Atlas Quickie Vlog

Just because

I was in the mood and CAIR makes me sick. Insane that Karen Hughes takes meetings with them. Neocon Express wants to know why  a top administration official is hanging out with CAIR, an organization which has been linked to terror, instead of hanging out with real Muslim moderates who do need to be legitimized with White House attention. Earth to White House, come in White House.

The Caged Virgin : An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Smells like Jenin: Profoundly disgusting piece on Haditha in the LA Times. This could have been written by al qaeda. (hat tip Steverino)

More thoughts on Haditha, VIEW VIDEO HERE - hat tip Stew

I don't know if the American Heroes were killed or not.  The Sunni Triangle is a horrible place.  al-Qaeda are Sunni Muslims.  Saddam Hussein is Sunni Muslim.  Saddam Hussein's hometown, Tikrit, is Sunni Muslim.  Haditha Iraq is Sunni Muslim.

Cao has the right take. More thoughts on Haditha here and here

Haditha: Who, What, When, Where, Why

Regardless of where the truth ultimately is, at this point the major media’s treatment of Haditha is little more than a literate lynch mob in a rush to judgment.

This isn’t an attempt to wiggle out of responsibility for anything that happened at Haditha by bashing the media. But, to be shocked there's gambling at Rick's, or that some innocents die in any war, especially when harboring and abetting the enemy, is ignorant and purposeful hypocrisy.

Among the only hard facts known is that the military took this incident seriously from the start by launching an investigation so thorough that even the hostile Iraqis in that village have given it respect. That’s more than media commentators give to our nation, its military, or the handful of Marines actually involved by trotting out inapplicable and inappropriate comparisons to My Lai, an exception itself, in order to bemoan and undermine our entire mission in Iraq. They can say all they want that they are trying to uncover facts, and they are, but the prominence and surrounding fluff is simply irresponsible.

Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard "Haditha Handwringing" here, "the last thing we need in response  to Haditha is handwringing liberalism." (hat ip Bruce H.)

On the Homeland Security Cuts to New York. From The New York Times  (hat tip John L)

NYC:  From Riches to Rags in Just One Day

Yesterday's early news would have caused one to believe that New York City was rolling in dough---or, more accurately, dinero.

Alan D. Aviles, the president of New York City's Health and Hospitals Corporation,  went out of his way to let illegal aliens know that local hospitals would be there to serve them, with no questions asked.   

Aviles even  issued a letter to city residents in which he advised immigrants that local hospitals would keep all information, including immigration status, confidential.

However, New York's open wallet policy for criminals there illegally does not quite square with the city's reaction to the new Homeland Security budget. 

More here in the NY Daily News

'The city was stunned yesterday to find that its share of federal anti-terror funds was slashed nearly in half by bureaucrats who said it has no national icons to protect and lousy defense plans.

The city will get $125 million from the feds' high-threat bank account, a 40% cut from the $207 million it received last year. The Homeland money pot was smaller overall this year, but the rest of the country is being trimmed just 14%.'

New York's Local, State Tax Burden Tops the Nation
By MARK JOHNSON
ALBANY - New York State tops the country in taxes collected by the state and local governments, siphoning off $5,260 per person a year, a business group said yesterday. New York's combined local and state tax burden was 53% above the national...

On Illegal immigration: Broken Borders, Tonight  on Lou Dobbs

Washington Times columnist Diana West says the Senate immigration bill could be the end of America. She tells us why on Lou Dobbs here

Comments

[Underzog]

All the facts aren't in yet with this Haditha story, yet the so-called mainstream media is going crazy over it and is salivating at the chance to besmirch our crusade in Iraq. Why doesn't the Liberal media be honest and say "Ooooh! The Haditha story! I'm breaking out the k y jelly right now."? With the way these Bolsheviks in the media are acting, it has probably come to that.

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here!"

[Richard Davis]

BZ on the vlog!

About a month ago, I talked extensively with 2 young Marines who had just returned from Iraq (Aug 05 - Apr 06) and they told me, it's a common tactic for the terrorists go into civilian homes and threaten to kill or rape the women (of any age) if the men of the house (again, any age) don't help them kill US soldiers.

These terrorists bully the innocent Iraqi families into helping them, they force them under threat of death into remaining silent about the IED's they just buried on their streets or neighborhoods,

Or they make the young boys go outside and tell them when the "Americans are coming" while they hold the kids family hostage.

This is what's happening, this is the kind of stuff the US civilians don't know.

Our military will reach the point where we can't shoot at anybody....

Do we want to reach the point where our guys can't shoot anymore? That's where we are headed.

For 2 days at Fleet Week, I talked to a bunch of Marines who just returned from Iraq and all the stories had much in common,

"we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys"
"the bad guys use threats and terror to make the good guys fight us",
"Hidathi is a cesspool, you can't trust anybody"
"the whole place is full of terrorists and bad people"
"They hide behind women and children"

the Marines said - they do all they can to never harm the civilians, even leave a area where they know the bad guys are, because they don't want to hurt innocent people.

Another thing the Marines told me about the terrorists, the overwhelming majority of them are not Iraqis, they are foriegners who sneak into Iraq from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.

Our Marines deserve the benefit of the doubt.

When they fill out a report, they're tired, weary, their ears are still ringing, they need sleep, and they worry about what the liberals will nit-pick in a report that says "innocents died".

It's easy for the Libs to say, "tell the truth" on the report, but I say, "tell the civilians to tell the truth" and tell our Troops when a terrorist is hiding in the neighborhood....

These are young guys, somebody's son, trying to make a snap decision....

We must allow our military to fight without fear of being called a war criminal or else we will lose this war....

How are we going to defeat these guys if we feel like we have to justify every move. Can't be done.

The American people need to have the stomach to take the fact that women and children will die because the barbarians use them as shields. We cannot allow our sensitivities to be a suicide pact for our young soldiers.

At least when we kill women and children, we regret it.

The liberals, the MSM, the Murtha fuckers, will not let this go, ever... They are our enemies from within.

[Richard Davis]

In Sep '05, 14 Marines were killed instantly by a massive IED in Haditha (worst one ever) and during the same month 6 more were blown to smitherines. This history is not known by the public.

I found out about this when I was listening to Congressman Curt Weldon on the radio. It puts things into CONTEXT.

I believe the town people were pretty much in cohoots with the terrorists. When the Nov '05 incident occurred and yet another 20-yr old was blown in half, the Marines decided "a new tactic" (my words).

To me, all these "civilians" are collaborators.
I WOULD EXHONERATE ALL THE MARINES.

None of them are guilty of anything.

I SAY OUR MARINES DON'T KILL ANYBODY WHO DON'T DESERVE IT. (at least 99.999% of them don't). They do what they have to do.

the left is running rampant with more similar stories (ie: pregnant women shot, man shot and troops put a shovel in his hand, etc etc..). More than likely the man did use a shovel to bury an IED. I will stand with our Marines...

Also, now the Marines have to get MORE mandatory "sensitivity" and "rules of war - civilian rights" training..

I don't like this cycle.... This could be the beginning of the end... We have to do something!!

[dventimi]

I argue that this thread contains serious defects in reasoning, and therefore only should be read with exquisite care. Perhaps it should not be read at all. For instance,

First, the original poster claimed that the media's treatment of the Haditha killings is little more than a "lynch mob in a rush to judgement", but furnished no evidence that this is true. I see no lynch mob, nor has it been common (though it's possible in certain cases it may have happened) that mainstream media figures have affirmatively concluded that the atrocities at Haditha actually happened, and that Marines are guilty of murder. Only that the atrocities are alleged to have happened, and certain Marines are alleged to be guilty of murder. These things are alleged, and it is responsible journalism to report the allegations as news.

Second, the original poster claimed that "some innocents die in every war", I believe to imply that by accepting Bush's call for war on Iraq, the American people should have understood that we also were accepting the likelihood that American soldiers will commit war crimes, which the events at Haditha MAY have been. I dispute this. I think that had more Americans believed choosing war meant accepting--and implicitly condoning--war crimes, then more Americans would have refused this war. Some innocents have died in previous wars, more will probably die in this and future wars, but by no means are the various different circumstances in which civilian casualties occur morally equivalent, as one might infer from the O.P.'s imprecise ellision.

Third, I infer that the O.P. wished to imply that possible crimes at Haditha were mitigated because the victims harbored "the enemy". Again, no evidence was supplied.

Fourth, the O.P. asserted it as fact that the military took the Haditha incident very seriously, and implied they launched a swift investigation. This is belied by reports in The New York Times, Washington Post, AP, etc., that an honest investigation began in March, only after a Time magazine reporter showed video to a military official, which tape cast doubt on the original conclusion that the victims were killed by an IED.

Fifth, "Underzog" posted a series of unsupported allegations that, roughly, due to sympathy mixed with coersion, Iraqi civilians commonly collude with insurgents, again to imply, it seems, that the Haditha killings were justified. No news reports or official briefings I have seen, have reported this.

Sixth, "Underzog" claimed we Americans, unlike Iraqis, regret civilian casualties. No evidence that Iraqis are this callous, and furthermore I do not sense regret or sorrow in the comments of Underzog or the O.P.

Seventh, Richard Davis wrote that the dangerousness of Haditha supplies much-needed "context" that mitigates the possible crimes there, possibly to the point of exonerating the Marines who are alleged to have committed crimes. War supporters--and I do not claim Richard is one--have long deprived others (be they Afghans, Arabs, Palestinians, etc.) of "context", and sometimes it has been right to do so (e.g., no amount of "context" justifies 9/11). I can think of no "context" that justifies non-accidental killing of unarmed civilians, including children. Again, Richard appears devoid of the regret Underzog claimed Americans feel.

These are only a few examples the high concentration of defects of reasoning in this very short thread. Sadly, my unscientific sampling indicates this is all too common among "warbloggers", though of course it also occurs (with less frequencey) on left-wing blogs as well.

Regards,
David

[Underzog]

Oh... dear me.... It appears the Quacker is trying to lay a guilt trip on me. I really don't feel like being guilty. I have no respect for quackers and their constant support for PLO terror (way back to the 70s if I remember correctly). My purpose is to try to put a damper on the lynch mob atmosphere of the mainstream media and Leftists swampthings -- not to justify myself before the terrorist supporting Quakers.

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here!"

[Richard Davis]

No one said the "Iraqis are callous" - They probably do regret it when innocents are killed.

- The ones WHO ARE CALLOUS are the terrorist assassins who come INTO Iraq and use threat of death and rape and bully the Iraqi families into helping them assassinate innocent women and children and Americans and all who help them.

- Reread the comment - the Marines say the overwhelming majority of terrorists are NOT FROM IRAQ, they are scum who come from Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc and being as the Marines are there, witnessing and experiencing it, I trust them.

- I refuse to allow "context" for the Jihadists (be they Afghans, Arabs, Palestinians, etc.) - they are the ones who need to be preached to about "tolerance" and "give peace a chance".

- so there is no doubt, I am a proud War Supporter.

- If it were up to me, we would "crank it up" and unleash our military might on this Religion of Peace (my ASS), and pound these bastard Jihadists into submission. PEACE - Through Superior Firepower.

- Then we will have our 1000 years of peace.

- I am tired of seeing Jews, Christians, Americans, and non-muslims around the world slaughtered and blown to bits by demons that kill "in the name of Allah"

- I pray everyday that we crank it up...

[Pamela Geller]

Underzog, I quite agree. "Guilt is a rope that wears thin."
Ayn Rand

[dventimi]

Underzog,

What exactly did you wish to imply when you wrote (I guess) that I am a "Quacker"? Evidently a "Quacker" is someone who endorses "PLO terror", by which I assume you mean the worst sorts of random violence on innocent people that Palestinians have committed. I am not such a person.

I believe you implied that I was trying to make you feel guilty. I was not. I was merely pointing out what are, by my lights, defects in your reasoning. I will point out, however, that in my experience guilt, like other emotions, is rarely something one can "choose" not to feel. Perhaps you simply want me and others to believe you don't feel guilt, so as to regard you as a person whose self-control commands respect.

Also, how do epithets like "Leftists [sic] swampthings" advance your argument?

Richard,

Underzog wrote, "At least when we kill women and children, we regret it", which I interpreted to mean that Americans are morally superior to Iraqis because we regret killing women and children while the Iraqis do not, and that can fairly be reduced to, "they are more callous than we are". I apologize if I attributed this comment to you.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you wrote that Marines "say" that most terrorists are "not from Iraq". I don't know why this is important.

What properties distinguish those groups of people (e.g. "Marines") to whom you allow "context", from those groups of people (e.g. "Jihadists") from whom you deprive context? For me, one such property is: having deliberately killed unarmed women or children, such person is to be deprived of "context", no matter their race, nation, or religion.

I am glad it is not up to you, for our military might is not infinite nor infinitely adaptable, nor is our cause obviously righteous.

Pamela,

What did you mean when you wrote that guilt is a rope that wears thin? I don't understand what it is you were trying to say.

Regards,
Dave

[Pamela Geller]

Dave,I wasn't directing the comment to you but more to the issue of "guilt" and how it is used as a tool by Islamists to undermine the West. And used in American society by the left to undermine the country -- "white guilt." Used by the Palis, by the commies, et al.
The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt and I am having none of it.

The Foreign Policy of Guilt
Monday, August 1, 2005
By: Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate

Until the West asserts its moral right to exist, we will not be safe from Islamic totalitarianism.

In the aftermath of the bombings in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked the British people to remain calm and maintain their daily routines; the terrorists win, he says, if one gives in to fear. This, you may remember, was also George W. Bush's response after Sept. 11, when he called on Americans to return to our shopping malls and not be afraid.

But we should be afraid--precisely because of Blair's and Bush's policies.

We face an enemy, Islamic totalitarianism, committed to our deaths. Its agents have shown an eagerness to kill indiscriminately in London, Madrid, New York and elsewhere, even at the cost of their own lives. They continually seek chemical and nuclear weapons; imagine the death toll if such devices had been used in London's subway bombings. In the face of this mounting threat, what is our response?

Do we proudly proclaim our unconditional right to exist? Do we resolutely affirm to eradicate power base after power base of the Islamic totalitarians, until they drop their arms, and foreign governments and civilian populations no longer have the nerve to support them?

No. Blair's response to the London bombings, with Bush and the other members of the G8 by his side, was, in meaning if not in explicit statement, to apologize and do penance for our existence.

Somehow we in the West and not the Palestinians--with their rejection of the freedoms attainable in Israel and their embrace of thugs and killers--are responsible for their degradation. Thus, we must help build them up by supplying the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority with billions in aid. And somehow we in the West and not the Africans--with their decades of tribal, collectivist and anticapitalist ideas--are responsible for their poverty. Thus we must lift them out of their plight with $50 billion in aid. This, Blair claims, will help us "triumph over terrorism."

The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq might be considered exceptions to this orgy of penance, but that would be an error. In neither war was the aim to smash the enemy. Unlike in WWII, when the Allies would flatten cities to achieve victory, the American and British armies, by explicit order, tiptoed in the Middle East. Terrorists and insurgents went free, free to return to kill our young men, because we subordinated the lives of our soldiers to concern for the enemy's well-being and civilian casualties. Our goal was not victory but, as Bush so often tells us, to bestow with our soldiers' blood an unearned gift on these people, "freedom" and "democracy," with the hope that they would then stop killing us.

According to Blair, our duty is to shower the globe with money. According to Bush, our duty is to shower the globe with "democracy." Taken together, the meaning of their foreign policy is clear. The West has no moral right to exist, because it is productive, prosperous and free; materially and spiritually, with its money and its soldiers' lives, the West must buy permission to exist from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world has an unquestionable right to exist, because it is unproductive, poor and unfree.

Until we in the West reject this monstrous moral premise, we will never have cause to feel safe.

What we desperately need is a leader who proclaims that the rational ideals of the West, reason, science, individual rights and capitalism, are good--that we have a moral right to exist for our own sake--that we don't owe the rest of the world anything--and that we should be admired and emulated for our virtues and accomplishments, not denounced. This leader would then demonstrate, in word and deed, that if those opposed to these ideals take up arms against us, they will be crushed.

Support for totalitarian Islam will wither only when the Islamic world is convinced that the West will fight--and fight aggressively. As long as the insurgents continue with their brutal acts in Iraq, unharmed by the mightiest military force in human history, as long as the citizens of London return to "normal" lives with subways exploding all around them, as long as the West continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons--as long as the West continues to appease its enemies, because it believes it has no moral right to destroy them, totalitarian Islam is emboldened.

It is the West's moral weakness that feeds terrorism and brings it fresh recruits. It is the prospect of success against the West, fueled by the West's apologetic response, that allows totalitarian Islam to thrive.

Bush has said repeatedly, in unguarded moments, that this war is un-winnable. By his foreign policy, it is. But if the British and American people gain the self-esteem to assert our moral right to exist--with everything this entails--victory will be ours.

Yaron Brook is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at ARI. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

This Op-Ed was published in the Providence Journal (September 29, 2005) and The Courier-Journal Louisville, KY (September 30, 2005).

[dventimi]

Pamela,

I promise I'm not trying to "lead you down a garden path" or waste your time, but since this thread is about Haditha, I assume you believe this incident is being "used" to generate guilt, so as to undermine the Iraq war, which perhaps you identify with American society, and I just don't think guilt actually can be used in this fashion. IF war crimes were committed by Americans at Haditha (I write, "IF"), then that is a moral cost of this war, to anyone who believes murder is wrong, regardless of what other people ("leftists", "the enemy") think. If Haditha is the only such incident, perhaps it's only a small cost, less than the benefits the war promises, yet it's still a cost, added to all the others (our blood, our treasure, our international standing) that reduces the "profit" of this war. If that profit goes negative, then we should stop fighting this war.

At any rate, the point is, these incidents either happened, or did not happen, as has been commonly described. If they did, then many Americans WILL feel guilty, whether they would like to or not, and it won't have been for anything "the left" or "the enemy" has done.

Regards,
Dave

[Underzog]

Dave: >>>>>I believe you implied that I was trying to make you feel guilty. I was not. I was merely pointing out what are, by my lights, defects in your reasoning. I will point out, however, that in my experience guilt, like other emotions, is rarely something one can "choose" not to feel. Perhaps you simply want me and others to believe you don't feel guilt, so as to regard you as a person whose self-control commands respect.

Also, how do epithets like "Leftists [sic] swampthings" advance your argument?

Richard,
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

According to you, my (our) fault in these posts is that we have not provided evidence to show the press is hostile and conducting a lynch mob. The problem with your stance, as I see it, if such luminaries as Pamela, Melanie Morgan, David Limbaugh, Brent Bozell; etc., plus the reality staring you in your face cannot convince you of the foam-at-the-mouth hostility of the mainstream media to our boys over in Iraq, then what can I do or what evidence could I ever give that would convince you? By your own words you read the patriotic internet articles and the treasonous ones and you found the patriotic articles lacking vis a vis the treasonous ones.

I fear there is no *evidence* that will break through your leftist world view.

p.s. I fear it's not so much argument with the mainstream media and the other Leftists as it is war. They've taken the side of the enemy. It's an enemy that would kill many of them, but would certainly kill me first -- and also Pamela.

I don't feel like getting my neck cut. I already shaved and cut myself this morning. I don't need the redunduncy.

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here."

[dventimi]

Richard,

You are arguing from authority (as if Pamela, Morgan, Limbaugh, and Bozell had any), which is a fallacy of reasoning. You are also assuming the consequent (that is obvious the media is hostile), which is another fallacy.

You fear no evidence will "break through my leftist worldview", but if your fear is misplaced you will never discover it if you wont even muster an attempt.

You think American citizens who have different political views from you ("leftists") are at war with you, and have sided with an enemy who would kill you and Pamela. I am such a leftist. Do you think I, whom you have never met, and who only ever in your experience has behaved civilly and rationally (or tried to), want to harm you? If I say I don't, will you call me a liar? I'm sure you aknowledge some people in life suffer paranoid delusions; if your fears about me and other leftists do not qualify, what would?

Finally, you don't have to supply evidence or formulate cogent arguments, but if you wish to do more than say things to people who already agree with you, if you wish to convince anyone else that you have something worth listening to, I think you'll get farther if you do.

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

P.S., I did not write that I read patriotic internet articles and treasonous ones. I don't know where you got that impression.

[Underzog]

Dave: >>>>>>>You are arguing from authority (as if Pamela, Morgan, Limbaugh, and Bozell had any), which is a fallacy of reasoning. You are also assuming the consequent (that is obvious the media is hostile), which is another fallacy. <<<<<<<<<

Dave, you're implying in your parenthesis that Pamela, Morgan, Limbaugh, and Bozell are ignorant and worthy of contempt. Personal insults are also a logical fallacy. I think they're part of the ad hominem type fallacy.

Dave (again):>>>>>You think American citizens who have different political views from you ("leftists") are at war with you, and have sided with an enemy who would kill you and Pamela. I am such a leftist. Do you think I, whom you have never met, and who only ever in your experience has behaved civilly and rationally (or tried to), want to harm you? If I say I don't, will you call me a liar? I'm sure you aknowledge some people in life suffer paranoid delusions; if your fears about me and other leftists do not qualify, what would?<<<<<<

In my first quotation of your post, I notice that you attack my processes (while hypocritically pulling the same fallacious processes with your ad hominem remarks) with no attempt one way or the other to deal with correctness of the conclusion that the media is very hostile to our soldiers and has conducted a lynch mob atmosphere. As Leftists have no answer to anything these days (unless it's running away), they always concentrate on process. It's one of the tactics of Leftists myself and others have observed. You ask if I will call you a liar? My personal feeling is that you don't want to harm me -- especially since you make that explicit; however, I do think you want to waste my time in furtherance of your nihillistic, treasonous cause. Life is short. I got to be supporting the troops -- really supporting them, not the phony claim I support the troops but oppose the war. As for any claim that you're capable of changing your mind on this issue. Since you complained about it, I won't say you're lying as regards that claim. Instead, I heard one english parlimentarian referred to a lie by another english parlimentarian as a terminological inexactitude instead of saying he lied; therefore, if you continue to tell lies I will refer to you as a terminological inexactitudener -- not a liar.

Feel better now?

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here."

[Pamela Geller]

Dave, You are intellectually dishonest (and your real agenda quite apparent.) We both know our military is the finest in the world. The job they are doing is untouchable. They stand alone.

In war, bad things happen. There is no doubt in my mind if any of our soldiers broke the rules of engagement, "murdered innocents," they will be brought to justice and punished.
Of this I am sure. What I am also sure of is the media's role in all this. They will make this the new face of the Iraqi liberation and make the media exploitation of Abu Ghraib look like child's play. And that's the shame of it.

Criminals and murderers are given the benefit of the doubt, everyday -- but how quick the left is to condemn those that keep them safe and toasty.

Pamela

[dventimi]

Underzog,

Fair enough. Let me put it more gently, and succinctly, so as to leave no taint of ad hominem. Pamela et al are commentators whose authority has not been established to me, mostly because I haven't read very much of their writings. I could read them, and I might, but if I do, then why should I bother reading you? Again, you may have inferred ad hominem, but I did not imply it, and if I gave that impression, then I am in error, and I apologize.

If by attacking your "process", you mean that I have attempted to highlight weaknesses in your arguments, then certainly I have done that, though I believe it's misleading to call it "attacking someone's process". At any rate, exposing arguments to careful scrutiny is the only way I know to conduct reasoned debate. Strong arguments withstand the scrutiny. Weak arguments are not made better by being protected from scrutiny. Do you not believe your position is strong?

No, I don't "feel better", or worse, and anyway my feelings are irrelevant. But your colorful way of saying I tend to tell falsehoods, once again, is an assertion without any reasoning behind it.

Really, I do wonder why you and Richard write posts to this blog? Is it to read hozannahs from like-minded folk?

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

Pamela,

Are you able to demonstrate that I am intellectually honest? And, if it's so obvious, can you say what my agenda is?

Our military is the finest in the world? Probably. I'm unimformed on the subject, but a rough guess would be that the are the best, or nearly so. Though again, you only have asserted such, not demonstrated it. Anyway, as good as they may be, their abilities have limits. That is to say, they are not necessarily capable of performing all tasks asked of them, "winning" all wars the states assigns to them.

Pamela, IF some Marines murdered innocents at Haditha, and IF Time magazine's reporting had not prompted subsequent investigations, then those Marines MIGHT have gotten away with murder. That leaves me with doubt about the efficacy of military criminal justice.

You are sure the media will report Haditha unprofessionally. That sounds to me like prejudgment, which I thought was something you rejected.

Last, I see no evidence that left-leaning American citizens condemn the military, though there often is criticizm, especially of its civilian leadership. Whether this military and its leadership are actually very much responsible for the safety of American citizens, is subject to debate.

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

Errata: Sorry, in my previous post I meant to write to Pamela, "Are you able to demonstrate that I am intellectually DIShonest".

[Pamela Geller]

Dave,

I'm unimformed on the subject, but a rough guess would be that the are the best, or nearly so. Though again, you only have asserted such, not demonstrated it

History has demonstrated such. History informs me.

IF Time magazine's reporting had not prompted subsequent investigations, then those Marines MIGHT have gotten away with murder. That leaves me with doubt about the efficacy of military criminal justice.

You are sure the media will report Haditha unprofessionally. That sounds to me like prejudgment, which I thought was something you rejected.

The media has already reported Haditha unprofessionally. They are certainly not handling Haditha as say William Jefferson's 90Gs in the icebox, or Harry Reid's grubby hands whether it be for tickets or Abramoff $$$, or Hevesi's "bullet right between Bush's eyes" assassination remark. Hardly balanced.

Last, I see no evidence that left-leaning American citizens condemn the military, though there often is criticizm, especially of its civilian leadership. Whether this military and its leadership are actually very much responsible for the safety of American citizens, is subject to debate.

It was the Pentagon that exposed Abu Ghraib. If there was a cover-up on the reports the soldiers gave to higher ups on Haditha, how would the military know? All giant ifs, btw, because nothing has been proven.

I never said American citizenry was condemning the military. I said the left, lunatic, liberal media was condemning the military here for example.
And I assert most strongly, it is indeed the military that is essentially responsible for our safety and way of life. But if you get your way and remove the protection the military provides this country, you my dear man, will be living in a far different world where you will do what you are told and act accordingly or get your head handed to you (literally, not figuratively.)
Pamela

[dventimi]

Pamela,

I don't wish to follow you too far afield from the subject of Haditha, but William Jefferson is being reported, and Harry Reid's alleged fundraising problems are being reported, some would say badly, since he voted AGAINST the rule changes the Nevada State Athletic Commission sought. In any event, I submit that possible war crimes by U.S. Marines, which if true will severely hurt the war effort regardless of what the media does, IS A MORE IMPORTANT STORY than the sadly all-too-common ethical lapses of Washington politicians. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe graft and slurs are more important than murder.

Was it the Pentagon that exposed Abu Ghraib? Maybe. Suppose I take your word that it was. Then what? I don't understand the relevance.

If the "soldiers" (aren't they called "marines", in the Marines?) suspected of war crimes gave false reports to their "higher ups", how would the military know? Well, they might collect eyewitness accounts, take photographs, examine forensic evidence, and compare stories to ascertain what really happened, which are things the military investigative team dispatched the same day did. Only, despite the obvious bullet wounds to the victems, the military reported the next day the victims died from the IED. Again, without Times magazine, justice may have been denied forever.

Is it true you never "said American citizenry was condemning the military [only] the liberal media"? You wrote above, "how quick the left is to condemn those that keep them safe and toasty". I'm sorry. I consider myself a member of "the left", but am not in the media. So, I think you have forgotten what you wrote. It's ok. I do it sometimes myself.

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

Pamela,

A few more things.

First, the "UK Times" is not a widely read U.S. media publication. Do you have anything similar from The New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, The Chicago Tribune, Time, or Newsweek?

Second, I assert just as strongly that it is my own industry in particular, as well as U.S. industry (i.e., the whole economy) in general, combined with my local community and local law enforcment, emergency, and healthcare community, COMBINED with North America's relative geographic isolation, that is chiefly responsible for my safety and way of life. The military is also important.

Third, "my way" is not to remove the military. Again, you are mistaken.

Regards,
Dave

[Pamela Geller]

LA TIMES
A Town Awoke to Slaughter

Iraqis say Marines went house to house killing Haditha residents. 'I wish I had died with them,' says a child who saw her family slain.
By Megan K. Stack and Raheem Salman, Times Staff Writers
June 1, 2006

BAGHDAD — The killing began shortly after sunrise on a November day. As a U.S. patrol rolled through Haditha, a homemade bomb exploded beneath the belly of a Humvee, rocking the sleepy riverside town.

"The Americans who were in the first vehicle came back to the damaged car. They started to scream and shout," said a gray-haired shopkeeper who would give his name only as Abu Mukarram. He said he watched the scene unfold from his bedroom window. "After some minutes, everything was quiet. During this quiet, no bullets were shot. They were moments of expectation."

ADVERTISEMENTTen minutes passed in silence. Then Abu Mukarram heard the crack of the first bullets.

Planted by insurgents at the edge of the road, the bomb had killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a 20-year-old Marine from El Paso. Survivors and witnesses said Terrazas' death drove some of the troops into a murderous rage.

Survivors say that furious Marines rampaged through a quiet street, bursting into homes and gunning down Iraqi civilians — including children, women and an elderly man in a wheelchair. Their account appears to match details emerging from a military investigation of the deaths of at least 24 Iraqi civilians on the morning of Nov. 19.

For some in the United States, the Haditha killings are reminiscent of the torture at Abu Ghraib, both cases involving conduct by troops that suggests a breakdown of morality in a climate of fear and violence. President Bush said Wednesday that he was "troubled" by news reports of the slayings.

"I am mindful that there is a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, the laws were broken, there will be punishment," Bush said in his first public comments on the incident, made during a photo session with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda.

In Iraq, by contrast, word of the deaths has spread slowly out of Haditha, blurring into the steady background noise of daily horrors. To a public that has endured more than three years of combat, rampant bombings and executions, news of two dozen more lost lives grabbed few headlines.

Sliced in half by the Euphrates and nestled in fruit groves, Haditha is a quiet farming community of 90,000 people in the midst of barren western desert in Al Anbar province. Farmers tend date orchards, and grow oranges and apples in the shadow of the palms.

This account of the Nov. 19 killings comes from witness and survivor interviews conducted by Iraqi reporters for The Times in Baghdad and Haditha. The reporter who traveled to Haditha cannot be named for security reasons.

After the roadside bombing, the Marines arrived first at the door of Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali, 89, an amputee who used a wheelchair. They shot him, then turned their guns on his three sons and their families, survivors said.

Waleed Abdul Hameed, a 48-year-old worker in Al Anbar's religious affairs office, was among the first of the family members to be gunned down. His 9-year-old daughter, Eman, said she was still wearing her pajamas when the Marines arrived. Her 7-year-old brother, Abdul Rahman, said he hid his face with a blanket when his father was shot.

A few minutes later, the boy saw his mother fall to the ground, dying.

"I saw her while she was crying," he said. "She fell down on the floor bleeding." Speaking days ago in Haditha, months after the attacks, the boy broke into tears, covered his eyes with his hands, and began to mutter to himself.

At his side, his elder sister began to speak again. Eman described how the two had waited for help, the bodies of their family members sprawled on the floor.

"We were scared," she said. "I tried to hide under the bed." With shrapnel injuries to her legs, she lay still for two hours.

When the shooting began, Eman's aunt, Hibba Abdullah snatched her 5-month-old niece off the floor. The baby's mother had dropped her in shock after seeing her husband gunned down. Clutching the child, Abdullah ran out of the house. She and the baby, Aasiya, survived.

The baby's mother "completely collapsed when they killed her husband in front of her," Abdullah said. "I ran away carrying Aasiya outside the house, but when the Americans returned they killed Asma, the mother of the child."

Abdullah's 39-year-old husband also slipped out of the house and ran to warn his cousins nearby. But he crossed paths with the Americans on his way back; he died of gunshot wounds to the shoulder and head, Abdullah said.

Seven family members were killed: Ali and his wife; their three sons and a daughter-in-law; and their 5-year-old grandson. Only one of the household's adults survived.

[dventimi]

Excellent! Score one for Pamela. After two days and something like 20 posts, someone finally provides what looks like evidence. Oh but wait. This seems simply to report what Iraqis claimed to have witnessed. Where exactly in this article do the writers at the L.A. Times condemn the military?

Regards,
Dave

[Underzog]

See that, Pamela! If anyone was reading my posts, I made clear that it was a waste of time to give him evidence of the lynchmob mentality of our Liberal media to him. As Pamela (Atlas) says, he is being intellectually dishonest (or he's a terminological inexactudiner in my phraseology). If one really wants to shake up his Leftist mindset, don't play his game of asking for evidence that he will dismiss a priori, but, instead, do what I did at a Cindy Sheehan so-called peace gathering where I protested against the so-called peace protestors wearing a shirt with Ann Coulter's quotation of "killing their leaders" and [converting] "the population to Christianity." Those Commies were hysterical at me for wearing that t shirt. That is the way to shake up their revolting belief system -- not to play his con game as poor Pamela just did.

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here."

[dventimi]

Underzog,

Fair enough. I won't dismiss Pamela's evidence out of hand. But help me out, would you? It's a long article, so could you help me find the worst parts of it? Where in the article do the authors condemn the military? Which parts are journalistically unprofessional?

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

Underzog,

As I promised I might do, I appear to have forgotten what I wrote. What I wrote was that this article appears to report what Iraqis claim to have witnessed. That is not dismissing Pamela's evidence, that is giving my impression upon reading it, which does not correlate with Pamela's claim (I believe this is what she claimed) that the media condemns the military. Then, I asked her to help me understand why she thinks the article does correlate with her claim. So no, I am not dismissing evidence "a priori". I just need help interpreting the evidence, I guess.

Regards,
Dave

[Pamela Geller]

Underzog, Liberals love ideas, hate people. Your time is too precious.

Just GAZE
Pamela

[dventimi]

Pamela,

I am a liberal, and there are few people I hate, many of whom I am indifferent, and a few who I love. Again, you are mistaken.

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

Pamela,

I made a mistake earlier by failing to give proper credit to our American military for our blessed way of life. I forgot the critical role it played in securing a cheap and reliable supply of petroleum to fuel our economy for something like 50 years. Thanks, military.

I aknowledge I furnish no evidence that this is true. If anyone wishes to dispute it, I won't mount an argument against them...though I could.

Regards,
Dave

[Richard Davis]

Dive Dimwiti - YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

Our troops are fighting the most evil enemy the world has ever known.

If you don't realize or admit this, then everything else is moot...

This enemy wears civilian clothes and hides among women and children.

So get off the "murdered innocent civilian soap box" - WE ARE IN THE FIGHT OF OUR LIVES and our Marines (all troops) deserve every benefit of the doubt, and if civilians die in this WAR against the most evil force in history, then so-be-it. It happens and we do regret it. (my statement BTW).

Our troops don't need or deserve snotty condemnation or a public hanging.

Your appreciation of the military fades as quickly as the morning fog...

[dventimi]

Richard,

I do not believe Iraqi combatants are more "evil" than the Third Reich, which murdered on the order of 6 million Jews.

I do not believe that if our military stops fighting Iraqi combatants (not necessarily a policy I'm advocating), American citizens will become less safe.

I do believe all people--American citizens and servicepersons especially--deserve to be treated fairly (to be given the "benefit of the doubt" as you say), but being treated fairly does not include the special privilege of not having to be held accountable for one's actions. No one has that privilege. Enemies of America (true enemies) should be fought, and criminals at home or abroad should be punished...even if they turn out to be Marines.

When you write "if civilians die in this WAR...then so-be-it", I assume you mean that you condone Americans killing civilians, no matter what the circumstances, in the prosecution of the war in Iraq. And even though you condone it, you still regret it. Is that correct?

I do not know anyone who is condemning our militarily snottily. And hangings, public or otherwise, have not occurred in this country in more than a decade. Also, it's unlikely any Marines will get the death penalty.

By the way, you keep mistyping my handle (you did it also in another thread); your keyboard may be broken.

Regards,
Dave

[Richard Davis]

double D - do you know the history behind Haditha and their "civilians"? Did you know that 26 Marines were killed there the previous Sept and that their bodies were dragged, mutilated, burned, and video'd and the tape (dvd) was placed outside the Marine hdqtrs, with the intent to scare the Marines into coming there anymore?

When you hear this, don't you think these Marines should all be exhonerated?

We're polarized, you want to condemn them, I don't.

no one could do what they're doing as civilized and as well as they're doing it.

worry about the bribes, and let the Marines alone...

[dventimi]

Richard,

I do not believe that people who killed unlawfully should be exonerated because certain other people were killed unlawfully nearby. Neither has anything to do with the other, and neither justifies the other.

I do not want to condemn anyone who is not guilty of a crime, and I do not know that any particular Marines are guilty of crimes, so I do not want to condemn any particular Marines. However, credible reports have emerged that some Marines may have committed crimes, so I believe those reports should be investigated, which they are, and if it turns out those reports are true, we should aknowledge that our moral standing in this war has been diminished.

Perhaps no one else could perform the difficult job they've been asked to do, as well as our military has. However, it does not follow from that that they cannot do, should not be asked to do, and would not want to an even better job.

I do worry about corruption in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. I also worry about the terrible consequences of this unjust war. I also worry about dry-rot in my laundry room. I am capable of apprehending many different issues at once. Why should I not be?

Richard, have you, Pamela, Undezog, or anyone else any single rational, reasonable, thing to say, about Haditha, the Iraq war, or really anything in general? Give me something, anything. Some morsel of a real, honest-to-God argument. A set of propositions drawn via induction from observation, narrow enough in focus yet general enough in construction that we can all agree on them, Left and Right. A framework of deductive reasoning to hold them together. Logical conclusions that follow ineluctably from your propositions. Have you anything like that in you? Now's your chance. You have the floor, and though I'll read with a critical but fair eye whatever you write, I won't even trouble you with a rebuttal.

You have the last word.

Regards,
Dave

[Pamela Geller]

The war on Islamic terror is the same in Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Paris, London, New York et al.

The attempt to separate them is dishonest.

"An Unjust war?" I couldn't agree with you more hardily. The invasion and attack on America could not have been more unjust. The smell of burnt flesh, steel, plastic, fabric ... all melded together for months on the streets of Manhattan was a brutal reminder.

I have looked at the argument from the corridors of the left for years now and it is nothing short of irrational. The premise is false so all subsequent deductive reasoning can't help be wrong.

And lastly, stop disrespecting our Marines until the verdict is in. I will not have it on this blog. The sources on the original story are suspect, the details mangled etc.

These Marines are fighting for our lives, give them the respect they deserve or at the very least the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

It's all so disgusting.
Pretend it's Splash at Chappaquidick or Patrick behind the wheel of a 3,000 LB killing machine at 3 am careening down the highway in a drunken stupor.

[Otto]

You say you want to "fight terror where it lives"? You treat terror as it was a living entity that resides, assumingly in the Middle East. How do you fight a tactic? Terrorism has been used a military tactic for thousands of years, in the most brutual, horrific manner for political, religious or military advantage. The 'War On Terror' is thus never ending.

For example, why not declare a 'War On Ambushing', ambushing is cowardly military tactic that undermines 'proper' soldiery. We shall draft condemnations of ambushing, we shall create a coalition to fight all nations using and abetting ambushing. Despite all these measures, ambushing will never be stopped, nor can terrorism. The sooner you stop scaring the shit out of everyone for fear you may at one time have the exetreme statistically improbability of being killed in a terrorist attack... or get ambushed.