Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Just Wondering

I wonder, will this story get as much outrage and anger in the media as this one did? I won't be holding my breath.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

12 comments:

John K said...

No Chris; It wont. Because Rueters, AP etc etc want the USA to lose. The story will and is big; but no outrage over what the Islamists did. But the outrage continues in the editorials over kicking a Koran at a prison. Go figure.

40 said...

Why would the deaths of two US servicemen not be big news? I guess I am confused. There is no comparison.

lgstarr said...

So far, the only outrage is about the "warmongers in Washington"...how can this country survive such perversions of discernment, lack of loyalty, and decades of collectivists in the public schools? When it's all gone and they wonder what happened to their freedom it will be too late for us all. May God have mercy on us all and on our soldiers.

Za said...

One has to wonder though, being sent into a situation where most military and security advisors were against invasion - the terrorists commanded the US army to do that, right?

John K said...

((being sent into a situation where most military and security advisors were against invasion - ))
Yea..and pigs fly.
Should read " all leftist military and security advisors".. except I don't know of any leftists who could qualify. Except the cowards in France.

John K said...

Amnesty International has declared June “Torture Awareness Month.”

The United Nations has declared June 26 to be “International Day in Support of Survivors and Victims of Torture.”

21 June 2006: Excerpted from the article written yesterday by Jules Crittenden pertaining to the torture and murder of our two soldiers:

There has been a great deal of international outcry about detainees’ humiliation, their exposure to barking dogs, sleep deprivation, and general discomfort, measures designed to disorient them, break their spirit and make them talk.There have been calls for investigations that continue despite ongoing investigations that have led to prosecutions.

The silence when hostages’ heads are sawn off is deafening.

Complete Article from the Boston Herald - Jules Crittenden

Za said...

Should read " all leftist military and security advisors".. except I don't know of any leftists who could qualify
That would be... oh, all the ones who said you'd need more troops as well as a solid cleanup plan? I have news articles dating from 2001 talking about it.

But glad to see you've developed a passion for rewriting history.

The silence when hostages’ heads are sawn off is deafening.
The difference is that they never promised to treat people humanely - America has.

Za said...

Heck, since John probably won't just take my word for it, here's a few samples from 2001 and 2003:

In contrast to Bush's civilian hawks, many American military officers are skeptical about using military force against terrorists... Far from deterring these self-proclaimed holy warriors, US military attacks would likely inspire them to carry out even more dangerous acts of terrorism; the effect could well be to increase recruitment and raise the stature of the terrorists in the underworld of militant Islam...
At the same time, using military force against terrorists in sovereign foreign states is likely to raise difficult legal issues. Unilateral attacks may violate international laws, including treaties against terrorism that the US has worked hard to strengthen...

The New York Review, September 19, 2001

But the plans mooted in Washington for expanding the war by an attack on Saddam Hussein that would not involve American ground forces or risk shattering the antiterror coalition Washington has constructed are not realistic. For these reasons, the use of military force is unlikely to become the centerpiece of a new US counterterrorism strategy after the Afghanistan conflict subsides. Rhetoric aside, America's "war on terrorism" will have to continue to rely on other governments to help us in arresting, prosecuting, or extraditing to the US terrorist suspects.
- The New York Review, December 17, 2001

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House.
...I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action.

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

- Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003

John K said...

I had no Idea that Tim Russert,The New York Review were "Military and Security advisors".

((Za's quote:
"most military and security advisors were against invasion"))

Za said...

Tim Russert cites "the army’s top general", and the New York Review cites ranking members of the American military.

I had no idea that you were incapable of reading.

John K said...

I had no idea you were such a total loser. No..wait; I did because it has been shown time after time.

Za said...

Coming from the guy who uses articles which quotably state that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving, to argue that the majority of Muslims want to decapitate us - doesn't hold much weight, sorry.

Although your penchant for polemics over reasonable discussion still holds strong I see.