Torture only conditionally offends…

You see, there is a rule about toture and how offensive one finds it. There is a condition.

The condition is this: In order to be offended by images of torture, the torturers have to be U.S. Troops, serving under a CIC who has an R after his name.

That is what it takes. So, if you happen to come across a story about a 22 year old gay man in Iran who is subjected to 100 lashes for the crime of being gay, why you just turn the page, and repeat this motto: the enemy (Iran) of my enemy (Chimpy Bushitler) is my friend.

While we are attempting to oust this enemy, keep your priorities straight, and do not concern yourself with our new, politically expedient friends!

Remember: A Koran spritzed with urine is a moral outrage, and copious amount of paper and ink are to be expended in moralizing and over-dramatizing this event. Computer monitors and television screens may crackle and burst in loud and reverberating angst, but their sacrifice may be necessary in order for us to effectively disseminate this vital information: The American President with the R after his name is evil. He is a tyrant. He is a terrorist. He is a torturer. He is a racist. A sexist. A homophobe. A Nazi.

No other story matters. None but his torture is so alarming, nor so sweetly fully of opportunity! If you are a member of a woman’s right’s group, send out a press release denouncing the Torturer in Chief! If you belong to a gay right’s group, an animal right’s group, a Palestinian group or the Teachers Union, do the same!

After we have ousted this menace, this supreme enemy of humanity, from our midsts, we will somehow collect ourselves and begin to finally look at images of young gay men being tortured by Middle Eastern States, and pictures of Middle Eastern women being buried in sand up to their necks so they may be a still and unmoving target for the men who wish to stone them to death. All things in time!

Right now is not the time to worry about those cultural excesses in the Middle East. Once we get the right sort of American President installed – the kind with the D after her name – there will be time to examine such issues, to study them and talk about them and learn to understand and appreciate and respect the diversity of cultures which make up our wonderful world!

And, if after studying those situations, we determine that something should, in fact, be done about the mistreatment of gays and women in the Middle East, we will do something calm and rational – probably we’ll convince them to stop their harsh practices by giving them a nuclear power facility, or something constructive like that.

But even before that, of course, once we get the right sort of president installed in the White House (repeat: the kind with a D after her name) we will have to focus like a laser beam on the human rights abuses being heaped upon the world…by Israel!

H/T Roger Simon.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://none Darrell

    It doesn’t pass the MSM “smell test”…It doesn’t hurt the United States. Journalism 101 at Columbia School of Journalism.

  • http://davejustus.blogspot.com/ Dave Justus

    I disagree with the main point of this post.

    I think we do have collectively more responsibility to ensure that the actions of our nation are moral than we have to ensure our troops behave in the standard that we hold for them.

    I would feel differently if American troops were beating someone the way the Iranian’s beat that man. It would not only be wrong, but it would be a wrong that I, as a citizen, was directly responsible for.

    That doesn’t mean I approve of what the Iranians did, or that I shouldn’t say that this is wrong, but their is a difference.

    So yes, torture by Americans is more offensive to me than torture by Iranians. I have some small control over what America does, and thus I am responsible.

    You can of course argue that Iran is torturing and America is not, or that worse tortures are occuring in Iran and so even though we should be worried about what is going on in America we should be louder about Iran.

    The basic idea though that we must be as incensed about foreign practices as our own or we are anti-American seems foolish to me.

  • http://ohhowilovejesus.com Jeanette

    A little deep there, Dave. I pray to God every day we don’t have the new president with a D after her name! More than lamps will fly in the White House. This woman has a temper and is dangerous!

  • TheAnchoress

    Hey, Dave…the point wasn’t that America is “better” or worse. The point was that the people screaming about the horrors of some US urine spritzing a Koran are – by their silence in the face of such tortures as I laid out – simply consenting to such people treating THEM the same way, were they given the chance.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Dave..yes, we have more control over what the US does..but we have *some* influence over the behavior of other countries. When American media and “progressives” choose to ignore the viciousness of Iran’s government–or the depradations of Palestinian terrorists–they in effect give sanction to such behavior.

  • http://bookwormroom.blogspot.com Bookworm

    In a weird way, one can view it as a compliment to America. Clearly, while conservatives expect everyone to behave well, liberals seem to believe that only Americans are capable of good behavior — otherwise why are they the ones singled out for not living up to those standards? Liberals, by ignoring or excusing awful behavior from non-whites or non-Americans, routinely show that they do not believe that these groups are capable of honest, humane, intelligent behavior.

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • http://davejustus.blogspot.com/ Dave Justus

    I commend everyone for concern about human rights abuses in Iran. That concern is a good thing, and speaking about it is a good thing as well. I make occassional posts highlighting political prisoners throughout the world based upon the same theory.

    What I don’t like is the implication that silence about something automatically entails support for it, or that someone can’t choose to focus on a particular evil that they find most important, or feel the most responsibility for.

    Is someone who supports and works with a local charity to combat poverty a hypocrit because greater poverty exists in Africa? If they focus their time and effort on the plight of the homeless in their community does that mean they are condoning African poverty? I don’t think so.

    If in combating evil, we must all constantly, equally, and loudly point out all the evils there are in the world then evil will not be fought. Sometimes you have to focus on a cause that matters to you and make that your priority.

    With Hurricane Katrina some people focused on foundations to help pets displaced by the storm. You can certainly argue that it is a lesser need than that of the people effected, but does that make this focus wrong for everyone?

  • http://davejustus.blogspot.com/ Dave Justus

    Let me approach this from another angle.

    Is this post about how horrible Iran is and how we need to work to end the suffering of the people in Iran are, or is this post about how horrible Liberals are and how we need to work to ensure our vision of America triumphs.

    If it is the second, as I think it is although perhaps not intentionally, then is not the pretense of anger about Iran as hypocritical as the focus on Git-mo by the left is claimed to be?

    I have a great deal of respect for the Anchoress, and everyone here, but I think all of us can let our passions lead us to an unfortunate place.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X