So where's the outrage?

[hist2004]

Sound of Silence

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

By John Gibson


So a picture surfaces of Ken Bigley, the unlucky Brit who has been captured by Iraqi insurgents, sitting in a cage with what looks suspiciously like a chain around his neck.

Let me see, where have I seen that before? Oh right, the Abu Ghraib prison: One picture of an Iraqi in a collar and leash — a chain, if you will — and the world went crazy.

Now this guy in Abu Ghraib was doubtless uncomfortable, but he had no reasonable fear someone was going to cut off his head. Mr. Bigley on the other hand has every reasonable fear they will cut his head off. After all, that's what they do to Americans. And the Brits are close enough.

So where's the outrage? Where are the howls from the archbishop of Canterbury? Where are the screeches of righteous indignation for the people who would put this man in a chain like a dog?

That's right, you're not hearing anything about the brutal attack on Mr. Bigley's dignity. It's his head they're trying to save, what explains the silence here?

Here's the answer: Abu Ghraib was an excuse to pour more scorn on the hated United States.

In the view of these people who are now so quiet, the terrorists who are doing these things to now headless Americans and the terrified Mr. Bigley are right. They are heroic insurgents against the hated U.S. and everybody knows that is OK.

What is the difference between an Iraqi in a dog leash in an American prison and a Brit — or American — in a dog leash in a Jihadi dog cage?

It's the attitude of the world that one is a horror — an atrocity that people need to be reminded of daily — and the other is, well unfortunate. After all, the people who are doing this to Mr. Bigley have been so badly provoked by the U.S.

It's America's fault.

Regards,
Hist2004

[priccobe]

From Here: http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1141532004

CHAINED and sobbing, Ken Bigley cut a sorry figure as he sat slumped on the floor of the metal cage his captors had constructed.

The parallels with the prisoners in Guantanàmo Bay were obvious, just as they were intended to be. He had a chain around his neck and wrapped around his hands and feet. He looked a broken man, and sounded it too, his voice barely audible, his pleas for his life punctuated with sobs.

It was another masterful piece of theatre by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man blamed for the kidnapping of the British hostage and the murder of the two Americans who were snatched with him from their Baghdad home on 16 September.

http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/bigleycryR300904_350x450.jpg


So where's the outrage? Where are the howls from the archbishop of Canterbury? Where are the screeches of righteous indignation for the people who would put this man in a chain like a dog?

I'd love to know where it's at.... No difference between what they're doing and what happened at Guantanmo ...


http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abuse1.jpg

[2Sheds_Jackson]

No, no hist2004, you've got it all wrong. Don't you remember that it's only Muslim men in particular that object so strongly to being treated like this? They have real problems being humiliated and such - so we have to be very sensitive to their needs.

We Westerners don't mind being chained up, pleading for our lives on TV, and then having our heads hacked off on video for our families to watch.

How else can one explain the complete lack of outrage from the tireless defenders of the oppressed and powerless? Why, our resident agitators here (most notably the Bobbsie Twins) have been positively silent on the subject. I suppose that's because condemning the kidnappers would be contrary to their agenda?

There most certainly is a difference between what's happening here, and what happened at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. How many televised beheadings did we see from Abu Ghraib? How many Iraqi families were extorted for money? How many Iraqi prisoners howled the unnaturally high-pitched wail of somebody who's being hacked to pieces while still alive? How many Iraqi heads were found in refrigerators? That's a long way from simply being embarrassed.

[hist2004]

I'd love to know where it's at.... No difference between what they're doing and what happened at Guantanmo ...


There's a bit of a difference. Guantanmo houses enemy combatants
taken from the field. The hostages in Iraq are civilians. Additionally,
the enemy prisoners housed at the Naval Facility don’t have their faces
shown to the world via video, followed by summary execution.

Regards,
Hist2004

[BlackRain]

Where is the outrage? I will tell you.

The world is punishing Britian and the USA because the War in Iraq is unpopular.

The world bites it's collective tongue and holds its criticism of the atrocities committed by the Muslim terrorists because it is feels it is just punishment.

How dare the Coalition go against world opinion?

However, this Schadenfreude type of response by Europe and other countries will eventually result if blowback. You can not ignore Islamic terrorism because it may haunt your country in the future.

Enjoy your snide remarks and chuckles at the Coalitions expense now but prepare for your turn at the terrorist's hand.

[Vihta]

I'm pretty sure that every sane person is horrified about the way prisoners are treated by Iraqis. Of course they are.

But there is a difference.

The Iraqi terrorists are known to be pretty much just savages. No surprise here. People are prepared to see them torturing and beheading their prisoners and thats why they aren't making as much noise about it as they do when Americans torture their prisoners.

If you really think about it you will understand it. And NO I don't mean that the actions of the Iraqis are understandable.

The iraqis who are doing this **** never really claimed that they are the good guys. When the army which claims that they to go there to help and liberate the iraqi people are doing the almost same thing the public reaction is understandable.

I hope you get the f*ers. (and only the f*ers.)

[KB]

I don't accept the conclusion Gibson draws-most of the rest of the holds the US to a different standard of behavior than a terrorist like Zarqawi (not a bad thing).

Abu Ghraib was an outrage, one that was rightfully exposed to the public by members of the US Armed Forces. According to SecDef, a lot of photos/info have not been released and are much more gruesome than what's been released so far.

Cultural bigotry is prevalent throughout the world-one doesn't hear/see a whole lot of outcry/decisive action in the Islamic world over the current situation in Darfur, or Somalia in the early '90s; anyone ever wonder why despite the oil riches of the Arab Gulf States, their Palestinian brethren live in terrible conditions in Lebanese refugee camps in southern Beirut, Sidon, and Tripoli? Ever hear protests of the treatment Afghan refugees in Pakistan experienced during the mid '90s? What actions did the African nations take during the butchery in Rwanda in the mid '90s? Europe wrung its hands over the Balkans in the '90s, but little was done to rectify the situation until the US stepped in.

On a different note-has anyone noticed that the two most recent US captives were basically executed outright, while European hostages are the subjects of extended negotiations? Zarqawi and his imitators are steadily chipping away at popular opinion in Europe and coalition unity.

[priccobe]

I'd love to know where it's at.... No difference between what they're doing and what happened at Guantanmo ...


There's a bit of a difference. Guantanmo houses enemy combatants
taken from the field. The hostages in Iraq are civilians. Additionally,
the enemy prisoners housed at the Naval Facility don’t have their faces
shown to the world via video, followed by summary execution.

Regards,
Hist2004

Good point... Didn't think about it till after I posted.

[BlackRain]

The iraqis who are doing this **** never really claimed that they are the good guys.

Sure the do! They claim that they are simple Muslims protecting their faith, following the Koran, and wishes of Allah. Just a bunch a God-fearing Muslims doing their duty.

al-Zarqawi read a statement before he beheaded an American where he stated:


"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

A suicide bomber stated:


"I sacrifice myself for my religion." "How can I live peacefully at a time when the holy and sacred places have been violated, and the country is usurped and the infidels are encroaching on our country and humiliating our religion, which is ... our pride,"

[Vihta]

The iraqis who are doing this **** never really claimed that they are the good guys.

Sure the do! They claim that they are simple Muslims protecting their faith, following the Koran, and wishes of Allah. Just a bunch a God-fearing Muslims doing their duty.

al-Zarqawi read a statement before he beheaded an American where he stated:


"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

A suicide bomber stated:


"I sacrifice myself for my religion." "How can I live peacefully at a time when the holy and sacred places have been violated, and the country is usurped and the infidels are encroaching on our country and humiliating our religion, which is ... our pride,"

You know what I meant.

Which one is the country that is supposed to be the liberator and overall good guys in this war?

Thats right. Thats what I meant, too.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The iraqis who are doing this **** never really claimed that they are the good guys.

Sure the do! They claim that they are simple Muslims protecting their faith, following the Koran, and wishes of Allah. Just a bunch a God-fearing Muslims doing their duty.

al-Zarqawi read a statement before he beheaded an American where he stated:


"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

A suicide bomber stated:


"I sacrifice myself for my religion." "How can I live peacefully at a time when the holy and sacred places have been violated, and the country is usurped and the infidels are encroaching on our country and humiliating our religion, which is ... our pride,"

You know what I meant.

Which one is the country that is supposed to be the liberator and overall good guys in this war?

Thats right. Thats what I meant, too.

Each side in a war believes itself to be "right". You cannot raise an army and make them do your bidding if they believe the are doing wrong.

That is the crux of this entire conflict - it's a massive clash of the old world with the new. The militant Islamists believe with all their hearts that they are doing God's work - that they are the faithful, and that they will be rewarded. They think they are the overall good guys. And they are portrayed that way in the Arab media as well (take a look at Al-Jazeera's website if you doubt me). Similarly, the West is portrayed as "evil".

If the Jihadists were to win this war, this "good" culture of theirs would be imposed upon all conquered areas- they would bring it upon us as they brought the gift to Afghanistan. And wouldn't that be nice for all us evil Westerners?

[[SAB]Grey]

Wasn't it some of your neo-con perspectives that it was just "frat boy" behavior? What these guys are doing to hostages are terrible and wrong, but they are terrorists it's in their job description. Do you want terrorists and the United States to be on the same moral low ground? When the President and Secretary of Defense of the United States support and authorize this kind of behavior it is a really big huge deal. These guys are put in place to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America. When they are found to have our military conducting torture it makes the news and not in a positive way (nor should it). If you can't see what a colossal f$%& up this was and still is you need to get your head examined!

[Trigger]

Grey]Wasn't it some of your neo-con perspectives that it was just "frat boy" behavior? What these guys are doing to hostages are terrible and wrong, but they are terrorists it's in their job description. Do you want terrorists and the United States to be on the same moral low ground? When the President and Secretary of Defense of the United States support and authorize this kind of behavior it is a really big huge deal. These guys are put in place to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America. When they are found to have our military conducting torture it makes the news and not in a positive way (nor should it). If you can't see what a colossal f$%& up this was and still is you need to get your head examined!
Ahhh, there's the rub...you neo-socialists think that Abu Ghraib is equal to kidnapping and beheading.

[BarkingSquirrel]

The Iraqi terrorists are known to be pretty much just savages. No surprise here. People are prepared to see them torturing and beheading their prisoners and thats why they aren't making as much noise about it as they do when Americans torture their prisoners.According to this brilliant logic, if I have a dog known to **** on the carpet, I'm not supposed to smack him with a newspaper and tell him he's a bad dog.

"We've seen this before. Carry on." is no f**king excuse.

[[SAB]Grey]

Wow 2 for 2 in the wrong department. I am not a scocialist ( not sure where in my argument you would get that I'm in favor of government controlling the means of production and distribution of goods) and I not only think that U.S. forces using torture and murder is as bad I think it's worse. I expect Terrorists to do bad things, I don't expect my government to behave in this fashion.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Grey]When the President and Secretary of Defense of the United States support and authorize this kind of behavior it is a really big huge deal.
Did I miss the press conference where the Prez and SecDef admitted to this...oh, wait it's simply a fiction you've invented to make a point. Never mind, but do go on..


Grey]
If you can't see what a colossal f$%& up this was and still is you need to get your head examined!
Nobody here has excused Abu Ghraib - so stop making things up. There was a Congressional inquiry. Those implicated are standing trial right now - and if found guilty will pay as they deserve to.

Now then, seems you've devoted much more time to busting the US's chops over the Abu Ghraib embarrassments than you have to the terrorists hacking heads off. Why is that? Why do you keep coming back around to bashing the US for embarrassing people, when there are murderers to condemn and rail against? You even excused it by basically saying "that's what terrorists are supposed to do". Well, are Nazi's "supposed" to conquer Europe and gas Jews? Does that make it ok because it's what they're supposed to do? Because by your blinkered logic, had you lived in the 30's & 40's - rather than fighting the Nazis, you'd spend your time complaining about the poor treatment of a handful of Nazi POWs.

>edit for additional outrage<

[California Joe]

He's right you know. The whole logic of "because that's what they're supposed to do" is rather bizarre. I'm sure that because you're "OK" with terrorists cutting off Kenneth Bigley's head because afterall, it's expected from them, his family won't be as they would be if say it happened down at the pub.

[Vihta]

The Iraqi terrorists are known to be pretty much just savages. No surprise here. People are prepared to see them torturing and beheading their prisoners and thats why they aren't making as much noise about it as they do when Americans torture their prisoners.According to this brilliant logic, if I have a dog known to **** on the carpet, I'm not supposed to smack him with a newspaper and tell him he's a bad dog.

"We've seen this before. Carry on." is no f**king excuse.

You totally missed my point. I never said that it is ok for the terrorists to cut off heads. Never.

What I said was that people were more shocked to find out that Americans are torturing their prisoners than to find out that terrorists are cutting heads.

How difficult can it be to understand that?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Not very hard once you realise Europe has it's head up it's ass.

[Secret Squirrel]

The Iraqi terrorists are known to be pretty much just savages. No surprise here. People are prepared to see them torturing and beheading their prisoners and thats why they aren't making as much noise about it as they do when Americans torture their prisoners.According to this brilliant logic, if I have a dog known to **** on the carpet, I'm not supposed to smack him with a newspaper and tell him he's a bad dog.

"We've seen this before. Carry on." is no f**king excuse.

You totally missed my point. I never said that it is ok for the terrorists to cut off heads. Never.

What I said was that people were more shocked to find out that Americans are torturing their prisoners than to find out that terrorists are cutting heads.

How difficult can it be to understand that?

well said. I expect more from American soldiers than I do foreign terrorists. Soldiers are professionals who are the physical embodiment of foreign policy. They represent their country and that country's ideals and morality. On the other hand, terrorists do not represent a country so much as they represent a group and an ideology. You can read some of the comments by members from this forum who are in Iraq now regarding when another hostage is taken. I believe some mentioned as soon as the Americans were taken hostage, that their fate was sealed. Bottomline, it's expected that terrorists will do anything they can, including some really sickening acts. Conversely, it's expected that soldiers will conduct themselves in a professional manner and adhere to the rules and conditions set before them by their own military.

edit: going back to the dog example...a terrorist is like an untrained dog. A professional soldier is like a trained dog. When you compare the two dogs, which one has a higher chance of ****ting on your floor?

[Knutsen]

I spit on both tortures.
I spit on those terrorists who behead people and i spit on those american soldiers who torture (and sometimes even kill people).
And for the why people protest so much against the US???? It's surprising you don't get it.
There's a big difference between terrorists and a democratic state. The US says it's going to free iraq , bring democracy, respect for human rights and then (some) soldiers torture people.
That is the difference, you 'expect' terrorists to do it ,it's their nature, they're fanatics willing to do anything. They blow themselves up, why not behead people?.
But the US speaks all that democracy sh*t out and you expect people not to protest when they hear of some act of torture???
They are supposed to be the good guys ( i don't think so) but some of them do the same kind of things a bad guy does.

What really surprises me is that many people on this forum who are such defenders of what's right are also defending Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and say it's better than the beheadings.......you are exactly like them, different methods, different sides but the same kind of people.

[Knutsen]

I want to make clear i'm not accusing the whole US Army, only the few sick soldiers who torture.
But my point is the same.