Gerard,

Thanks for the warning about watching the videos. I took the advice and skipped it. Reading the description was sufficient to get the picture. There's a special place in hell for the kind of monsters who would do this and I hope we help them get there very fast.

Regards,

Richard

A friend served and was a captive in Viet Nam, and said he'd seen nothing there more disgusting and brutal than what we are facing from these scum. I personally cannot watch or even discuss in detail these outrages because I then have nightmares that last for months. But having lived through some horrors myself, I don't need to be convinced. Perhaps others should watch and be sickened, if that is what is needed to break through their denial.

Jihad threatens our lives, our civilization. It is an expression of all that is barbaric and depraved and hopeless in the souls of men.

Unless we want all our men to suffer what has been done to these men, to so many people already in this ghastly war, we must stop with the appeasement and hesitation. Unless we want our youngest children slaughtered, our girls raped and used for breeding stock and every older woman ground to death in slavery, we must find a fighting spirit.

Do the war protesters truly believe that this fight will not be brought to us if we don't fight it elsewhere? Can they so totally ignore the lessons of Hitler and every other tyrant ever to defile our beautiful earth? They only stop when they are stopped. And if we don't stop them, who will?

Western democracies are the strongest and most righteous societies on earth. Of course the Jihadists hate and fear us and seek to destroy us. If they succeed, Earth will suffer another Dark Age and the lives of billions will be blighted or lost.

Does the left hate humanity so much that they actually want this? How in the name of God can they explain themselves?

I did see some pictures captured from the video. Nothing I have seen before, from working in an ER while treating the victims of a catastrophic accident, or my brief time in a war zone, remotely compares.

This is pure, unadulterated evil.

And today I hear that President Bush has finally given in and aggreed to give these animals Geneva Convention status. This on the heals of 'admitting' that "bring it on" and "wanted: dead or alive" were 'mistakes'. Funny, I supported him because of these mistakes, not in spite of them.

Powerline notes that the MSM barely covered the torture and mutilation of PFC Thomas and PFC Menchaca, while devoting untold inches of copy to Haditha and Abu Ghraib, leading me to ask if it's still reasonable to call journalists "patriots" when they're manifestly rooting against our troops.

Ralph Peters reacts to the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling by calling for a take-no-prisoners policy, which I heartily support -- a fitting example of the law of unintended consequences, surely not quite what the plaintiffs hoped would be the reponse to their victory.

And then, as noted above, I see that the Bush Administration has caved, saying the the Geneva Conventions apply to the terrorists.

Will someone explain to me how this administration is any better than what the Dhimmicrats would inflict upon us?

This about face on coddling the jihadis, coming on the heels of the release of the video depicting the savaged bodies of our GIs is revolting, disgusting, and dishonors their sacrifice.

I am simply amazed.

Mike Lief, I cannot agree with your conclusions. My granpa often repeated the old saw, "If you lay with dogs, you get fleas."

I believe that we are the "light of the world", but how can that be if we act with the short-sighted visciousness of our enemies in Iraq.

As the most powerful and, I hope, the most just society ever to exist, restraint is an important part of who we are.

Tit for tat revenge is their mode. If indeed we are acting in the long-term interest of us and ours, we must be better.

I invite your view.

Keith --

Without trying to be too pugnacious, I've always felt the "we're better than they are" argument to be gloriously beside the point.

We may very well find their behaviors abhorrent, but to fight a war by Marquess of Queensbury Rules when your opponents routinely engage in the most vile acts of savagery puts us at a serious disadvantage, one that could leave us with little more than a feeling of smug superiority -- just before the hooded jihadi slits out throats and saws our heads off.

War is awful. But America doesn't start 'em. We finish 'em. We killed Germans and Japanese soldiers by the bushel, and then we incinerated their cities for good measure.

Were we as bad as they were? I don't think so. We all know about the Holocaust, and no one can plausibly argue that the conduct of American troops came close to the depravity of the Third Reich.

As for the Japanese, consider the Rape of Nanking. Competitions to see how many beheadings could be done before one's arms became too tired to lift the sword; bayonet practice on living Chinese; soldiers throwing babies in the air and spitting them on their bayonets.

Yes, we burned Tokyo to ashes, sent mushroom clouds boiling up into the skies over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but even then we acted to prevent greater loss of human life. We made the calculation that we must kill in order to end the killing.

That same moral calculus has utility today. I cannot accept the logic that supports the release of insurgents from Gitmo, the release of men who will return to the battlefield and kill out troops. Nor can I see the point of granting Geneva Conventions protections to brigands who are not signatories to, nor bound by the Conventions.

This reasoning feeds the contempt the jihadis feel for the West, because it is -- in essence -- suicidal.

Furthermore, our national character is most emphatically not put at risk by the brutality of war. The same GIs who visited death and destruction upon our enemies returned home, put their footlockers and seabags in the attics and basements, and resumed careers, raising kids and participating in the daily rituals of American life.

The greatest risk to our status as the "light of the world" is that we've forgotten how to fight with great skill and savagery, to destroy the enemy, not understand him, not empathize with him, but kill him.

Adm. Bull Halsey summed it up nicely in a photo that captured one of his most famous sayings. Scroll down and ponder the glorious political incorrectness of the sentiment, and its essential truth.

Mike Lief:

You are precisely correct. This ruling provides a legality and legitimacy to a group of people who have already placed themselves beyond the pale.

I believe the saying is "know your enemy." It isn't "sympathize and weep" for them. That there is an element here in the US that believes exactly that shows just how far gone segments of our society are. Deluded comes to mind as an initial descriptive, and descends from there.

War is not a game and is not pretty. Nor is the rest of the world some foreign version of a privileged American suburb. Yet the opinions of the Left seem to state exactly that.

They only need to be "understood." We don't need to fight wars; how evil of us if we do.

My God.

Jeff, feel free to 'pugnate' at will.

We do and have "started wars". How well we have finished,if at all, a few of our wars is open to debate.

My point is this:

If indeed this present confict between us and certain segments of Islamic fundalmentalists can be classified as a war, it is (as advertised) a very different type of war than we have ever fought.

We can't win this by securing territory or wearing down a foreign government. That would be way too easy.

While the hard-core Islamic activists will, in all likelihood, never be satiated, we can go a long way in drying up the "feeder bands" that enable these villians.

Or we can go a long way in activating more feeder bands, which seems to more of what is happening.

We have gotten really good at killing people. Sometimes it necessary and appropriate to our long-term interests. Sometimes its not.

btw, I am in no way advocating "being soft" on those identifiable thugs who have harmed Americans, or others for that matter.

But if we do not find a way to limit the collateral damage some of our action cause, we might never be able to accomplish anything positive.

Keith --

I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that we create jihadis bent on destroying us as a result of what we do -- they want to kill us because of who and what we are: infidels, rich and powerful beyond all explanation, given our libertine lifestyle and rejection of Islam.

We will never be able to eliminate the creation of jihadis, because their faith demands war against the unbelievers. Therefore, accomodation and compromise are unattainable. The only viable alternatives are submission to Islam (no thank you!) or constant and forceful resistance.

Haven't watched the video, but I will tomorrow. I watched the Daniel Pearl one, the Nick Berg, the recent Russian hostages one. With so much media flitting in our eyes and ears, I see no reason to flinch from reality - which "reality" is only a short series of moving images, anyway.

The first time I saw any footage of this stuff, it was of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia (by a long sword). That's one good thing I can say about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

If video footage were available of Nazi extermination camps in 1941, 42, 43, would that have more cohesively unified the American publc around that war? Is it a matter of information dissemination? Or human nature (vigilance vs. laziness)? Or leadership? All of it, I guess.

(Hi, via All Things Beautiful; have been a lurker for a while. Enough of that.)

Mike you are correct, to a point, in that there is a core of extremists that will never stop hating us. They are professional jihadis, if you will. We must find them and eliminate them. Period.

Still, the literature and the reports that I have surveyed, show me that terrorist recruitment seems to be less aided by our domestic behaviors and more by our actions over seas.

The recruitment videos I have seen have never shown buxomly blondes jiggling away while playing beach volleyball. No. They more often show American armored personnel carriers rolling down the streets of Islam, bomb damage, a confused mother decrying the results of a no-knock visit to her house by GIs, and/or claims of torture and rape.

I have worked around kids from Islamic countries enough to know that their "default setting” is to like America and much of our various lifestyles; quite often liking us more than their brethren from other Arabic lands.

... in that there is a core of extremists that will never stop hating us. They are professional jihadis, if you will. We must find them and eliminate them. Period.

Somewhat of a myth. Sure there is a "driving force" and a bunch of hard-core types at the center of this war against non-Islamics, but it is foolish to think it is some few extremists. The current mindset throughout the Muslim world is supportive of this mindless slaughter and their support is not only of the cheerleading kind. Nobody from the PC crowd wants to admit it, but what we have is a now-hijacked religion that is driving millions of its followers to acts of violence with the promise of Paradise for martyrdom. And they are wide-spread around the globe.

Still, the literature and the reports that I have surveyed, show me that terrorist recruitment seems to be less aided by our domestic behaviors and more by our actions over seas.

That's just wrong. These people are responding to the fact that their mullahs have called for a holy war. They don't even much care what our response is. They have in mind world-domination by their bogus religious ideas and you have two choices - submit or die.

The recruitment videos I have seen have never shown buxomly blondes jiggling away while playing beach volleyball. No. They more often show American armored personnel carriers rolling down the streets of Islam, bomb damage, a confused mother decrying the results of a no-knock visit to her house by GIs, and/or claims of torture and rape.

Really? No kidding? You could knock me over with a feather. You mean they would actually make up videos of propaganda to recruit more jihadis? And they would blame their own sorry state of affairs on Americans? Perhaps we should be kinder to them. You first.

I have worked around kids from Islamic countries enough to know that their "default setting” is to like America and much of our various lifestyles; quite often liking us more than their brethren from other Arabic lands.

You just keep believing that hogwash. Muslims HATE our lifestyle. They HATE everything we stand for. And they will either force submission to their screwball "rules" or they will die trying. Time for amateur analysts like you to make good on your analysis. Go on over to Iraq. Go to an "insurgent" stronghold and tell them you want to be their friends. You won't have to report back on your results - we'll be seeing them on a scratchy video as they saw off your head with a rusty knife all the while claiming that "God is Great!"

Michael, you have a fascinating way of styling a reductio ad absurdum argument. No. Muslims don’t hate us just because they are Muslims. Nineteen year old boys aren’t being seduced to terrorism, in most cases, just on the word of a mullah.

If you have a chance, check out this story from this morning. It is undoubtedly not the last word on recruitment, but it is insightful.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5550697

If you have a chance, check out this story...

Sorry, I never consider anything from the npr as close to reality - just another taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda forum. Believe your nutty ideas if you want to, but the truth is easy enough to see. Denial won't make it go away. Appeasement won't either. Trying to tut-tut and harumph it away isn't going to work. Any demonstration of weakness IS what encourages more attacks.

Many innocent people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the surviving populace got the point.

There are those of us who are beginning to believe that Teheran and Pyongyang should be the next attention getting occasion.

We are a helpful people. Should we not assist those who desire martyrdom?

I suggest you all read Melanie Phillips's book 'Londonistan' which is a timely tome about just how deeply the jihadists have bitten into Western society and the likely consequences. A very brave expose, given the murderous nature of those she exposes. See: http://www.melaniephillips.com/

Her home page facilitates access to both American and English editions.

Sorry, I never consider anything from the npr as close to reality

Even the report today that certain aspects of our economy is doing better than expected? I'll make note.

You are so willing to prejudge and dismiss information that may not fully support your expert and roundly researched views.

I'm glad our political leadership doesn't act like that.

No, wait....hmmm.

Even the report today that certain aspects of our economy is doing better than expected? I'll make note.

That is supposed to have some relevance to whether the npr is a liberal mouthpiece? Come on, even you can do better than that.

You are so willing to prejudge and dismiss information that may not fully support your expert and roundly researched views.

If it comes from the npr, I can do without it - no matter what it says. They aren't about to "inform" me on any subject that I can't get better and more accurate information from somewhere else. Then I don't have to listen to npr's (as Einstein put it) "cackling of geese."

I'm glad our political leadership doesn't act like that.

Your political leadership does. John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Howard Dean, et. al., ALL behave in that manner and their followers gobble up their fetid droppings like candy.

No, wait....hmmm.

Your limp-wristed attempt at irony is sadly lacking. But I guess that's all you have left. Even the head-choppers don't agree with you and even though you seem to like to defend their behavior by trying to blame it on America, they would show you no mercy if they were able to get their hands on you. As a matter of fact, they despise weaklings and excuse-makers.

Keith G.

Consider that the 9/11 attacks occurred before we went into Iraq. There is a basic reason that the Muslims are opposed to us. And not only us, but some others as well. Have you heard about the bombings in India? India, the last time I looked is not engaged in Iraq. In fact it’s not engaged anywhere. The problem is, they are not followers of Islam. They don’t pray five times a day, don’t dress “modestly,” and don’t follow the dictates of Mohammad.

It may be difficult for a non-religious person to understand, but the very things that America exports so well – its moral values – is what repulses the followers of Islam. The kinds of values you find in virtually any Western video are repellent to Islam. Islam finds our sexual mores repellent Islam finds our materialism repellent. Islam finds our economic system repellent. Islam teaches its followers that you are an infidel who is to be subdued and converted. And Islam has the cash, the committed followers and the sincere belief that death is but a transition to a better life, that they are willing to kill you and as many of your fellows as it takes to convert you to their faith.

You may not, from the viewpoint of an “enlightened” member of the 21st century NPR generation believe this; dismiss it as rubbish, but read your history. Islam has always and everywhere been a warrior faith. Spread by the sword and enforced by the sword. And it’s rather ironic that the sword, the butcher’s knife is still being used, aided by Semtex and the modern addition of explosive cars and vests and the odd fuel laden jet aircraft.

The challenge for the West is to find the courage to realize the truth, face the foe and have the courage of those, who in times past, realized the peril and faced it.

KeithG:

See what the people dying for your right to listen to NPR think about you and your group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9D8BPTmjc

These boys are living every day what Michael is trying to tell you about the fundamentalists--the truth that you don't want to believe.

Believe.

From a news report today on the Bombay bombings:

BOMBAY, India (AP) - Indian police on Thursday detained about 350 people for questioning in the Bombay train bombings amid suspicion that Kashmiri militants could be linked to the attacks that killed at least 200 people.

The detentions came as a man claiming to represent al-Qaida said the terror network had set up a wing in Kashmir and praised Tuesday's bombings.

A senior intelligence official said the government was taking the claim seriously and authorities were trying to trace a call the man made to a Kashmiri news service.

What exactly did the people of Bombay do to "ask" for this attack? Why is Al Qaeda spreading its vampire wings over the Indian subcontinent? How did the Indians "manufacture" terrorists bent on killing hundreds of innocent commuters?

The answers are clear. Al Qaeda just likes killing anybody who they perceive as not bowing to their demands for submission to Islam. India, America, France, England, Spain, Indonesia, wherever these murderers operate, death and destruction follow - and there is no way to appease them. Nothing we can to to get them to stop outside of destroying them.

First comment goes to AskMom:
"The left" does not hate humanity at all, and for you to make the statement that you did does nothing to bring peace to the world. It only feeds toward more and more hatred all around. The acts committed by the Jihadists are horrific. Nobody would dispute that, least of all a person of liberal inclination. America would be a lot stronger, and a lot more likely to defeat the enemy if people like you would stop trying to demonize other good Americans who's point of view is not a carbon copy of your own. Open your mind and you might learn something.

fretless: Bush did not "give in". What he did was to finally agree to honor his oath of office, which is to act in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. If you are truly a patriotic American, which is what I believe you would like us all to believe, then you must appreciate the wisdom of our "founding fathers" when they created the separation of powers principle. We don't flush the Constitution just because we're at war.

Mike Lief: Please enlighten us on how it is that you are so sure that every prisoner being held at Gitmo is, in fact, a Jihadi, terrorist, enemy combatant, or whatever you want to call it? The fact is, a whole bunch of people were rounded up and locked away during a time of very hightened tension and emotion, and then any of them who might in fact be innocent were denied any avenue of due process. I don't know of anyone who is saying "just open up the gates and let 'em all go." However, if some innocent people were locked up by mistake then any decent human being would want to identify these people and set them free.

BTW: "Dhimmicrats?" Don't you know that name-calling is a sign of a weak mind? You are trying to set Americans against each other rather than trying to find common ground. I am sure the Jihadis would heartily approve.

Christopher: So the ends justify the means, huh? That's exactly what the barbaric Jihadists are thinking. What is the ultimate outcome that you desire? Peace and security for America? Good! What kind of peace and security do you think you are going to get if you advocate denying basic human rights to others? One day you or someone you love might be "others" in someone's eyes. Will it still be ok to toss basic rights? Human rights are either for everybody or they are for nobody.

Michael: "Muslims HATE our lifestyle. They HATE everything we stand for."

Oh, I get it! That explains the MILLIONS of Muslims who are living in this country and working as engineers, scientists, computer designers, physicians, and just about any other kind of profession. Yeah, I'm sure that somebody must have FORCED them to live in those nice homes and to drive those Lexus automobiles. You sound like you're channeling Rush. Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just play back?

Dave M --

Mike Lief: Please enlighten us on how it is that you are so sure that every prisoner being held at Gitmo is, in fact, a Jihadi, terrorist, enemy combatant, or whatever you want to call it?

The fact is, a whole bunch of people were rounded up and locked away during a time of very hightened tension and emotion, and then any of them who might in fact be innocent were denied any avenue of due process.

I don't know of anyone who is saying "just open up the gates and let 'em all go." However, if some innocent people were locked up by mistake then any decent human being would want to identify these people and set them free.

I don't a buy the premise. First, there is no need for "certainty," as this is War and not a lawschool exam question.

Second, the inmates at Gitmo were not "locked up at a time of heightened tension and emotion," they were captured and imprisoned during a War. As has been previously mentioned, it is lawful under the inapplicable Geneva Conventions to summarily execute unlawful combatants, which is probably even less forgiving of mistakes then simply jailing them.

Third, "due process" has no rightful place in this discussion. These are not American citizens, and this is not a peacetime proceeding dealing with a violation of American criminal law. Terrorists, jihadis, unlawful combatants and brigands have no due process rights -- given that "international law" allows a their lives to be terminated on the battlefield without any due process.

As for your final appeal to "any decent person," I apologize for sounding ... contemptuous, but that strikes me as a profoundly silly bit of moral preening.

Many civilians were killed during World War II, many of whom were probably not active participants in the hostilities, but may have been even opposed to the actions of their homelands.

Unfortunately for them, the very nature of war does not allow for an immaculate accounting, except for that provided by the Creator when the dead face their Judgement Day.

"Reasonable doubt," "due process," "basic human rights," are all wonderful, feel-good phrases, with limited-to-no usefulness in wartime.

"Human rights are either for everybody or ... for nobody." Again, a terrible premise, a false choice, and one that files in the face of what is acceptable behavior and conduct during wartime.

The fact that you even used the above phrase betrays your lack of seriousness about defeating our enemies.

Mike Lief --

I can assure you, I am as desirous as anyone to see the true enemies of Freedom defeated. In that regard there is no difference whatsoever between you and me.

Where we differ is only in our assessments of what methods are most likely to be successful. I am willing to have a reasoned dialog on the entire question, but have seen no indication from you that you are open to that.

I stick by my statement that no decent person would wish to see an innocent bystander locked up for years with no recourse. It is not an either/or situation. The cases of the prisoners at Gitmo could be given at least a superficial review to see if any of them were, in fact, non-combatants.

Some of those locked up might even have been pro-American. Yes that's possible. By now, however, having been imprisoned for so long, they all are probably convinced that America really is the Great Satan that the Jihadists proclaim us to be.

Likewise, by blowing up their women and children, we've probably done a heck of a job converting many pro-American Iraqis into insurgents. These just don't seem like effective strategies for winning.

Dave --

The prisoners have had a "superficial review" -- it's what landed them behind barbed-wire; I object to them receiving anything more than that.

With regards to creating insurgents as a result of "blowing up their women and children," I see your point, given the vast numbers of Japanese and German insurgents plaguing our troops since 1945.

I have a difficult time understanding your strategy for "see[ing] the true enemies of Freedom defeated."

Is it because you've yet to articulate said strategy?

In the meantime, I'll settle for the age-old solution: kill the enemy in great numbers until they're willing to stop fighting.

How many enemy casualties are enough for them to get the point? And make no mistake, radical Islam is the enemy. Of everyone decent.

Turn this one around. What is the total population of Mecca, Medina, Tehran and Riyadh? I suppose now, with the spread of Islamic violence to India, Islamabad might be added to the list. The Bali bombings might add Kuala Lumpur. But there is a limit. Twenty or thirty million perhaps.

If we don't get our licks in first, the alternative is to accept civilisation's losses (New York perhaps?) and then the gloves will really be off, and a BILLION will die, and a significant portion of Earth's landmass will be unhabitable for centuries.

The Israelis have got it right. Never mind an eye for an eye, in war a head for an eye is much better.