Ice_Demon wrote:Come on, trying to defend this is like trying to defend an ice cube in the middle of the desert.
I make no effort to defend barbaric behavior by Americans toward those who are weaker...nor will I accept excuses by Moslems who justify their own barbarism against those unable to defend themselves.
Morally, we cannot accept any concept that allows bad behavior by one party to the conflict to
cancel out the same behavior, or worse, by the opposing party. Immoral behavior, by either side, is simply immoral behavior...a
black and white issue, at least by western standards. The fact that Arabs do not accept western standards, unless it benefits their goals, is irrelevant to this question, because western standards of morality make no concessions in this regard.
Morally...not
logically.
This is an important distinction, because, in a conflict of this intensity, it is a
reality that as the conflict begans to "ebb and flow," with first one side holding the moral high ground, then the other...one side or the other will
always begin to escalate the violence, in an attempt to gain a strategic advantage, and gradually, both sides will begin to incrementally surrender bits and pieces of their humanity along the way, because it is expedient to bend the rules for moral behavior and gamble that such "breeches" will be overlooked or ignored. It is a well-known fact that the victors get to write the history, and that the real facts always become clouded, over time, and can be manipulated by clever people who are less interested in truth than in pressing their own agendas.
My point is that it is correct to be morally outraged at the barbarism displayed by Americans. It is also correct to be sensible about addressing the punishment for such crimes, because, although the moral outrage we feel is justified, it accomplishes nothing in our quest for justice...and if we react emotionally, disregarding the statutes that have been put in place long ago for dealing with such crimes, we are guilty of the same "expedience" that led to the crimes in the first place.
These people broke American laws that were in existence long before the actual crimes were committed, and the perpetrators must answer to them, with the same right to offer evidence and mitigation that any other American citizen has, when accused of a crime...and as is always the case, some will receive too little retribution from the law, and some will receive too much...but the alternative is a "kangeroo court," show trials created for "public consumption," designed to appease those who posture themselves as the most offended. The beheading of Nicholas Berg is one of the more extreme examples of what happens when the law gives in to expedience. The
only way a trial can be conducted in which the defendant is judged
by the evidence that can be presented, is to allow the initial outrage to be "blunted" by the passage of time.
I contend that
most of the perpetrators of these crimes, at least on the American side, will receive justice from outraged
Americans...while I have very serious doubts that those Arabs who are guilty of the same crimes, or worse,
against Americans, will always be looked upon by their people as "freedom fighters," because there is no history that I know of that would indicate that Moslems are held accountable for their atrocities against infidels. Where is the justice in that?
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin