: "I'm not sure what this is about. Are you just upset that more people don't want to watch someone be decapitated?"

No, I was just making an observation. Just like observed that you could not manage to post a comment without mentioning Abu Ghraig and even had to mention alleged video.

So my question to you: Why are lefties always more willing to highlight wrongdoing by our soldiers than our enemy?

From Pennywit's comment: "But my sadness and disappointment comes largely because I know that the Muslim people can do better than this. I know that there are good people in the Middle East, but they seem largely absent."

Uh...they seem largely absent because there isn't an ocean between them and these murderers. Terrorists don't just kill Americans. They kill anyone who doesn't support them.

You see the same thing here in the U.S. in neighborhoods that have been taken over by street gangs. No one will testify against gang members because doing so puts their lives and the lives of their family members in danger.

When you see an Iraqi dancing in the street over the corpse of an American, it may be that he is doing it to ensure that the "insurgents" know that he's on their side. It will keep his family safe from being targeted for sympathizing with Americans.

Forced demonstations have been a way of life in Iraq and Iran for decades. When Saddam wanted an anti-American rally, he got what he asked for. No one held the demonstrators at gunpoint. They simply knew what was expected of them. They went out in the street and burned our flag and then went home knowing that they'd shown the support needed to keep from being dragged off to Abu Ghraib.

Now, religious leaders, warlords, and terrorists have assumed the leadership role that has been left vacant after the removal of Saddam. The status quo hasn't changed. These people must still demonstrate the right sentiments or risk being killed. This is where we are failing the Iraqi people.

We are being timid in not swiftly eliminating every opposing threat to democracy. We fear that the Iraqis will react negatively if we act with all our force. We need to finish the job we started. Eliminate the oppostion to democracy quickly and show the Iraqi people that they are free to express their opinions without fear of reprisals from crazy clerics and bloodthirsty terrorists.

Pete:

You remark: "Pennywit just seems to care more for herself than for anyone else -- feeling bad because the Abu Grahib was done representing her, as opposed to being outraged at the sheer brutality with which a fellow American was killed. The priorities are clear -- the worst things in the world are those that make her look bad, followed by those that don't."

I'm speaking of my lowest common denominator beliefs, at the roots of my discontent. I'm also speaking to my greater identity as an American; when American soldiers misbehave, they impute their own behavior to this nation as a whole.

...and your "discontent" over having a "common denominator" with some stupid American soldiers outweighs any feelings you might have for seeing a man beheaded on video?

That's sick on a number of levels.

"I guess there was a beheading? On video? Whatever... but oh poor me! Someone wearing an American flag made the rest of America look bad!"

...speaking of making Americans look bad.

Pete:
Do I have to spell everything out? Let me put it this way: Abu Ghraib disgusts me on any number of levels. The violation of individuals. The violation of human rights. The fact that those soldiers' actions exacerbated the already difficult mission of winning "hearts and minds" in Iraq. The left-leaning politicians using this as an opportunity to grandstand. The right leaning politicians turning into apologists. The fact that something -- whether official or otherwise -- made these soldiers feel like it was acceptable to abuse prisoners that were entrusted to their care.

And, yes, I hold Americans to a higher standard of behavior because I assume that most share values congruent with my own, at least inasfar as regards human life and the dignity of the individual.

In terms of sadness vs. anger, I do speak in terms of emotion.

In terms of law and order -- far more important motivators -- I want everybody, from executioners to abusers in this Iraq war, held accountable.

So...I can't mention the other video as a point of reference? If we're counting the number of times I mentioned an atrocity commited by U.S. soldiers to the number of times I mentioned an atrocity committed by the enemy, it comes out like this: the enemy: 2/the U.S.: 1.

I'd say it's your perception that I am [or "the left," in general] more willing to highlight the U.S.' wrongdoing. Certainly, there are some on both sides of the fence that are blinded by their partisanship to that degree.

Pennywit-

I admire your voracity in arguing your points, however - and this is not meant as an insult - but, you exhibit a great naiveté where it concerns the goings on in Iraq. If it’s any consolation, however, you’re not alone.

“Now, to questions of "moral high ground." I don't think that the prison scandal or the Berg video occupy any sort of moral high ground over each other. By common account, many of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib shouldn't have been there. And the prison scandal, if you recall, includes killings -- that's right, killings -- of prisoners.”

First of all, there has yet to be ANY confirmation of killing at Abu Ghraib.

Secondly, the price of admission to cell blocks to 1-A and 1-B, where the alleged torture took place, was one or more of various charges including murder and insurgent terrorism. These are not your garden variety jaywalkers. There is a good chance that some of the prisoners in this cell block killed Americans. These are men who aren’t afraid to die but can’t tolerate shame in front of their peers – which is exactly what the interrogators intended in order to secure information that might prevent more killing of Americans.

I subscribe to the belief that some Americans don’t have the stomach for this war because the enemy falls outside the Western definitions of humanity. You may desparately want to believe that compassion will change the hearts of the terrorists but it hasn’t worked for the last 1000 years. The more we ignore the atrocities perpetrated by fundamentalist Islam, the closer they will come to our front door. I would prefer to stop them in the Middle East. I think you would too.

Lastly, there damn sure is a moral high ground here. Remember the images of people leaping to their death from the WTC? American planes were used to indiscriminately kill 3,000 Americans. America is attempting to make sure this doesn’t happen again. The terrorists have no right to the high ground.

Bob:

Whether there were killings at Abu Ghraib, it has been implied that there were killings elsewhere in the war-on-terror detainee system. Additionally, it has been strongly implied, if not outright stated, that a number of the individuals subjected to abuse were not terrorists, but rather individuals inserted into the system by error.

I don't believe that compassion is going to end the terrorists' campaign against the United States. I also don't believe that military force alone is going to solve this problem. Rather, the United States needs to implement a multi-pronged approach that starts with military action against nation-states and NGOs directly involved in attacks against the United States, continues with political pressure brought against those nations or organizations that harbor or sympathize with terrorist groups, and concludes with as many of the terrorists as possible either dead or in U.S. custody.

For the terrorists, recruitment is largely based on the perception of the United States as a huge, evil power that backs Israel and hates Muslims. Having U.S. troops indulge in abuses like those at Abu Grhaib gives the terrorist recruiters that much more fodder for their recruitment mill.

I do not advocate ignoring this Berg beheading. Believe it or not, I don't blame it on the media, on Abu Grhaib, or on anybody else. As near as I can tell, if there were no Abu Grhaib, Berg (or somebody like him) would have been gruesomely executed because the U.S. supports Israel, because the U.S. invaded Iraq, or perhaps even because the U.S. allows women to wear pants.

When I spoke of "moral high ground," I was merely comparing the two acts of execution and abuse. I really see no value in an ethical calculus that goes "20 abused Iraqis ... does that equal or exceed one gruesomely beheaded American?" Rather, I find both acts morally reprehensible.

In this war on terror, I see a very large danger: that Americans will simply learn Muslims = Evil and will simply dehumanize all Muslims regardless of those individuals' personal values.

Seys Mac: So...I can't mention the other video as a point of reference?

Nooooo. You can't (bring yourself to) mention the beheading video without mentioning the "alleged" video. That is not my opinion, that is a retelling of your actions.

It goes to my question that you ignored.

"Why are lefties always more willing to highlight wrongdoing by our soldiers than our enemy?"

You can change the topic but that is the question you refuse to answer.

Until you answer that question (for yourself), you are just living in a dream world of your own making

I'm trying to understand this. Somehow the soldiers commiting the abuse represented you? How?

They are employees.

Much like postal workers. Do you feel especially aggieved from the postal worker killings because they 'represented you'? They too, were employees of the government, exactly like the soldiers were. Are you somehow involved in the criminal actions of anyone who's employed by the government? Collective guilt?

You've got it backwards, pennywit. Those soldiers didn'r represent you, they failed you. They failed everyone who believed in them, who employed them. They should feel shame.

We, who did not abuse or countenance the abuse do not share their guilt. Or their shame

And so you continue to babble on about Abu Grhaib. Seems like you're the one who needs things spelled out, Pennywit.

Only two points to make here. First: what you're describing is significantly more than "subtle racism" -- you might as well be saying "Well, I reckon I'd expect that outta one a them damn sandn*ggers, but not out of a 'merican! You boys oughta be ashamed!"

Secondly, the aforementioned racism might be to blame, but still the severity of emotion: "saddened" over an innocent man getting decapitated versus "outraged" over some hooded Iraqi's standing on boxes.

...So how does the Berg beheading compare to, say, seeing Bambi's mother shot? The final episode of friends? Just curious -- trying to figure out just how "