The swift conviction of so many in one stroke was a sudden acceleration of the sweeping crackdown against Mr. Morsi’s Islamist supporters and against other dissenters that has unfolded since his removal last summer....
The verdict on Monday underscored the continuing determination of at least a part of the Egyptian judicial system to treat support for the ousted president as treason....
But Monday’s decision took place in Minya, an Islamist stronghold in the rural areas upstream of Cairo along the Nile. It may indicate a determination by prosecutors or judges to deal more harshly with Islamists in the places where they constitute the most serious threat to the new order.
March 24, 2014
Egyptian court sentences 529 persons to death after a mass trial.
They were convicted of "killing one police officer, of the attempted killing of a second, and of participating in rioting that destroyed a police station."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
113 comments:
The Islamists supporting Morsi abused the Democratic process to secure and wield power and then attempted to do away with the democratic processes and impose Sharia Law by ignoring their own Constitution and Courts. They are traitors by their actions. They deserve their fate.
Death in big bunches is pretty much the only thing that will stop the Islamists from continuing their warfare against modernism, secularism and pluralism within Muslim majority countries.
It will take a total war with similar levels of death and destruction similar to what was inflicted on Germany and Japan in WW2 to make any sort of big changes away from religious fanaticism in that area of the world. They'll also have to have postwar Nuremberg type trials and executions of the major instigators, the radical Imams, to ever get out from under the Islamists will to power and supremacy.
One of the things I noticed as a mistake when we went into Iraq was that we didn't break their will to fight, because we were too sparing with the indiscriminate bombing and destruction; they maintained their will to fight on both sides, Shia and Sunni.
Most revolutions follow lengthy and erratic paths. It's hard to understand what is happening, and why. Mass killings of the revolutionaries can be a sign that the old order is losing its grip on power, or a sign of increased will and power. Where (as here) both sides have been ruthless and murderous, the outcome is even more difficult to predict.
Egypt has over 80,000,000 people. That's up from about 38,000,000 in 1973, the year of the Yom Kippur War. Much of that increase is younger people. Their economic prospects are not good. They are products of a traditional society but not a stable one.
Some day this mass of people will do something decisive. That is likely to be an ugly time, bringing killing and starvation. We do not think of Modern Egypt as a place of famine, but with enough disorder it could be.
Drudge has a headline about UK hospitals incinerating aborted babies for heat. Perhaps the Egyptians can use the soon-to-be-beheaded in the same manner. Think green: human bodies are a renewable energy source.
"Could be," David? ISTR that it already is. Not around Cairo, but south.
SGT Ted, let me be the first to condemn your "death in big bunches" remark. It doesn't particularly matter who's in the "bunch," does it? Just pick a random 500+, and make it a nice, big public execution while you're at it.
I've got a few ideas for the people who want to rule Egypt:
1) Put women down. Oh, wait, check, you've done that.
2) Promote a fanatical cult as your primary religion. Oh, wait, done.
3) By all means, persecute those damned peace-loving Christians. Oh, wait; you're on the case.
4) There is no four. You are doing everything possible to mess up your land. Well, maybe you could blow up the pyramids.
betamax3000, "Think green"? Think Soylent Green.
Death in big bunches is pretty much the only thing that will stop the Islamists from continuing their warfare against modernism, secularism and pluralism within Muslim majority countries.
Yeah, mass trials and executions are the pinnacle of modernism, secularism and pluralism.
Sometimes the bathwater is so awful you can do without the baby.
My Egyptian daughter in Aswan has been studying from home. This is because her school has been closed for the entire school year. The school administration thinks a school full of boys and girls (many Christian) would prove too tempting a target for the Brotherhood.
I'm putting this in a separate post because its just too chilling and should stand on its own.
Last year before the army had effectively reestablished order, our daughter reported to us that the brotherhood had been going around Aswan painting the Egyptian equivalent of "C" on the doors of the city's Christian population.
Nazi comparisons are way too easily abused. But when confronted with the real thing, the silliness of American political examples becomes tragically obvious.
A new 529 Plan!
Oh my. A war on Christianity and the Christians are fighting back.
Freder at 8:58 AM wrote exactly what I was going to write. Same quoted material and same response. Word for word.
Kill'em all and let Allah sort'em out.
Freder at 8:58 AM wrote exactly what I was going to write.
I better check the Weather Channel and see if, indeed, hell has frozen over.
Death in big bunches is pretty much the only thing that will stop the Islamists from continuing their warfare against modernism, secularism and pluralism within Muslim majority countries.
Yeah, mass trials and executions are the pinnacle of modernism, secularism and pluralism."
Yes comrades, I completely agree with your methods.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph Stalin
One of the reasons that the radical Islamic ideology came from Egypt is exactly this disregard for law by the state. Sharia law is medieval, but it is at least law. The state should have some laws constraining it, instead of being an unchecked despotism.
In practice, Islamic jihad is simply mass murder by a different name. The ideological impetus behind it is more understandable. They're like the Communist revolutionaries who were looking for a way to overthrow the unjust societies that they lived in. Historically, the cure has been worse than the disease.
Liberal revolutions only succeed in countries that are ready for them. Otherwise, revolutions are a bloody mess.
Well I don't blame them.
Muslim extremist are a danger to everyone.
If they won't behave, then let'em have it.
"One of the things I noticed as a mistake when we went into Iraq was that we didn't break their will to fight, because we were too sparing with the indiscriminate bombing and destruction; they maintained their will to fight on both sides, Shia and Sunni."
So, you want to compound our war crime of invading Iraq illegally by being unrestrained with our indiscriminate bombing...in order to "break their will to fight." Shit, as it is we destroyed their country.
We were freely indiscriminate with our bombing of North Vietnam, yet we never broke their will to fight. It's kind of hard to break the will of a people to fight against foreign invaders, don't you think? Or do you believe Americans would fold in the face of devastating attacks from abroad?
We were freely indiscriminate with our bombing of North Vietnam, yet we never broke their will to fight. It's kind of hard to break the will of a people to fight against foreign invaders, don't you think? Or do you believe Americans would fold in the face of devastating attacks from abroad?"
Actually RC we didn't bomb N Vietnam indiscriminately. If we did Hanoi and Haiphong would have looked like Hamburg and Dresden.
Individual trials, with an appeals process?
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Cubanbob,
Given that we dropped millions of tons more bombs in Vietnam than were dropped in all of Europe during WWII--against a far less mighty foe, (one that posed no threat to the United States)--I'd say the least it can be called is indiscriminate.
Well, maybe you could blow up the pyramids.
That is not a joke. If the Brotherhood had remained in power, they probably would have tried. (At least one Iman was talking about it)
Given that we dropped millions of tons more bombs in Vietnam than were dropped in all of Europe during WWII--against a far less mighty foe, (one that posed no threat to the United States)--I'd say the least it can be called is indiscriminate.
And you'd be wrong. In fact the targeting was usually so precise, that sometimes President Johnson picked out the targets. And if you place two cities as off limits for most of the war that is the definition of discriminate.
Gahrie,
Yeah, yeah...we always drop our bombs--no matter how many metric tons of them--so precisely that only "bad guys" are dismemberd and killed and there is never any damage to civilian infrastructure.
How wonderful and good we are.
The Egyptians are faced with a choice between the Devil and the deep blue sea. The Wahhabi Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda or just plain old Wahhabi Islam and Saudi Arabia. They are screwed wither way although the Wahhabi Islam with Saudi Arabia provides them with resources so they can eat and a slightly more rational government.
"Neither invasion of Iraq was illegal. both were sanctioned by the U.N. and Congress."
Our 2003 invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN.
529 executions in retaliation for 1 murder? Civilized societies don't do such things.
I'm not generally inclined to shed tears when bad things happen to Islamist radicals, but mass killings don't bode well for Egypt's future.
And Congress has nothing to say about it; if we invade another country in violation of UN Security Council rules--which, in 2003, we did--the invasion is illegal.
"I gurantee you that Iraq today is better materially and has better infrastructure than it did before we invaded."
Your "gurantee" is as good as Clapper's assertion that the NSA was not spying on Americans, (though perhaps you actually believe the nonsense you put forth, as opposed to Clapper's knowing lie).
Islam is the kind of religion that flourishes under duress. The Muslim Brotherhood are not very good at governing but they know how to survive and prosper under persecution.
"the invasion is illegal."
How many of the conflicts going on in the world today are "legal"?
Ann Althouse said...
"Freder at 8:58 AM wrote exactly what I was going to write. Same quoted material and same response. Word for word. "
Then you both are very foolish. Your way of thinking is why slavery is still common around the world.
Robert Cook said...
"And Congress has nothing to say about it; if we invade another country in violation of UN Security Council rules--which, in 2003, we did--the invasion is illegal."
Snort. "Illegal" is being used in a discussion of f-ing War. How stupid 'modern' people are.
How dare Northern Vietnam ignore their own signed documents of the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" and invade South Vietnam and murder all those people! That's illegal.
I don't agree with Sgt. Ted's kill-'em-all strategy, but Freder's characterization of it contained a great big logical error. I expect such logical errors from Freder, but I'm mildly surprised at Althouse making the same one.
Yeah, yeah...we always drop our bombs--no matter how many metric tons of them--so precisely that only "bad guys" are dismemberd and killed and there is never any damage to civilian infrastructure.
Nope. in fact if we were talking about WW II I'd be on your side. I just wouldn't be upset about it. You want to learn about the horrors of war...read up on what used to happen to cities and the people who lived in them after they fell to a siege.
But it is a simple fact that starting with Vietnam, the U.S. military has made a bigger effort than any other military force in history to limit civilian casulities. yes mistakes do happen, and war is hell...but the U.S. military spends much time, effort and training to limit them.
I love the sound of the screams of dying Islamists in the morning ... it sounds like ... victory.
Nobody has actually been executed yet.
Now ain't the time for your tears.
I once saw a friend stand before the judge and receive a sentence of 3 years in the state penitentiary for a minor crime.
After a very long 30 seconds or so, the judge added "sentence suspended. Formal probation for 1 year".
That friend never committed another crime, and never missed a probation appointment.
Of course, all that has happened since was unpredictable and preferable to supporting our long time ally Mubarek. Right, Barack?
BTW, did anyone ever get an exact count on the number of Christian churches destroyed in Egypt by the supporters of the Morsi/Obama coalition?
Was it 80? 100? More?
Freder: "Yeah, mass trials and executions are the pinnacle of modernism, secularism and pluralism."
The left, and I mean the entire left, had no problem voicing those very assertions over the last 100 years as they defended the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's gulags, even Kim Il Sung's N Korea.
The leftists here and everywhere have precisely zero self-awareness.
Boltforge: "How dare Northern Vietnam ignore their own signed documents of the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" and invade South Vietnam and murder all those people! That's illegal."
You will not be surprised to learn that when cookie is not on here denying murderous communist regimes have engaged in horrific conduct he is busy providing rationales and justifications for said actions which, of course, always are the result of terrible capitalistic policies.
Robert Cook: "Our 2003 invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN."
LOL
Again, simply read the Cease-fire agreement that was signed at the end of "Gulf War I".
Iraq was in violation of every single item and the ramifications of such violations were spelled out clearly.
Clearly.
The actions taken in 2003 were in full accordance with the mutually agreed upon cease fire agreement.
Too bad our resident marxists can't be bothered with simply reading the agreement.
Drago,
You're misinformed...or lying. Tell me where I have "denied" that communist regimes have engaged in horrific conduct...or have provided "rationales and justifications" for such conduct.
I do point out that horrific conduct is horrific conduct, no less so when carried out by America. We are not complicit in the horrific conduct of other regimes, but we are complicit in the horrific conduct of our own country, and so our horrific conduct is more our business to condemn.
Actually, we are complicit in the horrific conduct of other regimes...when we have propped them up and provided aid, support, armaments, financing, etc.(See Augusto Pinochet in Chile and the Shah of Iran...and Saddam Hussein, before we decided he was no longer an asset to us, as three examples).
Ah, the "we are all responsible" meme rears its ugly head...
It's a start.
The string "we are all responsible" yields about 3.2 million drops on Google. It is a hoary old locution that people who ought to know better use to lend fake gravitas to the point they are trying to make.
Scott,
Your weary sighs about "hoary old locutions" do nothing to dispel their continuing validity.
Cook prefers the Stop! or I shall say Stop again defense.
Robert Cook, face reality.
Leftism has killed tens of millions.
Rightism, not so sure. Not sure what rightism is. Leftists seem to think it's Nazism (which was leftist), fascism (which is leftist), statism (which is leftist), cronyism (I'll stop now), etc.
Reality is that leftism kills people, little babies, fetuses, women, people of color, people who want a chance at a good life.
Leftism kills dead, with blood.
Cookie is an unreconstructed marxist.
Every experiment in marxist/leftist thought (which is necessarily totalitarian) has led to mass murder of millions (or less due simply to demographics not intent).
Cookie: "Actually, we are complicit in the horrific conduct of other regimes..."
The left is even MORE complicit in even MORE horrific conduct of other regimes.
Try that one on for size comrade.
And your 'Tell me where I have "denied"' BS is bullshit. Tell me where you have decried. The absence of demonstrable guilt is some kind of an excuse? in your constant excuse of leftist murder?
No.
Jump back a few years and change location and cookie would be one of those crazed maoists shoving the little red book under the noses of those "counter-revolutionaries" in China, right before those counter-revolutionaries were marched off to reeducation and death camps.
All the while having praises of the communist system sung by the lefties in the west.
Hell, cookie can't even accept that he is completely full of s*** with his 'Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah to keep Americans hostages' tripe.
Cookie is just a garage with a few more years of "education" under his belt.
No, no, Drago, I want a big, full defense of leftism. It'll be fun. Hey, lefties, let's defend Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot and North Vietnam and North Korea and Communist China.
Go for it, Robert Cook. Try to defend it. Take Fidel Castro along for the ride.
Nobody?
The 100 million murders by leftist regimes were of innocent civilians after they were already in power. So far as I can determine, that number does not include civilians killed as collateral damage in leftie wars. Perhaps the lefties on this site can find comparable examples where our country murdered millions of civilians after they were already subdued. If not, they are comparing apples to oranges to justify cold blooded murder on a massive scale.
"Yeah, yeah...we always drop our bombs--no matter how many metric tons of them--so precisely that only "bad guys" are dismemberd and killed and there is never any damage to civilian infrastructure."
There wouldn't be any damage to civilian enemy infrastructure if the enemy didn't use them for military purposes nor would there be civilian casualties if the enemy didn't use civilian labor for military purposes or located military installations next to civilian structures. You should have sent Ho Chi Minh a memo regarding that and also have sent him a memo regarding massacring South Vietnamese civilians.
As for Iraq, really? I hate to break the news to you but in our system our constitution is the highest law and if congress authorizes war then under our legal system that's final and the UN is irrelevant. As for Pinochet he made a number of communists in to good communist. Now maybe to a communist that might be a tragedy but to the majority of the people in Chile at the time getting rid of a nascent communist regime wasn't considered a bad thing and even today there is no popular demand that the country go communist. Iraq free of Saddam is far more preferable to the majority of Iraqis than an Iraq ruled by Saddam. Most Iranians today would rather have the relative freedom of the Shah than what they have today. And most Cubans today on the island would rather have the half-black Batista running the country that the liliy-white Castro brothers.
Bob Ellison:
Anyone who asserts Nazism was leftist is either ignorant or arguing dishonestly. It's become a favorite argument of the right in the last couple of years so as to absolve the extreme right from any stink of tyranny or murder.
Cookie is an unreconstructed marxist.
Drago: Show me where I have ever claimed to be a Marxist, unreconstructed or otherwise.
That would be quite a feat, given that I have never read a page of Marx.
I wonder how many have clicked through and read the article on which this post is based. The mass trial and sentencing is abhorent to Western sensibilities. This allows both Freder and Althouse to preen when a commenter predictably rises to the bait.
But wait. Nobody is being marched out and immediately shot as would happen in revolutionary France, Soviet Russia or other places. Apparently, the legal consensus is that this verdict will be overturned. About 3/4 of the defendents aren't even in custody and were sentenced in absentia. If apprehended they receive a new trial. In some ways, this appears to be primarily lawfare battlespace preparation. As far as the 3/4 not in custody, it is effectively a super duper arrest warrant.
We don't even know the legal standards being applied. Secular? Sharia? Is the judge Christian, Muslim? But it sure looks bad from a Western viewpoint, and I think that was the NYT's intent.
You'll find the key paragraph right below the second picture in the linked article. The NYT is clever anough to block my cut and pasting the actual content; at least on my tablet.
Robert Cook said "Anyone who asserts Nazism was leftist is either ignorant or arguing dishonestly. It's become a favorite argument of the right in the last couple of years so as to absolve the extreme right from any stink of tyranny or murder."
Robert Cook, the Nazis were leftists. It's hard and fast to collect that fact. I know it hurts you; it hurts in the butt. But it's the truth. Maybe you should read a book.
Let's try a little experiment: what political group would like to control people? Which American party would be more likely to get in with people who would commit voter fraud?
Cook: So Ellison points out a number of leftist mass murderers and you divert to the Nazis are not leftists argument. Leftist mass murderers killed multiples of the Nazis so let us begin with your defense of the leftists (non-Nazi) mass murderers. Let us even stipulate that Ellison was wrong and that the Nazi were far right wingers like the tea party of today only better. Leave them out. Defend the known leftist mass murderers listed by Ellison.
"As for Iraq, really? I hate to break the news to you but in our system our constitution is the highest law and if congress authorizes war then under our legal system that's final and the UN is irrelevant."
Maybe you should read the Constitution. Under the constitution, treaty obligations become the law of the land, and, as signatories to the UN Charter, it's provisions are the law of the land. Under that charter, no member country may wage aggressive war against another--or even threaten to wage war--unless in self-defense against an ongoing attack (or immediate threat of attack) or unless approved by the UN Security Council. The Bush administration withdrew the matter from Security Council consideration when it became clear the Council would not vote to approve our invasion of Iraq. And Iraq certainly posed no threat of attack against us.
Your argument justifies Nazi acts against the countries it invaded and the millions it exterminated, as, under German law under Hitler, it was all legal.
Michael,
Again...where have I ever defended mass murders of any political stripe?
"Let's try a little experiment: what political group would like to control people? Which American party would be more likely to get in with people who would commit voter fraud?"
1.) All political parties.
2.) Both of them.
Robert Cook said:
"Anyone who asserts Nazism was leftist is either ignorant or arguing dishonestly. It's become a favorite argument of the right in the last couple of years so as to absolve the extreme right from any stink of tyranny or murder."
To some extent I agree with this argument. My understanding is that the Germans elected the Nazis partly to protect them from the Marxists. As I recall, Hitler was stridently anti-Communist in Mein Kampf blaming them for the German collapse during WWI.
That said, Nazis were not of the traditional right either. They brought something new to the table, what they considered a new scientific administration based on their interpretation of the Darwinian struggle for survival. This provided the intellectual justification for hyper-racism including the destruction of the less fit race, eugenics including destruction of the mentally retarded or mentally ill etc. He himself was definitely not an atheist like the Marxists, he had his own view of god which was closer to Nietzsche's god. Probably the best term for Hitler is a theistic pagan.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I realize that Nietzsche was famous for the proclamation that "God is dead." The God Nietzsche hated was the Jewish Christian God. He didn't believe in the other Gods but he yearned for the ancient Pagan gods and the culture associated with them. He also wished that Germany had been evangelized by Muslims before Christians reached Germany since the Muslims didn't have the emphasis on love and on protecting the weak that Christianity had.
The 1930s was a strange era. Germans, Americans, and especially Russians were pregnant with leftist ideals.
In America, FDR was the leader. He was very good at leading people in the wrong direction. It's not a happy story.
Nazism was a statist/leftist answer to communism. Like most leftist leaders, Hitler cared not whence his power came; he took it and ran with it.
Leftism kills.
Robert Cook said "Michael,
Again...where have I ever defended mass murders of any political stripe?"
I am not a librarian of this blog, but Robert Cook, you have written time and time again like an idiot leftist who thought leftist idiocy was smart, and classy, and wise. Leftism is stupid, and base, and dumb. Defend it.
"mass trials and executions are the pinnacle of modernism, secularism"
Well, WW2 was likely the pinnacle of modernism and secularism.
Or maybe WW1 was the pinnacle. Either way, after the WWs, western society sought something post modernism.
The French Revolution is another example of the pinnacle of the Enlightenment and secularism leads to mass trials and executions.
America had a different experience because we were the pinnacle of the Enlightenment, which emphasized religion in a pluralistic context.
So, all things considered, Egypt is like France.
Bob Ellison, you know not whereof you speak.
Eugenics -- supported on the Left.
Just throwing that out there for the idiot Robert Cook.
What the Nazis and the Communists shared was a common hatred for Western culture with its Judeo-Christian morality, a hatred which has been present in cutting edge European intellectuals ever since the French version of the Enlightenment. This hatred for traditional Western values and Christianity in particular is one of the strong currents which ties the modern left to both the Nazis and to the Communists.
"Anyone who asserts Nazism was leftist is either ignorant or arguing dishonestly
Go back and look at those who wrote about Hitler before World War II. The political Left universally celebrated Hitler and praised him. Hitler's only opposition and critics came from the political Right. That is simply historical fact.
One of the most chilling parts of Timothy Snyder's book, Bloodlands, was his noting that there were, in the west, only two published reports on the politically motivated famine in the Ukraine. This famine killed upwards of two million people. So far as I know, to this day, there has never been a novel, movie, poem, documentary, or anything at all to commemorate this senseless and deliberate loss of life. Compare and contrast with the six thousand who died in Chile at the hand of Pinochet......People on the right have created their share of corpses, but they get blamed and shamed for their killings. That's probably why, for the last two hundred years they have been somewhat more restrained in their production of corpses. It's a simple fact that Mao's assorted Great Leaps produced far more dead people than our war in Vietnam and that those policies inspired far less criticism among western cognoscenti......I understand that Pol Pot murdered some 20 to 25% of his own population. To date exactly two people have been convicted of those murders. I read that last week some 93 yearl old ex Auschwitz guard has been arrested for his war crimes.
That would be quite a feat, given that I have never read a page of Marx.
Most Communists haven't.
illuninati: "To some extent I agree with this argument. My understanding is that the Germans elected the Nazis partly to protect them from the Marxists."
And since the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks went at it and Mensheviks lost, then suddenly, presto chango, the Mensheviks were never really communists either.
When a radical leftist fights an even more radicaal leftist, the radical leftist doesn't suddenly become middle of the road.
Drago just said what I would have said had I cared to discuss this rather than the subject of the post. Just because two groups were competing for power doesn't mean they represented the opposite political poles.
I think that is an uniquely American viewpoint coming from our system of government which tends to drive out third parties. If anything Europeans would fight against ideologies that were the most similar if only because they were competing for the same political space.
SGT Ted, let me be the first to condemn your "death in big bunches" remark. It doesn't particularly matter who's in the "bunch," does it? Just pick a random 500+, and make it a nice, big public execution while you're at it.
Let me be the first to ridicule you as a classic morally blind idiot that is unprepared to face things as they really are in the Middle East.
I'm just stating the reality of Islamist dedication to their cause, like the Nazis dedication. We, and other freedom loving people, will have to kill a great many more before they stop.
You aren't getting that this is a war, do you? After 10 years of Iraq and A-stan.
They aren't fighting for oil, they could give a shit less about oil. They are fighting for religious and cultural supremacy.
Wake the fuck up, idiot.
"Maybe you should read the Constitution. Under the constitution, treaty obligations become the law of the land, and, as signatories to the UN Charter, it's provisions are the law of the land. Under that charter, no member country may wage aggressive war against another--or even threaten to wage war--unless in self-defense against an ongoing attack (or immediate threat of attack) or unless approved by the UN "
Cook do you even think through what you write? First of all no supreme court ruling has ever ruled that a treaty trumps the other clauses in the constitution so treaties are law of the land as long as they do not contravene the constitution. And that's assuming the US doesn't choose to abrogate a treaty which it can like any other sovereign nation.
As for Iraq, Bush already had the UN authorization from the preceding Gulf War since Saddam was busy violating the UN terms he was already under. Dont argue non existing facts.
"International law"?
Who is the governing authority?
Really, this is stupid.
Cubanbob:
Nope! There's never been any argument that the UN Security Council charter contravenes the constitution.
No matter how you might like to think so, we had no UN authorization to invade Iraq--and no self-defense basis--and so our invasion was illegal...a war crime.
The historical ignorance of Robert Cook and some here is astounding.
Look up WW2 and what we had to do to break the Germans and the Japanese of their will to fight.
THATS what we are facing in the Middle East. That is my entire point.
The civilian world of today is too pussified to face the truth of the matter. Hence the reluctance to admit I am most likely right.
Even though I wish I wasn't right.
The guys in the 1940s knew what they had to do and they did it. They had no illusions as to what their enemy was.
The guys here today, like Robert Cook, will let them run the camps unopposed, if it means we get our hands dirty trying to put them down.
Oh, sure you'll TALK big Fucking Game about how we must stop it, but you won't actually DO shit.
I at least went to the Big Fucking Game and saw for myself what we are dealing with. That's how I come to my conclusions as to what it's going to take to conquer those who we fight.
I'm sorry that your sensibilities are too delicate to face reality. Too bad, so sad. I'm sure there's some poor fucker getting his head sawed off by one of those barbarians that appreciates your adherence to your lofty principles. Or maybe not.
Robert Cook: "a war crime"?
Defend that.
Hitler himself said that his Nazi party was inspired by Karl Marx, but that it corrected Marx's mistakes.
Nice try to deny reality Robert Cook, you commie fuck.
National SOCIALISM and the Fascist Movements of Hitler and Mussolini were led by committed SOCIALISTs and men of the left.
Defend leftism! Or else bow your head down in shame.
I just had an epiphany:
Robert Cook thinks Vladimir Putin is a "war criminal" and is subject to arrest over his "war crimes" in Crimea.
Fantastic! Robert Cook, please tell me when you would like to leave to go arrest Putin. I'll make sure you get appropriate news coverage at the airport to make sure Putin knows you are coming.
Deal?
The reason I call Cook a commie fuck is because he talks like one. All the condemnation for the US "invading Iraq".
Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator. I was involved in the effort to remove that turd from power and our unit provided security for the UN team that was digging up mass graves outside of Karbala in 2003.
Cook has to walk past a lot of mass graves to condemn the invasion as somehow unjustified and crueler than letting Saddam Hussein remain in power.
Your "illegal war" blather is just that: blather. You are uneducated on the issue.
One of the main differences between Communism and Nazi/Fascism is that the State lets the Kulaks keep their farms and the Corporate class to keep and run their businesses under State authority, instead of stealing them outright to be run by the State. Socialism uses the law as force to leech its money from the private sector.
One other is that Nazi/Fascism rejects the internationalism of the Communists. But, they sure did share the desire and use of militaristic expansionism to spread their influence.
I'm not seeing where "rightwing" makes any sense describing Fascism or Nazis. I haven't heard one convincing argument that supports it.
One of the other identifying characteristics of Commies is their tendency to cast their political opponents as "criminals". Cookie talks a lot about his political enemies being "war criminals", simply because he disagrees with the war.
His evidence is the usual lefty boilerplate Commie inspired bullshit that will ignore actual UN resolutions that legalize removing Saddam Hussein from power and the Congress granting Bush the authority to use the Military to carry it out.
Like I said, he is uneducated on the matter.
Drago said...
illuninati: "To some extent I agree with this argument. My understanding is that the Germans elected the Nazis partly to protect them from the Marxists."
When a radical leftist fights an even more radicaal leftist, the radical leftist doesn't suddenly become middle of the road."
My point is that the terms right and left originated in the French Revolution. The Nazis brought a new understanding to the table which was not present at all in the French Enlightenment and the following revolution -- virulent racism. Marx claimed that his ideas were similar to those of the French Revolution which seems correct to me that he is a direct intellectual descendant of the most radical philosphe's.
The Nazis were certainly not of the right since they hated traditional Christian morality and the Western Judeo-Christian version of civilization. So perhaps they could be called leftists, but they were much different from Marxists. Hitler was not an atheist. He wanted to use the name "Christian" for a new state church after he had stripped out all those old Jewish ideas which talk about love and mercy. The Lutheran church was almost taken over -- 90% percent of the pastors supported the Nazification of the Lutheran church. Some Lutheran pastors began to baptized new members in the name of the Fuhrer, the people, and the fatherland instead of the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost but 10% of the Lutheran pastors resisted to the point of death and successfully blocked the takeover.
Illuninati, Hitler, like Stalin, like Mussolini, like many others, realized and practiced the art of the personality cult.
The personality cult is very dangerous.
"Bob Ellison said...
Illuninati, Hitler, like Stalin, like Mussolini, like many others, realized and practiced the art of the personality cult.
The personality cult is very dangerous."
I agree. They all wanted to replace the Christian God with themselves and their own authority. In this way both Nazism and Communism took on religious authority and passion. In practice they were both very similar to paganism such as Pagan rome.
Cook. You defend by withholding condemnationa and reserving your criticism for our own govt,
You are very much like a number of the anti war guys I knew in the 60s. War crime guys who had a veneer of sophistication. A thin one. They were lightweight intellectually. Maybe you were one.
Orwell's vision of history in 1984 is real. Since now I'm on my desktop, I just clicked through to the linked article hoping to cut and paste the paragraph I mentioned earlier.
The photos are the same, but the paragragh is gone. Gone is the reference to experts saying that the sentence will be overturned. Now it is only predicted to be "reduced." Gone is the reference that Egyptian law guarantees a new trial to persons sentenced in absentia. Even the headline has been changed!
"No matter how you might like to think so, we had no UN authorization to invade Iraq--and no self-defense basis--and so our invasion was illegal...a war crime."
RC hate to burst your fantasies but the simple fact is that despite the plethora of left-wing legal action groups none has sued the government using your argument about the validity of Congress's war power authority and it being limited due to the UN treaty. There is a reason for that and the reason is simple the courts would toss it out in a heartbeat. As for treaties being the supreme law of the land thus trumping the constitution simple logic leads to the only conclusion possible that if a treaty can be abrogated it can't as a matter of law be supreme just like no law of congress can be supreme since no congress can be bound by a prior congress. Any law Congress can pas be be repealed by another Congress. Congress on the other and can't repeal any part of the constitution. Interesting thing is there is a case before the Supreme Court this term regarding the treaty as law issue. While not directly germane to this conversation the courts ruling when it is published will most likely prove you wrong.
CWJ regarding the 529 death sentences it's preparing the battlefield in terms of lawfare. It's highly unlikely that most of them or even more than a handful will actually be executed. I say that based on fairly recent Egyptian history: the Muslim Brotherhood murdered President Sadat yet the military backed president who took over-Mubarak did not execute the hundreds that were also sentenced to death at that time. A few were, the ones directly involved with the murder but the rest served prison sentences of various years. There is no reason to believe at this time that all these 529 individuals will have a date with the hangman.
RC you keep stating that my argument justified Nazi aggression yet you conviniently overlook Communist aggression and war crimes. The Soviet invasion of Pand in 1939 was perfectly legal by Soviet law as was the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States and Finland in 1940. And the Soviet invasion and annexation of Armenia and several other states in the 1920's. The North Koreans used their legal framework to justify their invasion of South Korea and so did the North Vietnamese to invade South Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos. Also lets not overlook China's invasion and annexation of Tibet. Interesting how you call wars by non-communists illegal wars and thus criminal wars of aggression all the while ignoring Communists wars. You obviously have no principles only ideology.
Hi cubanbob,
I'm a little confused. Are you effectively repeating the conclusion of my 3:15 comment, or are you simply agreeing with it.
CWJ said...
Hi cubanbob,
I'm a little confused. Are you effectively repeating the conclusion of my 3:15 comment, or are you simply agreeing with it.
3/24/14, 10:32 PM
Both. my mistake in not making that clear.
Wow, they've got the Raj beat by a factor of five. (Figures, I guess.)
MDT,
With all due respect (and you know I mean that seriously, not facetiously) -- how else do you think it could be done? It's Wretchard's Third Conjecture we're trying to dodge here...
Birkel,
"Robert Cook, please tell me when you would like to leave to go arrest Putin. I'll make sure you get appropriate news coverage..."
Forget that sh*t! How about a Kickstarter campaign? What's airfare to Moscow? I helped fund n(in a tiny way) Michael Totten's very interesting reporting trip to Cuba; the news from Cookie's arrest attempt will be Ever So Much Moreso entertaining!
I'm in for $50! Seriously!!!
Cookie,
"Our 2003 invasion of Iraq was *not* sanctioned by the UN. "
Well, sh*t: we should have just invaded the UN then.
And yes, for sure: Chile under Allende and especially Iran under their demented clerics are both so much better off than the alternatives you decry.
Gahrie,
"And if you place the two biggest and most important cities as off limits for most of the war that is the definition of discriminate"
Clarified It For You.
CWJ,
"I think that is an uniquely American viewpoint coming from our system of government which tends to drive out third parties. If anything Europeans would fight against ideologies that were the most similar if only because they were competing for the same political space. "
Indeed. I call, and raise you Homage to Catalonia.
A bit late to the post. I want to just sign in here to reiterate what Sgt ted is saying. In both Iraq and Afghanistan there are or were large minorities of assholes that are oppressing the general population. It is very much like when you see a women being raped and beaten. What do you do?
There are many many people over there that need to die. If the author of this blog or Cooke were
Not lucky enough to be born here they would be praying for rough men like us killing their oppressors.
But they weren't. They were born in a country where others sacrificed. Others went out and killed. It is too dirty for them. No chances to morally preen yourself in front of the world.
I guarantee you if you were in Afghanistan and you like many of the women over there never got to leave your compound and we're regularly beaten you would be singing a different tune. Leftist agitprop only survives in ignorance.
I think Cooke on the other hand like most lefties just wants to be the oppressing minority and is upset when the US army unseats another of his fellow travellers.
Post a Comment