So Republicans now want to start comparing sins?

I've having a conversation with a neo-con on my blog, and how sad is it that they want to start comparing sins, essentially?

On my blog, I had posted a story about the fact that the military waited 9 months to tell two families that their loved ones (soldiers in Iraq) had been murdered by Iraqi troops. The point of my post was 1) that our troops have become the target of of the Iraq soldiers we are helping train and 2) the military is not "supporting the troops" or their families, when they wait 9 months to tell a family the truth of how their fallen soldier died.

Anyway, the neo-con didn't want to address those issues at all. Instead, they turn the subject to torture, and start comparing the torture done by our soldiers, vs. the torture done TO our soldiers.

And they say subjecting someone to barking dogs and sexual abuse is nothing compared to beheadings (like what just happened to 2 fallen soldiers this week).

How sick is it, that we now have to basically say now 'I know I'm bad, but what are you?'

I told the neo-con that a sin is a sin is a sin. It's all sick.

EDITED: To insert link to my blog posting and conversation with freeper:

http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2006/06/22/supporting-the-troops-and-their-families-how.html#comment-34736

Remind him that when he was a kid, he tried to tell his father that the rotten thing he did was OK because other kids were doing it too. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.

Their sins are their problem. We need to address our own.

When did he say that?

Some people just never grow up and grow out of it.

i don't know. do you?

wasn't that england or european countries?

lopped off the heads of more than a few in Britain. Ann Boleyn, Sir Walter Raleigh, to name two.

this has only occurred in the middle east, and I am not saying that I agree with it wherever it occurs.

"But look what they did" is a common and deeply flawed rationalization for all sorts of criminal and/or immoral conduct. It's also heavily relied upon as a defense by the under-20 set, which tells you something about the maturity of the individual.

Those who believe they're exempted from moral and lawful constraints because someone else paved the way are the ones who truly undermine and threaten society.

Of course you are correct it is not a weak arguement to list the outrages committed by the other side, it is no arguement at all.

but on the other hand these are pretty weak also-
"1) that our troops have become the target of of the Iraq soldiers we are helping train and
2) the military is not "supporting the troops" or their families, when they wait 9 months to tell a family the truth of how their fallen soldier died."

You are drawing general conclusions from specific incidents.

There are dozens of valid criticisims of policy in Iraq. In general Iraq soldiers have not attacked American soldiers and seam to have a good relationship.
Never in the history of warfare have the combatents ever been satisfied with the suppor they recieved. There are numerous valid examples of the miltary letting down its own soldiers, I don't think your example proves the point one way or other.

with beheadings you could tell him neither one of them would be happening if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

JG

Which is worse, beheading a known enemy or raining death from above nearly indiscriminately on guilty and innocent alike.?

After all the rule is: Thou Shalt NOT Kill

Not : Thou Shalt Not Kill unless you've got a hardon to pillage and burn another peoples homeland.

Let a pseudo religious militarist roll that around in its brain and set back and watch smoke come out its ears.