Wednesday - February 22, 2012

Can torture be morally right?  Don’t really care. Anyone else or am I the lone ranger?

I have run somewhat out of time today. Too much more to do at the house with things that should have been taken care of long ago. My bad I guess.

Started yesterday and made great headway.  Plan now is to keep up with things better then I have in the past. And I think I can do it. Just a matter of not being so damn lazy about some things need doing.  And one thing needs doing is sharing this article.
I’m even late posting it now.

Can torture be morally right?
By TONY RENNELL

yes and anyway, who cares that counts? See the entire article before answering that.

Both sides were defiant and unrepentant. When President George W. Bush was asked for permission to ‘waterboard’ the Al Qaeda terrorist and 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to obtain vital information, his thoughts turned not only to the thousands who died in the Twin Towers but also to Daniel Pearl, the kidnapped American journalist whose head Khalid admitted hacking off with his own hand.

‘Damn right! Get on with it!’ Bush said. Writing later about his duty to protect the United States from another terror attack, he said: ‘And I’d do it again.’

Meanwhile, behind bars in Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. detention centre for terror suspects, the fanatical (and egotistical) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was equally impenitent.

He was happy to admit his part as ‘principal planner’ of 9/11 and to link his name to almost every terrorist outrage in recent years, as if trying to prove himself a bigger threat than his nominal chief, Osama Bin Laden.

And would the self-confessed killer do it all again, if given the chance? The answer was an unqualified ‘yes’ — as part of his jihad (‘holy war’) against America and all the infidel nation stood for.

Unlike Bush, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wallowed in his brutality. When Daniel Pearl was killed, the process of cutting off his head with a knife was halted after it had begun because the video camera (recording the slaughter for dissemination round the world) wasn’t working.

Once it was fixed, the gruesome task resumed. Who knows what pain the American suffered before he died, but waterboarding (a simulation of drowning that produces panic and pain) must have been almost benign by comparison.

Here, in a nutshell, is the crucial battleground of the 21st century. How far can a nation stretch its own hard-won traditions of law and justice in order to combat terrorism that knows no boundaries, either geographical or ethical, in its hate-driven crusade to wipe its supposed enemies off the face of the earth?

This uncomfortable moral dilemma — perhaps the most pressing of our troubled times — is tackled in a new book by the British writer and journalist William Shawcross.

In Bush’s words, ‘they represent no nation, defend no territory, and wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders, or flotillas of warships on the high seas.
‘They operate in the shadows of society; they send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret; and then they strike without warning.’
Despite this threat, the West is emphatically not entitled to respond in kind. The sort of disregard for human life that characterised U.S. actions in Vietnam cannot be repeated. But, if the Al Qaeda threat is to be successfully countered, the gloves have to be eased off a little.

BULLSHIT!!!  Ease off? Ease?  No freekin way.  Mass kill the bastards the same way you’d spray a wasp’s nest or a roach infestation.

It’s a good article and a book review and thought provoking.  I suppose my problem is a lack of patience.  I just want us to bomb where they live and stuff collateral damage.  I don’t really care. 

READ THE WHOLE

Posted by peiper     on 02/22/2012 at 09:23 AM   
Filed Under: • muslims • Terrorists • War On Terror •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner