३ ऑगस्ट, २००७
When you read that a man died after 33 days of suffering from the burns he sustained committing an attack...
Do you laugh? Does contemplating whether you rejoice in this man's suffering shed light on the question whether it is evil to believe in Hell?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
I won't laugh over it but then again I think he deserved what he got. If he suffered from his injuries, I see it as poetic justice considering the potential suffering he would have caused to others had the attack been successful.
Considering these Islamic terrorists view us as infidels and not worthy of life, I will admit to getting some satisfaction when one of thier 'sophisticated' attempts at killing innocents back-fires on them.
This is the best possible outcome. He suffered from self-inflicted wounds, suffered in a way that no western country would have inflicted on him despite the heinous nature of his crime. And then he died before he could cost the people he tried to kill too much in the way of medical and rehabilitation costs, let alone lifetime imprisonment in a country that lacks the death penalty
I contemplate the marvels of medicine that allow a man burned over 90% of his body to live that long. I wonder if he felt any remorse, or if his way overblown self-righteousness (I think all suicide terrorists must have that) prevented that.
This is the best possible outcome. He suffered from self-inflicted wounds, suffered in a way that no western country would have inflicted on him despite the heinous nature of his crime. And then he died before he could cost the people he tried to kill too much in the way of medical and rehabilitation costs, let alone lifetime imprisonment in a country that lacks the death penalty
And that's not even getting to his going straight to heaven with the 72 virgins, et. al. Win-win
What Jeff said.
He was our enemy, now he is no longer our problem.
Trey
No laughter.
Grim satisfaction.
Laugh? Not so much.
But I can appreciate the karmic accounting involved.
The news report from the link indicates he has been in a coma the whole month so probably only suffered early on. Unfortunately.
"Do you laugh?"
Nope. Merely nod and think, "the fact that he is dead makes the world a slightly better place."
I thought I heard he was in a coma the whole time. So no suffering really. (Though what do I know about being in a coma?)
And I think it's sad all around, even if he deserved punishment and felt it. The hatred and internal shadows that drove him to do this in the first place suggest this man experienced hell while alive.
He could have been a contributor, at least to his own culture if he couldn't allow himself to reach beyond it. Instead he gave into his hate, and his hate consumed him, in a shockingly literal way.
He made a choice, though. He embraced hell. He embraced the shadows and the darkness. He didn't have to. So in a way he got/is getting the results of his choice.
But it's still quite sad. Misery is always extremely sad, even if it's self-inflicted. Better this man would have learned thanksgiving instead of hate.
But is it evil to believe in hell? Not really. Just as it's not evil to believe that man lit himself on fire to begin with. He chose that hate and rejected what society offered to him for his benefit. He rejected his family and his friends. All so that he could explode in a moment of rage.
It is evil to feel glee about that kind of suffering. But I can't see how it's evil to mourn the fact while admitting there are consequences to driving a gas filled SUV into an airport and not getting away from the explosion on time. How this works out in eternity doesn't change my sadness nor does it make me feel like it is evil to think he probably should have chosen a more peaceful life, and not chosen to burn.
This article reveals that the medical folks kept him in a coma and gave him shark skin implants to aid in his healing. Hat tip: Tammy Bruce.
To answer the question: I try never to laugh at another's death because it's so, well, final. [I have been known to chortle at misfortune, however.]
Dittoes to Ruth Ann's 2nd paragraph but I am more of a snickerer as opposed to Ruth Ann being a chortler.
Is it evil to believe in hell?
For the sake of argument, let us explore whether the answer could logically be "yes." Otherwise, why even ask the question?
Now, if it is true that hell really exists, then that would mean that it is evil to believe in the truth. But that would seem to stand the concept of "evil" on its head since truth is, by its very nature, a good.
But if hell does not exist, can it be said that such a thing as "evil" exists in an objective sense, that is, in a transcendent sense. If there is a transcendent reality of evil, then that would necessarily be hell. So, if hell does not exist, then are not concepts of "evil" merely subjective opinion, merely one's own personal idea of what is disagreeable or distasteful? In which case, why should anyone care what anyone else's opinion is? Why should one mere opinion control over others?
All of which tends to show that to say "yes" to the question is wholly nonsensical. Evil and hell go hand-in-hand. The existence of one compels the existence of the other.
His actions give new meaning to the practical application of the Hippacratic Oath.
He had 33 days in the twilight zone to consider his vow to do no harm! The ultimate irony is that he brought on himself that which he wished for others.
One less monster for us to contend with!
I am not one to judge whether another gets to Heaven or not. I really don't think that anyone here has that ability, regardless of their claims to the contrary. And, likewise, that someone is going to the alternative.
But if there is a Heaven and a Hell, I would bet that he doesn't get the former, and is more likely to get the later.
But then, I suspect that if there is an Islamic Heaven/ Paradise, as advertised, that most of the jihadist suicide murderers don't make it there. And, in particular, are esp. unlikely if they accomplished their martyrdom by blowing up innocent Moslems, as is generally the case in Iraq these last couple of years.
Of course, if they really wanted to stir things up, they could have maybe used pig skin instead of shark skin to help with his burns.
My point about Hell is that if you don't rejoice when a mass murderer suffers the torture of burns for 33 days, how can you accept the justice of a system in which ordinary sinners are tortured by burning for eternity?
No. Yes.
I don't laugh.
Contemplating my reaction to his suffering does shed light on whether or not it is evil to believe in Hell.
Punishment must serve a purpose. If punishment or the threat of punishment prevents a greater evil, then so be it. But the belief in Hell is not universal. If someone does not believe in Hell, the threat of it cannot deter them. Since Hell cannot be proven to exist (or not), then believing in Hell is to believe that the people who are sent to hell are suffering for no purpose. They are suffering for the sake of suffering. And that is evil.
Rejoicing in suffering may be psychology satisfying, but it is evil. Believing in Hell is not evil, but rejoicing in its existence is.
Bender:
1. Truth is not good or evil, it is neutral. Truth is an objective fact. For instance, it is true that people suffer. That truth is not good, nor is it evil. It simply is.
2. I think your connection between Hell and evil is too strong. True, to believe in Hell is to believe in evil. Otherwise, what is Hell for? But belief in evil does not require belief in Hell. There can be evil without Hell.
Ann Althouse said...
...if you don't rejoice when a mass murderer suffers the torture of burns for 33 days, how can you accept the justice of a system in which ordinary sinners are tortured by burning for eternity?
Can we not accept the justice of this system without rejoicing in it? I accept the justice that murderers are sent to prison, but I am not happy that people must be sent to prison.
My point about Hell is that if you don't rejoice when a mass murderer suffers the torture of burns for 33 days, how can you accept the justice of a system in which ordinary sinners are tortured by burning for eternity?
I guess by starting with the fact that I accept the justice of the system and admit that I'm mostly ignorant on what that means as far as specifics. CS Lewis, for instance, that patron saint of Evangelicalism described a hell of an entirely different sort in his Great Divorce. Evangelical leaders such as John Stott believe in annihilationism. The souls that don't make it to heaven, just don't exist.
And going back to the burned man. Some really would argue that it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. This man wanted to exert his power and triumph, and didn't care about the pain. My guess is there are people celebrating him and the pain he felt as being symbols of martyrdom.
This is different than someone who is just trying to live their life and their car catches fire. I don't think they chose their burns.
Then again, it seems to me from reading the Gospels that Jesus had the same kind of opinion about those who sin. He was very kind and gracious to those who were caught up in bad circumstances, witness the saved thief on the cross. Jesus wasn't kind to those who deliberately chose evil and chose to burn themselves by burning others morally, if not literally.
I don't know who penned it, but I've always liked the quote, "Hell begins the day you enter heaven, and God shows you what you could have been." I think it's profoundly sad and also just. The better life you live, the less excruciatingly painful regret you will feel.
Although... I have always liked this article by the Onion from the post-9/11 issue.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38673
ordinary sinners are tortured by burning for eternity
Not true. Those among the damned are no "ordinary sinners." They are those who committed grave sins [mortal, serious] and who, knowing fully of God's sovereignty, chose to live apart from Him. They damned themselves.
According to Luke Chapter 15:"I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance."
There's not rejoicing in one's damnation, but in one's repentence and return to the Father's house. I think people confuse an understanding of the sense of truthful, proper, eternal Justice with rejoicing.
It would be evil NOT to believe in hell on earth. Have you been to Darfur lately? It would be more evil not to act to prevent or stop hells on earth, but it happens all the time, regretfully. As far as a literal place of fire and brimstone, have you ever been to Las Vegas in the summertime? You can fry a sulfureous egg on the hood of your car. Humans are creating a hot and hellish earth both by causing and failing to stop global warming. That's an evil hell, if you will. And to not believe in global warming is quite naive and foolish. Is the existence of fools and foolish acts preventable evil? To some degree, I suppose. And I'm not talking about Celsius or Fahrenheit.
Shark skin! How appropriate.
I don't feel sorry for the guy, since he brought this upon himself, but given the choice I would prefer to have him alive and in jail.
I don't wish pain, suffering, or death on our enemies. I just want them out of commission.
Rejoicing in this man's plight is evidence of Hell, and it's in us. His crimes were large and vile and any pity for his suffering would seem a waste, considering all the more deserving souls in the world, but a good Christian might not see mercy and compassion as a zero-sum game. Trouble is, there are very few good Christians or consistently morally ethical people, even though they think of themselves as imperfect but still decent. Most of us regular folk, myself included, create or maybe reveal hells on earth for ourselves and others through our small, petty everyday transaction.
Not being theologically correct here, but I often think man's biggest crimes and best humanitarian projects pale in significance to the billions upon billions of our passing thoughts and little actions which are thoughtless, selfish, brutish, but occasionally generous when it's difficult to be so and showing grace when the temptation is to not to in the little spaces of our lives. On balance, though, I’d have to agree with James Thurber:
“If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, and very, very few persons.”
Over a shahid?
You party like it's Friday Night, baby! You hand out the Hors d’œuvres, making certain that they are pork-laden.
You supply party favors and you hand pinatas.
WTF? Are we at war with these morons or not? Of course you wallow in satisfaction that your enemy died a terribly painful death.
Geez.
The idea that war means hating people is something I hear from the left more than the right.
As if it's necessary to hate in order to kill another human being when, in fact, it's only necessary to kill them. There can actually be sympathy or respect for the enemy and still try to kill them.
That is assuming they merit sympathy or respect. People who attempt to fire bomb civilians, men, women and children, but who end up melted to the asphalt themselves don't merit sympathy or respect.
The regular soldiers who Saddam sent to the front lines to face our troops deserve sympathy. They are allowed to surrender and deserve to be treated well, fed and doctored. Opposing soldiers might well be respected.
Someone who was trying to burn up children doesn't deserve what honorable soldiers who just happen to be on the other side because their nation went to war deserve.
To think that being at war with someone means that we're supposed to prefer a horribly painful death for them is perverse.
To prefer that this guy died slowly rather than quickly has to do with *him* and not the fact that we're at war.
And there is, of course, the story about an officer (a Major?) from the Iraqi Army that was walking home after the army was dissolved who was saluted by the enlisted American soldier manning a check point.
Because we salute foreign officers.
I'm not satisfied. He deliberately targeted innocents. He meant for someone like madisonman or bruce hayden or ruth anne to suffer from burns for 33 days before dying.
So I wish he had suffered more. If I could resurrect him to linger in agony for 33 years, I would.
Our people should dispatch the enemy who is trying to murder us and kill our way of life. We're only human and will be glad when each soldier against us, jihadist, terror planner, financier, violent Islamist, inciting cleric, thug assassin, traitorous informant, mercenary profiteer, supporting family member or associate goes, dies, and is sucking air no more.
But to dance in jubilation at the suffering and death of "morons" and evil people is to be too much like those debased crazies we're fighting. Our enemy makes me angry and sad; when they meet their justified end, it makes me relieved but still sad that this was how humans chose to live and desecrate their lives. Shouldn't the work of our good warriors, troops, police and other agents on the front lines of the hot (and hidden) wars be what's celebrated and not the by-product of misery?
Most soldiers I know don't get off on the suffering of our enemy- they're willing and eager to take him out, though. They and the rest of us certainly can appreciate the irony of 'just desserts', but for us to ululate over death and misery of even demonic or animal-like enemies seems a corruption.
Am more compelled to love and respect our armed forces and uncelebrated others- they subdue the enemy not only by killing or capturing him, but by engaging in constructive efforts to help secure and humanize those places the enemy needs as caliphate corrupt wastelands. What tough, brave work they do.
People use words like "hell" as a means to an end. The word is exploitable (fear, pride)and goes not so much to inherent evil and hypocrisy as it does psychological defensive instincts.
When people say "I don't pass judgment, God will," we all know they are very subtly doing so. The beauty of the H-bomb when used offensively(religious) or persuasively (political)is that people, at most, expect the 'evil-doer' to defend rather than have the accuser support the assertion.
On whether people should feel guilty or think twice before passing judgment on others. It's difficult for humans to fight natural defensive mechanisms when they believe that life, values or "the truth" are in danger.
To be human is to judge on every level, all of the time. But it seems I need to explain something I said:
"Most of us regular folk, myself included, create or maybe reveal hells on earth for ourselves and others through our small, petty everyday transaction."
Oh, boy. Please note I included myself as to creating or revealing my own hellish nature. Also, please know that my remarks have nothing to do with specific people or recent incidents. For years, I've believed that 99% of us are petty creatures, and that when one witnesses, receives or actually gives a little grace *under unexpected or difficult circumstances*, then they're experiencing a little bit of heaven on earth.
Everything's not about some people.
I hope they soothed his burns by coating them in lard.
Most soldiers I know don't get off on the suffering of our enemy- they're willing and eager to take him out, though. They and the rest of us certainly can appreciate the irony of 'just desserts'
No, but I draw a distinction between terrorist suicide-bombers and legal uniformed combatants. And I think we lose something if we extend the respect for the latter to the former.
The idea that we have all been afforded grace should leave us all refusing to judge someone else (except through law). To rejoice in another's serious misfortune is base and wrong, a temptation. And if you're a true believer in God and the concept of Hell, you most probably try to stifle yourself. However, one cannot help thoughts that fly into the head. It's a matter of if you entertain them or act/speak in jest or mocking the man. While I don't feel a lot of compassion (as I should TRY to), I wouldn't want to laugh about it. Still, admittedly, the first thought is, "Aha-hahaha, serves you right." I'm just glad we don't all get what we deserve.
Jane: But to dance in jubilation at the suffering and death of "morons" and evil people is to be too much like those debased crazies we're fighting
This is just feminine nonsense, and frankly if you ever needed a demonstrable reason for not putting women in front-line combat positions in the US military, Jane's statements are the of the first order.
You need to read the line spoken by General George Patton, wherein he tells his men that the point of war is not to give your life for your own country but the make the other guy die giving his life for his country.
No body ever won a battle hopped up on empathy and estrogen.
Uh, yeah, Paul. Good reading comp. Where did I speak of empathy? It's just goddam sad how hateful people are- whether they're murdering animals or sadistic assholes. Why should I or anyone get a thrill out of others' lingering and painful deaths? Admittedly, some do. More, I think, are just glad that they're dead.
Anyway, did you see where I said our enemies need to be dispatched, killed, made unalive, etc? Read, again. You dishonor the guys I know in uniform by suggesting they enjoy the suffering they must and are most willing to inflict. I was a military spouse for years and know a lot of these men. They're not sadistic jerks. They want to kill sadistic jerks.
Anyway, I'm not supposed to comment, anymore. Will just finish this thread.
"You need to read the line spoken by General George Patton, wherein he tells his men that the point of war is not to give your life for your own country but the make the other guy die giving his life for his country."
You interpret Patton's words as an exhortation for our guys to kill the enemy and get off on his pain? Or are you very badly twisting my comments as to mean I think our guys should die rather than to kill the enemy?
Completely bizarre. I don't understand people, any more.
Paul,
I just spoke with my friends at DoD, and they told me exactly what I had said. Further, they said that Patton was a big believer in subduing the enemy, but once he's subdued, not to inflict further pain. This is just common sense, doctrinally, if not morally.
In fact, Paul, our side is wary of recruits who seem to inordinately *enjoy* the killing part of soldiering, if it entails inflicting more suffering than necessary. There are protocols for observing and dealing with such people and situations.
This discussion has gotten a little off-base from the topic, but the principle still applies- acknowledging and wryly considering “just desserts” is one thing, but to find real joy or experience a frisson of thrill at horrible pain and death is what the people we’re having to kill do. Thankfully, that’s not most of us. And, again, many of us- such as myself- are fairly dispassionate about the need to stop our enemy DEAD in his tracks. Go, Army! (And Marines, Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force.)
I don't think there is anything inconsistent about (a) being happy when evil people suffer agony and (b) thinking that the idea of condemning people to Hell is, itself, evil.
The key point is that NOTHING deserves infinite pain, which is exactly what "eternal torment" is. Even people like Hitler and Stalin deserve, at most, a few million years in a fiery pit. Nobody deserves infinite punishment, because no act is infinitely bad.
They are those who committed grave sins [mortal, serious] and who, knowing fully of God's sovereignty, chose to live apart from Him. They damned themselves.
So it is impossible for an atheist to go to Hell? That's reassuring, I guess.
"My point about Hell is that if you don't rejoice when a mass murderer suffers the torture of burns for 33 days, how can you accept the justice of a system in which ordinary sinners are tortured by burning for eternity?"
Careful now! There's that pesky 'logic' creepin' in. That's usually the point in the argument where the self-righteous fundamentalist religious types lop your head off.
Now I'm not really sure if I was being facetious or not but the question you posed puts you at odds with almost every religion on the planet.
...not that that's a bad thing...
graham: I don't wish pain, suffering, or death on our enemies.
I do, when our enemies are Islamic Jihad terrorists.
(With the exception of brainwashed kids or mentally retarded people who are conned into, for example, strapping a device on after being told, say, flowers will fly everywhere when it goes off.)
When our enemies are just conventional soldiers, I just wish for their defeat with as little pain, suffering, or death as possible all around.
fen: So I wish he had suffered more.
Me too.
If I could resurrect him to linger in agony for 33 years, I would.
I rejoice in his self-inflicted suffering, but I wouldn't wanna take part in someone being tortured...even someone for whom I rejoice in his suffering.
If more terrorists had their methods backfire and caused themselves to accidentally inflict on themselves the pain, suffering, and death they had intended for their targets, I'd rejoice each and every time, and might start to open my mind to the existance of a God.
I don't rejoice when a mass murderer is executed. However, it is a relief that he leaves society for good. As Ruth Ann says, it's accepting justice, just as is accepting the idea of Hell. It is up to each person to decide whether to turn his back on the belief in God or not, and to face consequences should He be so. It's not up to the rest of us to decide how we feel about another's demise, nor to threaten another with damnation or judgment. It's up to us to respect and defer to law, spiritual or earthly.
HAyden Of course, if they really wanted to stir things up, they could have maybe used pig skin instead of shark skin to help with his burns.
Nice, and they do use treated, hypoallergenic pig and human corpse skin in burn treatment. I wonder if the Brits went to the more exotic shark skin to avoid offending the Brit people about their limited supply of human organ donations going to a Muslim terrorist and yet avoid offending the Islamoids by swathing the jerk in pigskin.
Ann Althouse's theological question is best answered by whether or not the Muslim terrorist roasts in hell or not is God's choice, not ours. Therefore we cannot presume to start the "roast in hell process" by executing prisoners by burning them to death with gas or blowtorches - any Christian would have qualms about such a grisly method, even if they supported the death penalty.
On the other hand, it is also quite Christian to not wish to devote society's resources or their personal intervention on the most evil amongst us while more deserving stand wanting - the Sister Helen Prejeans who devote excessive time on kiddie killers spiritual needs nonwithstanding.
In real life it is expressed as someone ostracizing, rejecting another person for bad words or deeds by saying things like "If he was on fire I wouldn't piss on him to put it out." And in Glasgow, the practical Scots unsurprizingly said it practically to "hero rescuers" trying to put the lit Jihadi out..."Let the bastard burn, to hell with 'ye." "Burn, you asshole". "Let 'em roast, he's not worth saving".
As Ruth Ann says, it's accepting justice, just as is accepting the idea of Hell.
You're drawing a distinction between "I feel good when justice is done, and justice requires that they suffer" and "I feel good when they suffer". I don't see the deep distinction there -- especially since all of the people saying they feel good that the guy suffered also think that it was just that he suffered.
You're trying to say that it is justice you like, and it is purely coincidental that justice happens to involve bad guys spending an eternity in pain and torment. Like if God said that Justice for a life of baby-raping consisted of writing "I will not rape babies" on the blackboard 50 times, why, that would be fine too. I'm not buying it.
Revenant: I would say that there's a distinction between garden variety justice and ultimate justice.
We're in charge of garden variety justice; God's in charge of ultimate justice.
And on that count, I'm reminded of the parable of the vineyard workers who got a full day's wage whether they worked the whole day or were 5 o'clock workers. When the all-day workers groused, Jesus chided them for not recognizing God's abundant generosity. I'm relying on that generosity because I haven't been laboring in these hyar vineyards a whole day either. So, if in God's ultimate justice, the penalty is writing something on the cosmic blackboard 50 times, I say so be it.
I don’t know the net link- someone sent this to me after my inquiry as to rejoicing over our enemy's suffering: Excerpts from
Memorandum for: Colonel Millard Meese, Head of social Sciences, West Point
Subject: After Action Report
From: General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (ret)
“US Combat Forces are simply superb. The Army and Marine brigade, battalion, and company commanders are the most experienced and talented leaders in our history. Re-enlistment rates are simply astonishing. The joint integration of combat power is extremely effective—but is deemed remarkable by the involved units…
”These Marine and Army combat units rapidly employ synchronized air and ground combat power, use enormous fire discipline, are compassionate with vulnerable civilians, and move with explosive energy and courage…
…
“The wariness, adherence to ROE, and discipline of the involved air and ground forces are awe-inspiring. I watched with fascination the attack video of an Apache whose pilot held fire at absolutely the last second—when what they suspected (correctly) was an innocent farmer appeared in the foreground of a pending Hellfire launch against 5-6 armed insurgents. The pilot painstakingly changed his attack angle-- and sailed the Hellfire over the farmer’s head and successfully nailed the insurgents…”
As for me, I’ve argued for ROE that vigorously protects our interests, but the people in charge seem to think that being careful and not committing to indiscriminate slaughter at this point is the ticket. I’ve met many of these people in charge, and they’re definitely not estrogenized. They're just balanced, fierce men (and women.) Anyway, who needs gratuitous woman bashing and keyboard aggression at a time like this?
And on that count, I'm reminded of the parable of the vineyard workers who got a full day's wage whether they worked the whole day or were 5 o'clock workers.
I've always taken that parable as proof that Christians have no more grasp of economic reality than Communists do. :)
Jane: I’ve met many of these people in charge, and they’re definitely not estrogenized
Not estrogenized compared to what? You? Someone else who can more aptly be typified as a bag of estrogen?
Today's military is awash in a sea of political correctness. Warriors have to muzzle in order not to antagonize feminists who've made the military their target du jour.
I don't know whom you think is going to buy this claptrap. You went and talked to someone in the military who as far as you could tell in the moment reinforced your empath positions. What does that prove?
The fact that the current Rules of Engagement amount to fighting this war with one hand paralyzed is testimony to the estrogen-ization of today's military.
After the next terror incident, please by all means tell the innocent victims, many of them women and children all about how you feel no glee at the defeat of those who murder them.
By the way, there's a difference between reveling in victory and being a psychopath. What a shame that you can't see it.
With respect, the Geneva Conventions have done as much to "estrogenize" the military and how war is conducted as anything...that and the habeus corpus. It seems like less of an estrogen-induced problem and more as a product of evolving civility (vs. barbarism). It comes at a price, though, as nothing is expected to be imposed by a "victor," but rather negotiated/conceded with words rather than guns, cooperation with the "invaded," and a third party to mediate/arbitrate (hence, ensure that the right hand is indeed bound in back). This is "war" in the 21st century.
Paul, You have a reading problem. Show me where I said not to be ecstatic about victory. My position has to do with the topic of the thread- whether to rejoice or laugh at lingering, awful suffering of our enemies- be they grotesque or just regular Mo's. You apparently do and will- that much is obvious. Guess it never occurred to you, the great testosteronized mil historian, that our services have provided first-aid to the injured enemy WAAAAY before this conservative woman married into the military, schlepped around, and did all sorts of volunteer work on behalf of our guys in uniform. Me, the big feminist, a "bag of estrogen." Me, who's sick of unmanly men who pick on women. Your girlie bitch is with our civilization at large. If you want our citizens and troops to throw parties when our enemies lie around in agony for weeks on end, go ahead and campaign for a new consciousness.
What a complete ass. First thing the guys said to me was, he never served, did he? Armchair killer.
"As for me, I’ve argued for ROE that vigorously protect our interests..."
Did you skip o'er that one, Paul? Did you miss all the places where I said to kill the enemy but good? And when they do, YAY! What a relief. Dance a jig. Be beyond thrilled. I never said I was a good Christian.
Yours is a typical reactionary attitude toward the services that completely discounts what a damn terrific job they're doing, especially considering the legalities and politics that hamstring them so. Your obsession with feminization and feminists is cute, though. As if NOW impacts our ROE and not the UN/ international convention, Dems, our judiciary, the international media, White House and schooled Pentagon leaders. Or, have you found out our secret that wimmin have a stranglehold on all of those gonad-less men who dominate those institutions by putting she-hormones in their cooler water?
What does feminism directly have to do with affairs military, other than promoting women's participation in the services? Personally, I'm against women serving in combat arms and am acutely aware how even the women in support roles give us readiness probs (health, pregancy, kids, etc.), but I don't see how they're so in charge of our military that they're the ones enforcing the ROE under which we're currently operating.
You're attacking what you see as a new touchy-feely civilizational value impacting western institutions (you and the Islamists both), and laying it at the feet of our terrific troops (and throwing it at mine). What I see is the smartest, most capable military that we've ever had having to do the State Department's and the rest of the world's share of the work, on top of their own fighting and securing. What I see is an opposition party here and an international media here and there and everywhere throttling us back and standing at 'gotcha' alert. They are the ones at whom I direct my fire. What I also see is some doctrinal and strategic benefit to our fighting "humanely," as frustrating as that is to boys on the homefront. We could argue all day where to draw the line, though.
But, back to the point, even were ROE liberalized in our favor, you still wouldn't see many service members deliriously happy over the maiming and suffering. Beauchamp would, but that's just the kind of real jerk he evidently is. Many of our guys will celebrate a good kill with "yeah!" or "woo-hoo," but you won't find many willing to laugh or throw a party over the fact of suffering. They're still going to give first-aid and alleviate suffering most of the time. Surely, some enemy combatants are left to suffer and/ or to die, and who can argue with other priorities or passive justice, from time to time? You won't find that becoming mil policy, however, for all injured enemy. Besides, there's interrogation value to some of them.
Anyway, Paul, thanks for the discussion, even though it got too hard with a lot of uncharitable assumptions made about the other. Sorry about my part. At least we tried.
There’s no understanding without communication and no forgiveness without understanding. Where’s the experience of Spirit without generosity of spirit and charity? Absent these, everything’s just unrelentingly hard and mean. Self-righteousness becomes a gun aimed in misunderstanding.
Just something I discussed with a minister friend this AM and maybe words to blog and befriend by. He also suggested that to rejoice in a heinous person's suffering is not Christian in his book, but that's just his theological take.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, Jane, but after being on the net for a couple of years i don’t see much reconciliation between people. People just get hardened in their attitudes when they take public positions with comments and have their little groups to support them. Not to many people are big enough to correct themselves or reach out.
Check your email, jane and I'll give you a call today.
By the way I agree with you about this whole business. We're different from the animals who danced in the street on Sept. 9. Defeating them doesn't mean we have to kill off our own souls as they've killed theirs. Heaven and Hell? they're here already and we just don't recognize them.
Just like a Democrat to remember Sept. 9. Make it the 11th.
Link:
In the video that serves as his last will and testament, the youthful, well-dressed Saudi, known only as "Fatima's Fiancé," is laughing and joking with the cameraman who will record his death a few minutes later. "Pray for Allah to make my mission easy," he says, and waves as he climbs into a maroon sedan, grinning broadly. "May Allah make it easy for you," the cameraman says obligingly, and laughs. The scene cuts away to an earlier interview, where the Saudi announces that when he gets to heaven he plans to marry a woman named Fatima, who was allegedly abused in Abu Ghraib Prison. Then the scene shifts to a highway in Iraq, with a line of 18-wheelers roaring along and a red circle superimposed over the bomber's approaching car. As the music swells and the screen fills with an orange-and-black fireball, the cameraman cries, "Thanks to Allah!"
It’s like they live on another planet. In another dimension. In a barbaric time leaking to the present. They need to be removed from our existence before they remove us. And, LOL, ND. Message received, can do.
That's about the sum of it. I had thought jihad came from a brain impariment or spiritual dysfunction, but now I believe its an evil space-time overlapping our reality as in that sorry excuse for a movie Event Horizon. Hell is: paying to actually see that disaster.
Speaking of, J, next time you use the teenager meaning of a word post it right away. Even if you meant he'd be the best, your screwed if he thinks you menat the opposite, okay? You have to laugh if you say one stupid word and your $10 is never no good forever more. Just stay out of bait shops and try gun and tackle ones instead. but you'll need more than ten bucks, so save up. I'm buying tommorow, just to help, heh.
impairment
you're
meant
tomorrow
The keyboard is acting up again and my racket's warped.
LOL. Thanks for the levity. When I'm not crying I’m laughing at myself, too-- LOTS.
Hell is: a Heaven that’s not the least bit funny :-/
the Divine Comedy?
Cheer up, Jane, we're all parodies of ourselves at some point. People who don't realize it ar e the lame straight-men. You know, I didn't mean that to mean I'm not, because I am, and your first refresher tutorial is going to be on how men think. Never forget we think better when our egos are stroked. All you have to do is tell me I'm handsome, smart, gallant and manly etc. Your mama must have taught you these things when you were a young, a younger, thing. Mine did. She told me I was handsome, smart, a gentleman etc :-}
Okay, here's what a gallant traditionalist I am. You get a dozen flubbed jokes absolutely free. Any more than that will cost you, but nothing you can’t handle, I’m sure. The penalty could be something as pleasant as you crewing for me, a strict but most fair captain. If you tell a joke clumsily at sea you might get to swab the deck while I watch and that's much more fun than the capital punishment your're going through now, and excellent exercise, too. Win-win, my papa didn't raise a fool.
I'm looking forward to taking offense at everything you say, so watch out. I hear you’re a good cook, so there are possibilities there. My treat first, J, and I'll try to make it extra nice because i think you deserve it.
You’re killing me, ND-- in the nicest of ways, but Liz should have warned me :) G'night.
Oh, almost forgot. You're wonderfully gallant for making me feel better and your manly typing's improving. How's that? It was sincere, too.
I knew you didnt need a refresher. You just need a guy who knows pretty damn great when he sees it. I’ve been reading you a while now and owe Liz a big one. Also those certain others, asin Not so angelic real men rush in where fools fear to tread. Yes, I’m the kind of man who would mangle Pope for my purposes and I think you’re up to the challenge…Call me before my meeting, J.
Like if God said that Justice for a life of baby-raping consisted of writing "I will not rape babies" on the blackboard 50 times, why, that would be fine too. I'm not buying it.
Actually, doesn't it take much less than that to qualify for a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card, while doing substantially worse?
Last time I looked, you could even grotesquely, violently and slowly kill 99% of the world's population (while forcing the other 1% to watch), and still get into Heaven. Everything is apparently forgivable... just follow the directions in the book, there.
Of course, failure to follow those instructions, regardless of any amount of good and lack of evil you partake in, gets you an eternity of incredible torture. But hey, that's justice, ya know.
That's apparently the one exception to "everything is forgivable". Better be sure to take that 'free gift', now (or else)!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा