Today's New York Post editorial on Berg murder

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/20645.htm

May 12, 2004

What cruel, sick bastards.

Indeed, you can't get much more barbaric than the filmed beheading of 26-year-old Nick Berg that splashed across a terrorist group's Web site yesterday.

In case the world needed a reminder of why America is waging its War on Terror, it got one yesterday.

It's hard to imagine the terror that must have filled Berg in those final moments as he realized his hooded captors really were going to kill him.

It wasn't enough that they slaughtered the young Philadelphia businessman like a sheep and held his severed head aloft as if it were a trophy. No, they filmed the whole thing for the world to see.

Soldiers don't behave like that.

Only cowards and thugs do.

Now it's time to ratchet up the response to this war.

Forget Abu Ghraib.

The abuse committed there by a handful of soldiers was not typical; nor is it acceptable.

But the beheading of Nick Berg is par for the course for al Qaeda.

Of course, the terrorists of Muntada al-Ansar, an al Qaeda offshoot, claimed they were acting in retaliation for the Abu Ghraib abuses.

Bull.

There were no known abuses at Abu Ghraib when Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and Italian hostage Fabrizio Quattrocchi were murdered by Islamic terrorists.

And the events at Abu Ghraib had not yet come to light when frenzied crowds in Fallujah burned and mutilated the bodies of four Americans and strung them from a bridge.

No, the massacre of Nick Berg had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib.

Instead, this slaying was about the war against the West in general - and America, in particular. Indeed, the beheading may have been carried out personally by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top aide of Osama bin Laden.

Some people - some Americans - have forgotten about 9/11.

That attack should have been enough to justify all-out war. But the hand-wringing over the war in Iraq - and over even the modest steps America took to defend itself, like the Patriot Act - suggests that folks truly have lost sight of what the war is about.

Yesterday they got a shocking reminder. And now they know: This war cannot be waged with half-measures.

It can end only with the total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism. Those who have set as their goal the destruction of America.

There is no negotiating with such people. There can be no compromise with those who mean to destroy us.

Yesterday, the White House promised to "pursue those responsible and bring them to justice." That's the least of it.

America has to come out swinging.

And not stop until every last one of the savage thugs is dead.

If that means a resumption of major combat in Iraq, so be it.

Would it mean another division or so of combat troops to get the job done?

Turn to our garrisons in Europe, or Korea, to get them.

In sufficient numbers to get the job done.

To hell with political sensitivities in the region.

To hell with negotiating with radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.

To hell with handing Saddam Hussein over to Iraqis, as some want to do, and risking some reverse - perverse - kangaroo trial that results in his survival.

Evil, cutthroat terrorists need to be eradicated.

Let's face it: This is a job that's going to take overwhelming - yes, brutal - force. There is simply no "nice" or painless way to accomplish this.

As yesterday's slaughter showed (yet again), the enemy is bound by no moral compunctions.

America won't go that far.

But it had better steel it's backbone and get ready to fight like it means it.

It's the only way to win this war.
 
"win"

Is the goal to liberate Iraq (who is Iraq being liberated from now that Saddam is not in charge?) or occupy and oppress Iraq (Iraq a colony of America?)?

What a blowhard of an editorial.
 
What a blowhard of an editorial.

Too say the least....

It's like this guy doesn't even know what the hell to say he's so pissed, just frothing at the mouth. He should join up if he's able and believes so strongly in the war.
 
Is it just me or are there starting to be some rather suspicious elements surfacing about this whole situation. Questions about what exactely it was Berg was doing in Iraq. Was our government holding him for some unknown reason. Where was he between April 5th, when he talked to his parents, and the time when they have him on video? Help me out here, has anybody come across any answers to these questions?
 
And you're not upset about this?

Sure, but it's not exactly like this is the first time this has happened. This happens all the time over there to foreigners and other muslims as well. I guess I'm somewhat desensitized. There's nothing any of us can do about it anyways unless you wanna play 007 in some sandpit.
 
If the Post subsequently prints pictures of the Abu Ghraib fiasco then I can only conclude the paper is merely throwing gorilla dust.

I will applaud the paper when I see how its actions match its breathless words.
 
Is the goal to liberate Iraq (who is Iraq being liberated from now that Saddam is not in charge?) or occupy and oppress Iraq (Iraq a colony of America?)?

What a blowhard of an editorial
The goal is to eliminate Al Queda and the terrorists who would murder a bound unarmed man with a dull knife.

While I sense a blowhard it is not the author of this editorial.
 
There's plenty we could do. We could start with the liberals in our own country, then get down to the business at hand, unimpeded by masses of morons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top