U.S. hostage beheaded, terror group says [Archive]

Amani

Jun 19, 2004, 02:23 AM

If these terrorists would channel half of the effort they spend killing people into diplomatic/world relations, maybe something would get solved. They are perpetuating a problem just as much as anyone else is.

But where does it all end? I'm not just blaming the U.S. War begets more war is my point. bin Laden/Bush: neither can take the moral high ground. They're both are backward religious fanatics--with different political and economic interests. Believe me, the only winners in this war will oil producing Arabs and US oil companies. The rest of us and them will go on dying and paying higher prices for gas and energy.

Finally, why are they terroists and the Bush regime and Pentagon are not? What does it take to be a terroists? If you don't have a recognized military directed by a so-called democratic government, then you're a terroist?

jsw

Jun 19, 2004, 09:45 AM

No, the U.S. needs to get itself out of people's culture and business.

Well, no, why should we isolate ourselves? I agree that we shouldn't bully others, and I think we're too into saying we're trying to help when all we're doing is protecting our interests. I think we have - to some degree - the right to protect our interests, but we should stop trying to defend many of our actions as "humanitarian". And I think that some of our actions aren't defensible on any grounds. But that doesn't mean we should run away and hide here at home.

U.S leaders and the media label anyone "terrorist" when they attack US interests.

No, they label people who target civilians with the goal of inspiring terror as "terrorists". Just like everyone else does.

The more "tougher we get on terrorists," the more war will continue.

Oh, yes, because people who are as fundamentalist as Al Qaeda will certainly just sit back and sip tea once we do what they ask. They'd never, ever even consider using further threats and violence until the whole world functioned in the backwards manner they prefer.

It's too bad that they chose to hide behind the Muslim faith, which is really a beautiful one. And ironic they'd be so anti-progress, since the Middle East was one of the bastions of science a thousand years or so ago, back when most of Europe was in the Dark Ages. My, how times have changed.

Look at Iseral and Palestine. It never stops. I really wonder what a Bush would tell a class of children about violence. He probably would warn them to never turn the other cheek....

I am not even vaguely a fan of Bush. I think the whole Iraq thing was a mistake, and I think he knew he was lying when he started it. BUT... it is never a good idea for a country to just "turn the other cheek". When attacked, attack back. You might lose anyway, but at least you don't just invite someone to come in and walk all over you. FWIW, I think Saddam was evil. I think he was horrible to his people. I'm glad he's gone. But...it wasn't our right to take him down, and I can't truly blame Iraqi forces for fighting back. We invaded them. We weren't fighting back. We started it. Of course, what they should have done is just "turned the other cheek", right? And, of course, if Israel turns the other cheek, then there won't be any more bus bombs, right?

Peace comes from strength.

Anyway, today's beheading is nothing more than an example of how infantile and thugish powerful forces in the world are, including the Bush regime.Ironically the "terroists" killed a man who helped build military jets to kill other people.

It wasn't even vaguely "ironic". They took him because he serviced (not "helped build") Apache helicopters (not "jets").

The beheading was horrible. It wasn't really any more horrible - for him - than killing him many other ways, and was relatively quick compared to some things they could have done. It was horrible for us. We waited to see if his head would be cut off, which is even worse than waiting for him to be, say, shot or hanged, at least psychologically. They beheaded him specifically to invoke terror in people (hence the term "terrorist", duh).

Al Qaeda and the like should be hunted down like the vermin they are, and I apologize to vermin for the comparison. Not because they disagree with us. Not because they fight us. Because they are such cowards who kill innocents.

That said, we have no right to consider ourselves on the moral high ground either, and to that extent I agree with you. Al Qaeda uses tactics which are morally reprehensible. However, to a very large extent, we are responsible for the environment which bred the movement. We have treated the Middle East as a place that we get oil from, and cared only about that. If there were no oil there, we'd've totally neglected them. We've allowed abuses to happen just to keep the oil flowing. So, to some extent, we're culpable as well. It's not because we interfered with their culture or "business" so much as it is because we never seemed to help of care about the area and promote the spread of the oil wealth, or at least push for human rights more.

If you try to eliminate poverty and oppression, you typically go a long way towards eliminating violence. And if you don't try to eliminate those things, you in effect promote conditions for violence.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 19, 2004, 10:20 AM

Well, no, why should we isolate ourselves? I agree that we shouldn't bully others, and I think we're too into saying we're trying to help when all we're doing is protecting our interests. I think we have - to some degree - the right to protect our interests, but we should stop trying to defend many of our actions as "humanitarian". And I think that some of our actions aren't defensible on any grounds. But that doesn't mean we should run away and hide here at home.

Our interests should start at home first. Though no one, including most of the free world doubted our need to act in Afghanistan.

Is said that charity begins at home.

No, they label people who target civilians with the goal of inspiring terror as "terrorists". Just like everyone else does.

You mean like this news today?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A U.S. military plane fired missiles Saturday into a residential neighborhood in Fallujah, killing at least 20 people and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city, police and residents said.

It was the first significant U.S. military action in the city since Marines ended a bloody three-week siege against insurgents. Since the U.S. forces left, residents have said that extremist influence in the city, west of Baghdad, has only grown.

U.S. Marines declined comment and referred queries to the U.S. command, which said it had no comment.

Sure does a lot to win the hearts and minds of a country.

Oh, yes, because people who are as fundamentalist as Al Qaeda will certainly just sit back and sip tea once we do what they ask. They'd never, ever even consider using further threats and violence until the whole world functioned in the backwards manner they prefer.

Remember bin Laden's hatred of the US is the defiling of Muslim land during the first Iraqi war. Regardless of our beliefs, a host countries beliefs need to respected too.

That said, we have no right to consider ourselves on the moral high ground either, and to that extent I agree with you. Al Qaeda uses tactics which are morally reprehensible. However, to a very large extent, we are responsible for the environment which bred the movement. We have treated the Middle East as a place that we get oil from, and cared only about that. If there were no oil there, we'd've totally neglected them. We've allowed abuses to happen just to keep the oil flowing. So, to some extent, we're culpable as well. It's not because we interfered with their culture or "business" so much as it is because we never seemed to help of care about the area and promote the spread of the oil wealth, or at least push for human rights more.

But to the oil we did with their culture and "business".

If you try to eliminate poverty and oppression, you typically go a long way towards eliminating violence. And if you don't try to eliminate those things, you in effect promote conditions for violence.

Gee, maybe $110+ billion dollars should have been spent on eliminating violence in the US then.

jsw

Jun 19, 2004, 10:50 AM

Our interests should start at home first. Though no one, including most of the free world doubted our need to act in Afghanistan.

Absolutely. We should take care of our country first. I merely meant that we needn't avoid the rest of the world and stay isolated.

You mean like this news today?

I don't defend killing civilians by anyone, us included. If it's unintentional, then I expect that every effort was made to avoid it. If efforts are not made to avoid killing civilians, then it's wrong. Period. Sure sounds like the missiles were intended to hit the residential neighborhood. Sure sounds wrong.

Sure does a lot to win the hearts and minds of a country.

I don't think we should be in Iraq.

Remember bin Laden's hatred of the US is the defiling of Muslim land during the first Iraqi war. Regardless of our beliefs, a host countries beliefs need to respected too.

I think he'd have found some other reason to hate us. He used us to help get rid of the Soviets in Afghanistan. But he never liked us.

Gee, maybe $110+ billion dollars should have been spent on eliminating violence in the US then.

Like I said, I don't think we should have been in Iraq. Period. I completely agree that the money could have been better spent. I especially think the lives could have been better spent. Like, say, living longer.

Mal

Jun 19, 2004, 03:50 PM

You mean like this news today?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A U.S. military plane fired missiles Saturday into a residential neighborhood in Fallujah, killing at least 20 people and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city, police and residents said.

It was the first significant U.S. military action in the city since Marines ended a bloody three-week siege against insurgents. Since the U.S. forces left, residents have said that extremist influence in the city, west of Baghdad, has only grown.

U.S. Marines declined comment and referred queries to the U.S. command, which said it had no comment.

Ok, I know this sounds a bit cliche, but the report on this sounds to me like heavy media bias. No mention was made as to whether the people killed were innocent civilians who had no knowledge of the attack, or insurgents who had taken cover in a "residential neighborhood". It is quite likely that this was a necessary military action that killed only or at least mostly extremists that were fighting our forces. Of course the media wouldn't report on that part...

JW

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 19, 2004, 04:16 PM

Ok, I know this sounds a bit cliche, but the report on this sounds to me like heavy media bias. No mention was made as to whether the people killed were innocent civilians who had no knowledge of the attack, or insurgents who had taken cover in a "residential neighborhood". It is quite likely that this was a necessary military action that killed only or at least mostly extremists that were fighting our forces. Of course the media wouldn't report on that part...

JW

Here is the complete link:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040619%2F0844931913.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20040619BAG102

Yes, it could have been for a target. Yet why is there such secrecy? At least the Command could have stated that it was for a particular target. But refusing to comment sure makes it seems like a questionable strike.

taeclee99

Jun 19, 2004, 10:57 PM

Fanatical islamic extremists do not fear our missles or our bullets. To them, being killed for the cause of jihad is an honorable cause. It automatically lands their souls in heaven and their reward is 72 virgins. There is one thing that these people to do fear. Pork. Pigs are considered to be "unclean" and of the devil. So the solution is simple. After any of these terrorists gets killed or blow themselves up in a suicide fashion, we should wrap their remains in pig skins. This will instill fear in these people like nothing else.
Because it is believed that being in the presence of pork will send them straight to eternal damnation.

There is a precedent for this. In 1911, a islamic insurrection in the Phillipines was quickly brought to an end because the practice of burying dead terrorists with pig skins was instituted.

jsw

Jun 19, 2004, 11:19 PM

...and their reward is 72 virgins.

Gotta wonder how they can do that sort of math nowadays....

MongoTheGeek

Jun 20, 2004, 09:33 AM

It automatically lands their souls in heaven and their reward is 72 virgins.

After his death Osama bin Ladin went to heaven. There he was greeted by George Washington, who proceded to slap him across the face and yell at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped concieve."
Patrick Henry approached and punched Osama in the nose and shouted, "You have wanted to end our liberties but failed"
James Madison entereted, kicked Osama in the groin and said "This is why I allowed our governement to provide for the common defense"
Thomans Jeffereson came in and proceded to beat Osama many times with a long cane and said, "it was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to write the Declaration of Independence!"
These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe and 66 other early americans came in and unleashed their anger on the muslim terrorist leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and wrtithing in unbearable pain an angel appeared. Bin Ladin wept and said to the angel, "This is not what you promised me!" The angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven. What did you think I said?"

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 20, 2004, 10:47 AM

After his death Osama bin Ladin went to heaven. There he was greeted by George Washington, who proceded to slap him across the face and yell at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped concieve."
Patrick Henry approached and punched Osama in the nose and shouted, "You have wanted to end our liberties but failed"
James Madison entereted, kicked Osama in the groin and said "This is why I allowed our governement to provide for the common defense"
Thomans Jeffereson came in and proceded to beat Osama many times with a long cane and said, "it was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to write the Declaration of Independence!"
These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe and 66 other early americans came in and unleashed their anger on the muslim terrorist leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and wrtithing in unbearable pain an angel appeared. Bin Ladin wept and said to the angel, "This is not what you promised me!" The angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven. What did you think I said?"

Good one...

A man dies and goes to heaven. He gets to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter is standing there. Behind St. Peter is a wall of clocks with just a single hand. The man asks St. Peter what is up with the singled handed clocks.

St. Peter said. "Those are sin clocks. Every time you commit a sin the hand moves. So whether you lie, cheat, or steal the hand moves. See your clock here. It has only a few clicks. So you are able to get to Heaven.".

The man said. "I see, so who is that clock over there with no clicks on it?".

"Oh, that is Mother Teresa's clock. We keep that up to show people what is possible", said St. Peter.

"Well what about the one that seems to be moving every second or so?"

St. Peter frowned, "That is Osama bin Laden's clock".

"Well, I am happy that I was able to pass the "clock test". But can ask where President George W. Bush's clock is, if I can ask?".

St. Peter looked upward and said, "Well, Jesus needed a new ceiling fan for his office...."

MongoTheGeek

Jun 20, 2004, 11:01 AM

St. Peter looked upward and said, "Well, Jesus needed a new ceiling fan for his office...."

That one is so old. Thomas Jefferson told it about Aaron Burr :)

socbyset

Jun 23, 2004, 01:11 AM

No, the U.S. needs to get itself out of people's culture and business. U.S leaders and the media label anyone "terrorist" when they attack US interests. The more "tougher we get on terrorists," the more war will continue. Look at Iseral and Palestine. It never stops. I really wonder what a Bush would tell a class of children about violence. He probably would warn them to never turn the other cheek....

Anyway, today's beheading is nothing more than an example of how infantile and thugish powerful forces in the world are, including the Bush regime. Ironically the "terroists" killed a man who helped build military jets to kill other people.

Right so there is no moral difference between US civilians working on military projects and thugs who kidnap civilians and slice their heads off on videotape. The old "cycle of violence" canard. More like the "cycle of tired old rhetoric." ridiculous.

angelneo

Jun 23, 2004, 03:01 AM

the killing spree continues.....
news on cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.hostage/index.html)
my condolences.

Apparently, those extremists wish to stand alone against the whole world...

hawk1646

Jun 23, 2004, 04:23 AM

Geez, even ISLAMIC CLERICS the very people these extremists say they're "fighting for" condemn their actions and say that these people are a disgrace to the beautiful religion of Islam. They'll never learn I guess.... :(

ThomasJefferson

Jun 23, 2004, 09:27 AM

That one is so old. Thomas Jefferson told it about Aaron Burr :)

Cough. Cough.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 23, 2004, 10:02 AM

Cough. Cough.

Are you saying that you never heard that one? :)

Amani

Jun 23, 2004, 03:10 PM

Right so there is no moral difference between US civilians working on military projects and thugs who kidnap civilians and slice their heads off on videotape. The old "cycle of violence" canard. More like the "cycle of tired old rhetoric." ridiculous.

Interesting how the powerful frame words. The occupation, killing, and slaughter of Iraqi civilian, soldiers, and prisoners by the U.S. (using million dollar bombers and other weapons) is a "military project," but the beheading is far worse.

Killing is killing, no matter what form it takes. The less powerful use "extreme" methods because that's the weapon they've been forced to use. It's wrong, but it's reality. What do we expect Iraqi militants or Iraqi people in general to do when they the U.S. out their country? Unfortuneatly, they will respond to violence (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/) with violence. Pure and simple.

And anyway, one man's idea of rhetoric is another man's idea of truth. Again, the U.S. needs to leave Iraq now. Let them resolve their own problems.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 23, 2004, 04:51 PM

Interesting how the powerful frame words. The occupation, killing, and slaughter of Iraqi civilian, soldiers, and prisoners by the U.S. (using million dollar bombers and other weapons) is a "military project," but the beheading is far worse.

Killing is killing, no matter what form it takes. The less powerful use "extreme" methods because that's the weapon they've been forced to use. It's wrong, but it's reality. What do we expect Iraqi militants or Iraqi people in general to do when they the U.S. out their country? Unfortuneatly, they will respond to violence (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/) with violence. Pure and simple.

And anyway, one man's idea of rhetoric is another man's idea of truth. Again, the U.S. needs to leave Iraq now. Let them resolve their own problems.

You have a point there. Does it matter whether we take one bomb to get at the wrong doers, and a second bomb like we did this week?

gekko513

Jun 23, 2004, 05:53 PM

Well, no, why should we isolate ourselves?
Isolation is not the solution. Acting like a warmongerer isn't either.

How about approaching the international community of nations with respect rather than the arrogant behaviour that the Bush administration has been using for the last couple of years.

I condemn the terrorists act, but I've also lost much of my respect for the American government. Show respect to earn respect.

Amani

Jun 23, 2004, 06:05 PM

You have a point there. Does it matter whether we take one bomb to get at the wrong doers, and a second bomb like we did this week?

Chip, I'm not sure I understand the second part of your question. My point is, that it's so easy to throw around labels to justify your actions. The beaheading is indeed a "terroist" act designed to evoke terror--particularly when you don't have the the power and resources that your enemy has. But the invasion, killing, and occupation of Iraq--a country that could never stand up against the U.S. even if it wanted to--is also terror. If people don't think so, I'm sure there are men, women, and children in Iraq who feel as if they are lives terrorized.

And I know, we're bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to the evil empire. Just like was done in Vietnam, Chile, Niguragua, and so many other nations and cultures that said we were liberating. The West has always used the rhetoric to justify is glabal terroists actions.

In the mean time, innocent people die, while the educated elite can find no better way to resolve conflict than to do it militarily.

All this to say: war is wrong, outdated, and barbaric--no matter where it comes from. If we as an humanity can't rise above it, we're doomed. Seriously doomed.

Amani

Jun 23, 2004, 06:16 PM

You mean like this news today?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A U.S. military plane fired missiles Saturday into a residential neighborhood in Fallujah, killing at least 20 people and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city, police and residents said.

It was the first significant U.S. military action in the city since Marines ended a bloody three-week siege against insurgents. Since the U.S. forces left, residents have said that extremist influence in the city, west of Baghdad, has only grown.

U.S. Marines declined comment and referred queries to the U.S. command, which said it had no comment.

Thanks for this quote, Chip. Notice how the article is written. If the insurgents had carried ou this act, they would have labled "terroists," because it would be said they terrorized the neighborhood. But the Bush regime and the U.S. Marines of course are not called terroists. They're actions are to bring about stability, to rid the neighborhood of the evil doers. The God-blessed America is only doing what it has been chosen to do: to bring freedom to the world. I mean, doesn't it all really make you feel save and secure in the land of plenty? Doesn't it make you pround to be an American!

Amani

Jun 23, 2004, 06:20 PM

Isolation is not the solution. Acting like a warmongerer isn't either.

How about approaching the international community of nations with respect rather than the arrogant behaviour that the Bush administration has been using for the last couple of years.

I condemn the terrorists act, but I've also lost much of my respect for the American government. Show respect to earn respect.

Seriously well stated. The U.S. is trying to do in the Middle East what it has done throughout Asia: terrorize the region into submission for its own economic, political interests. Sadly, though, the only people in the U.S. who really benefit from these interests are the wealthy and the conservative politicians of both parties.

socbyset

Jun 23, 2004, 07:37 PM

I Paul Johnson was working for a military contractor in Saudi Arabia. You're saying that's the moral equivalent of kidnapping someone and beheading them on videotape. That's just silly. Paul johnson did not kill anyone.

"The less powerful use extreme methods because that's the weapon they've been forced to use." Oh, I weep for the killers of Paul Johnson, those poor oppressed victims. If we weren't there I'm sure they would be planting flowers and singing campfire songs.

Interesting how the powerful frame words. The occupation, killing, and slaughter of Iraqi civilian, soldiers, and prisoners by the U.S. (using million dollar bombers and other weapons) is a "military project," but the beheading is far worse.

Killing is killing, no matter what form it takes. The less powerful use "extreme" methods because that's the weapon they've been forced to use. It's wrong, but it's reality. What do we expect Iraqi militants or Iraqi people in general to do when they the U.S. out their country? Unfortuneatly, they will respond to violence (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/) with violence. Pure and simple.

And anyway, one man's idea of rhetoric is another man's idea of truth. Again, the U.S. needs to leave Iraq now. Let them resolve their own problems.

The way to let the Iraqis resolve their own problems is to allow elections under the rule of law. That won't happen if we abandon Iraq to be ruled by fascistic terrorists.

Amani

Jun 23, 2004, 08:15 PM

The way to let the Iraqis resolve their own problems is to allow elections under the rule of law.

Whose rule of law? Who gets to define that rule of law? And whose interests will those laws work for?

Please understand, I do not agree with any form of torture. The only way you really confront a violent regime like the U.S. is with non-violent action. The same would probably work for Isarel. If the occupied, subjugated forces would just bow down to these powerful forces they (the powerful forces) might be shamed into allowing them to live in peace. That's essentially what Japan did. It took its defeat and bowed down, and thus it was blessed by the God-blessed America.

socbyset: "You're saying that's the moral equivalent of kidnapping someone and beheading them on videotape. That's just silly. Paul johnson did not kill anyone."

It really doesn't matter what Paul Johnson was doing there. It matters what and how nations of the world respect one another. As long as we the world community only reacts to violence with violence, it will lead to nothing but more violence. The bloody twentieth century has shown us that, and unfortuneatly, the 21st will no doubt be more of the same. We are essentially living in a nation that has a history of bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of people in order to protect its interests, or in the effort to bring "freedom" to the oppressed peoples of the world. Sadly, the militants who have been subjected to America's attacks have used guerilla tactics such as the one used to kill Paul Johnson. Believe me, if they could grab a few more American soldiers they would. That's what a determined guerrilla foe will do to compact a well financed and powerful force. It's the only weapon it has, save a non-violent approach, which, alas, is something humanity can't come to grips with.

gekko513

Jun 24, 2004, 06:17 AM

In the mean time, innocent people die, while the educated elite can find no better way to resolve conflict than to do it militarily.

All this to say: war is wrong, outdated, and barbaric--no matter where it comes from. If we as an humanity can't rise above it, we're doomed. Seriously doomed.
I think you make a very good point. Our only hope seems to be that more and more people adopt your way of thinking.

Violence is a very powerful and effective tool in the moment, but the mid and long term effects are unpredictable. There are many reasons for this. One is that there will always be someone who wants revenge. Another is that for each time violence is used it helps someone else justify their own use of violence.

Cooperation and diplomacy, for lack of better words, is not so immediately effective, but it's the only way to ensure a stable solution to any conflict.

The problem here is, that even if cooperation, diplomacy and long term development is more effective in the bigger perspective, it can take just a small act of violence to disrupt the whole development process. That's why I think our only hope is that a large majority of people adopt Amani's way of thinking so that we don't lose our collective heads :) when someone doesn't play by the rules.

FritzTheWonderM

Jun 24, 2004, 11:04 AM

-random input-
You know, if new york cabbies were to have taken random people and videotaped themselves beheading them we would call them serial killers. The point? A psycho is a psycho regardless of his motivation or cause. This isn't about what America did or didn't do to piss these people off, this is about a rather high percentage of truly twisted people in one geographic area.
-end random input-

mactastic

Jun 24, 2004, 11:11 AM

And if a bunch of NY cabbies had gotten together and taken pictures of fares that they rounded up, hooded, beat, sexually humiliated and occasionally killed, we'd call them psychos too, regardless of their motivation or cause. What's your point?

Context is everything. Do you think they would be beheading people regardless of whether we were at war with them? Conversely, would our soldiers also be sexually abusing people in their communities here in the states if they wern't over there at war?

FritzTheWonderM

Jun 24, 2004, 11:27 AM

Do you think they would be beheading people regardless of whether we were at war with them?

Um, yes, duh. There is a belief held by some aforementioned twisted folks that by killing random civilians they are resisting, and through this form of resistance they will win for their cause. It is this belief, not a current state of war, that motivates them to take hostages, blow up cafes, and fly hijacked planes into buildings.

Or it could be they are just pissed that they don't have my Lazy-Boy recliner, a 50" TV and a cold beer. Hmm, maybe not.

zimv20

Jun 24, 2004, 11:51 AM

mactastic

Jun 24, 2004, 11:59 AM

FritzTheWonderM

Jun 24, 2004, 12:18 PM

if bush had ordered US bombers and tomahawk missile batteries to strike manhattan, he'd be put in jail (at least i assume he would). but he directed them against baghdad and was labeled a hero. context _does_ matter.

-sigh- The difference is they believe that random acts of violence against non combatant civilians is how they will meet their goals. The rest of the world doesn't do business that way anymore. We at least go to the UN with lots of reasons, (valid or otherwise) why it is necessary to blow things up and get people killed, and we let them know we're coming, and give them plenty of chances to comply before going to war. Context is irrelevant, Bush or any other 'civilized' country won't go to war without provocation,(real or imaginary) because the rest of the world would get pissy and stop doing business with them. Terrorists kill people for reasons the rest of us find... well, stupid.

Sure you can say they are beheading people, etc because we are over there, but that fact is they would be doing it anyway. This isn't new or different, just better publicized.

mactastic

Jun 24, 2004, 12:34 PM

-sigh- The difference is they believe that random acts of violence against non combatant civilians is how they will meet their goals.

No, they believe that asymmetrical warfare is their only option. They know they can't win a traditional war against the US military so they opt for other means. Can you honestly say that if you saw your way of life threatened, not to mention your homeland occupied, and family friends and neighbors of yours beaten, arrested and killed in front of you that you wouldn't take the only option available to you to defend yourself and your country?

The rest of the world doesn't do business that way anymore. We at least go to the UN with lots of reasons, (valid or otherwise) why it is necessary to blow things up and get people killed, and we let them know we're coming, and give them plenty of chances to comply before going to war.

-Sigh.. you forget about Panama, now you forget about the Israelis, who openly condone torture when you make the assertion that 'The rest of the world doesn't do business that way anymore. You also forget about Chechnya, where atrocities by the government are alleded over and over. And do you ever wonder where Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shib went off to? My guess is someplace in 'the rest of the world' where the US isn't bound by the rule of law such as they are even in Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib.

Context is irrelevant, Bush or any other 'civilized' country won't go to war without provocation,(real or imaginary) because the rest of the world would get pissy and stop doing business with them. Terrorists kill people for reasons the rest of us find... well, stupid.

You can't really mean that. If context was truly irrelevant, there would be no reason to have different degrees of murder, nor any self-defense laws. Killing the girl you pick up at the bar would be no different from the girl at the bar killing the guy who tried to rape her. If context were truly irrelevant why are officials always complaining about their quotes being taken out of context? Why do we call some killers heros and others scum?

Sure you can say they are beheading people, etc because we are over there, but that fact is they would be doing it anyway. This isn't new or different, just better publicized.

They would be doing it anyway? Ok, so once again, would the soldiers at Abu Ghraib involved in the torture of detainees have been doing that anyway at home?

Or are you talking about their method of execution for criminals?

FritzTheWonderM

Jun 24, 2004, 12:59 PM

No, they believe that asymmetrical warfare is their only option. They know they can't win a traditional war against the US military so they opt for other means.

Your grasp of the obvious is truly remarkable. But then I'm not talking about Iraqi's defending their country and way of life. They didn't.

You can't really mean that. If context was truly irrelevant, there would be no reason to have different degrees of murder, nor any self-defense laws.

What I mean by that is don't try to make sense of terrorists actions by placing them into the current context of war. It's not really about this particular war for them, it is about the perceived evils of Israel and it's allies. For the U.S. this is just business, it's about filling up your SUV for less than $75. The next war we are in will be about the same thing, money.

They would be doing it anyway? Ok, so once again, would the soldiers at Abu Ghraib involved in the torture of detainees have been doing that anyway at home?

More likely they would be involved in date rape and torturing small animals, or they'd find one of a variety of clubs where that sort of thing is popular.

Voltron

Jun 24, 2004, 01:18 PM

If the occupied, subjugated forces would just bow down to these powerful forces they (the powerful forces) might be shamed into allowing them to live in peace. That's essentially what Japan did. It took its defeat and bowed down, and thus it was blessed by the God-blessed America.

Yup this would work for both Iraq and Palestine and fewer people would've died.

Japan, hmmm somebody forget Pearl Harbor?

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 24, 2004, 01:41 PM

Voltron

Jun 24, 2004, 02:15 PM

How would people respond if Bush if he had time to blow the airliners on 9-11 out of the air?
They probably would've impeached him. I might've approved of such impeachment procedures prior to 9/11.

zimv20

Jun 24, 2004, 02:16 PM

How would people respond if Bush if he had time to blow the airliners on 9-11 out of the air?
i'd guess it depends on the circumstances. if all 4 had been shot down, we wouldn't know what we know now about how severe the attacks would have been. he probably would have taken some serious heat.

had only #4 been shot down, i think people would have understood.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 24, 2004, 02:30 PM

i'd guess it depends on the circumstances. if all 4 had been shot down, we wouldn't know what we know now about how severe the attacks would have been. he probably would have taken some serious heat.

had only #4 been shot down, i think people would have understood.

Understood. Lets try this little exercise a bit further. Tomorrow there is an aircraft that does not respond. It is blown out of the sky. 112 passengers and crews die, and due to the threat the plane is blown up over the Arlington County area of Texas. The lose of life on the ground is 50 souls. It was thought that the intended target was the Sphere in downtown Dallas. Lose of life at that target might be 300. Is it worth second guessing the actions of that plane?

Keep in mind the lose of life on 9-11 was due to the fact that the WTC towers collapsed. No one, including bin Laden ever expected that. Though he did try to bring down at least one of the WTC towers in the past, the evidence is that he did not expect the towers to collapse.

the question is when there is a unknown thereat, how do we as a nation respond? Are a few hundred lives at the Capital worth more than 100 to 200 lives aboard a airliner? i am just glad that i don't have to make those choices.

zimv20

Jun 24, 2004, 02:36 PM

Tomorrow there is an aircraft that does not respond. It is blown out of the sky. 112 passengers and crews die, and due to the threat the plane is blown up over the Arlington County area of Texas. The lose of life on the ground is 50 souls. It was thought that the intended target was the Sphere in downtown Dallas. Lose of life at that target might be 300. Is it worth second guessing the actions of that plane?
that's a really tough scenario. regardless of the decision made, there would always be second guessing. e.g. how do we know that the passengers hadn't regained control of the plane just as the missile to bring it down was being launched?

i don't wish that kind of decision-making on anyone.

Amani

Jun 24, 2004, 02:56 PM

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." -- G.W. Bush, meeting Iraqi amputees at the White House on May 25, 2004

Zimv20: I just read this quote. I've read so many more like it. This, people, is God-blessed America's president! These are really fearful times. Seriously fearful.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 24, 2004, 03:48 PM

that's a really tough scenario. regardless of the decision made, there would always be second guessing. e.g. how do we know that the passengers hadn't regained control of the plane just as the missile to bring it down was being launched?

i don't wish that kind of decision-making on anyone.

Sort of the point I was trying to make. It is too easy to look at the aftermath of the WTC and say what we should have done given enough time.

No one seems to be willing to look at a situation of under 1k deaths at WTC (total to include deaths on the airliners). And the WTC towers would stand today under reconstruction. As cold as it may seem, the government does work in the terms of acceptable loses in its decisions on what actions it should take militarily. Any military officer will attest to that.

Amani

Jun 24, 2004, 04:56 PM

Um, yes, duh. There is a belief held by some aforementioned twisted folks that by killing random civilians they are resisting, and through this form of resistance they will win for their cause. It is this belief, not a current state of war, that motivates them to take hostages, blow up cafes, and fly hijacked planes into buildings.

Or it could be they are just pissed that they don't have my Lazy-Boy recliner, a 50" TV and a cold beer. Hmm, maybe not.

So in the SUV, fast food, Lazy-Boy culture, where its leaders spend more on warfare than the rest of the world combined, where its "shock and awe" campaign means invading the homeland of other people--typically small, defenseless counties--and killings thousands of women, men, and children, that kind of war is different from people who "blow up cafes and fly hijacked planes into buildings." I simply don't see the difference. But are forms of violence; both are justified as an act of defince.

Or it could be the fast-food, God-blessed country will do anything, go anywhere, kill anybody, to protect the interests of its multi-billioners who could give a damn about its citizens sitting in their Lazy-Boy recliner, watching their 50" TV with a cold beer who think the evil empire is outside its homeland.

Again, violence breads violence. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it will never work. Another world is indeed possible.

FritzTheWonderM

Jun 24, 2004, 05:19 PM

Or it could be the fast-food, God-blessed country will do anything, go anywhere, kill anybody, to protect the interests of its multi-billioners who could give a damn about its citizens sitting in their Lazy-Boy recliner, watching their 50" TV with a cold beer who think the evil empire is outside its homeland.

Hey, I think you're catching on now! But it's not the multi-billionaires we are protecting. You and me are the ones buying gas, movies, cosmetics, fashion, electronics, etc, etc spending hundreds of billions of dollars of disposable income per year to create these markets that our government is 'protecting'. We are going to war so that you can live more comfortably than most of the world and complain about it.

Terrorists (do they count as nation/group bashing?) go to war 'cause they can't over the fact that they got thier butts handed to them in previous wars, they are never going to get their land back from Isreal, and the most they can do to improve their situation is kill themselves and hopefully take a few other people with them so that someone might notice.

Again, violence breads violence. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it will never work. Another world is indeed possible.
No it's not. Because no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, there is always somebody who is willing to kick your butt to take your stuff, be it your wallet or your country.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 24, 2004, 05:25 PM

So in the SUV, fast food, Lazy-Boy culture, where its leaders spend more on warfare than the rest of the world combined, where its "shock and awe" campaign means invading the homeland of other people--typically small, defenseless counties--and killings thousands of women, men, and children, that kind of war is different from people who "blow up cafes and fly hijacked planes into buildings." I simply don't see the difference. But are forms of violence; both are justified as an act of defince.

Or it could be the fast-food, God-blessed country will do anything, go anywhere, kill anybody, to protect the interests of its multi-billioners who could give a damn about its citizens sitting in their Lazy-Boy recliner, watching their 50" TV with a cold beer who think the evil empire is outside its homeland.

Again, violence breads violence. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it will never work. Another world is indeed possible.

I find it funny that some if the shoes were reversed would have no problem with the people of the US doing acts of "violence" in order to overthrow a occupation force.

Belief systems have different outcomes, but it does not diminish the desire for some to hold on to what they think is right. They are the enemy only because our government says so.

Amani

Jun 24, 2004, 08:25 PM

[QUOTE=FritzTheWonderMTerrorists (do they count as nation/group bashing?) go to war 'cause they can't over the fact that they got thier butts handed to them in previous wars, they are never going to get their land back from Isreal, and the most they can do to improve their situation is kill themselves and hopefully take a few other people with them so that someone might notice.
No it's not. Because no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, there is always somebody who is willing to kick your butt to take your stuff, be it your wallet or your country.[/QUOTE]

Ah wow, so we can only look forward to a world where those who get their butt kicked are labled "terrorists," while those who do the butt kicking are the priveleged ones. Like I said, we're no doomed. There's hope. There's always hope. But with your way of thinking, we're doomed.

Believe me, oppressed peoples around the world--determined to live and prosper--will never stop defending and fighting for their right to exist and live the life they choose. History has always shown that. You and I may not always agree with the life they choose to live and they may not agree with us, but they will fight for their life. You can call them terroists, thugs, evil doers, whatever, but they will not sit back for long and take the oppression. Iseral, for example, will never have peace, unless it's willing to Nazi-gas all the Palestians in occupied terrorities!--and wouldn't that be a serious irony!

And now the U.S. will also never know peace as long as it sees war as the only way to resolve conflict and protect its interests. The war has not been won in Iraq and the rest of the region. Sadly, it's only just begun.

Voltron

Jun 24, 2004, 09:52 PM

the most they can do to improve their situation is kill themselves and hopefully take a few other people with them so that someone might notice.

Or they could stop the terrorism and become productive members of society.

Amani

Jun 24, 2004, 10:12 PM

Or they could stop the terrorism and become productive members of society.

Yes, I agree, the Bush regime should do this. It should stopping terrorizing nations that don't bow down to its demands.

Voltron

Jun 24, 2004, 10:17 PM

I find it funny that some if the shoes were reversed would have no problem with the people of the US doing acts of "violence" in order to overthrow a occupation force.

Belief systems have different outcomes, but it does not diminish the desire for some to hold on to what they think is right. They are the enemy only because our government says so.
Its not about being fair, its about survival.
And I'm more for the survival of my country where I live then I am for someone else or where they live.
Hypocritacal? Maybe, but we hold the power and would be stupid not to utilize it to increase our safety and our way of life. That is just the way it is.

Amani

Jun 25, 2004, 12:43 AM

Its not about being fair, its about survival.
And I'm more for the survival of my country where I live then I am for someone else or where they live.
Hypocritacal? Maybe, but we hold the power and would be stupid not to utilize it to increase our safety and our way of life. That is just the way it is.

I'm sure the other side thinks the same way. They'll chop off as many heads as they have to, to survive. It's going to be a bloody century, indeed. All due to greed, fear, and exceptionalism!

Voltron

Jun 25, 2004, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Voltron
Its not about being fair, its about survival.
And I'm more for the survival of my country where I live then I am for someone else or where they live.
Hypocritacal? Maybe, but we hold the power and would be stupid not to utilize it to increase our safety and our way of life. That is just the way it is.

I'm sure the other side thinks the same way. They'll chop off as many heads as they have to, to survive. It's going to be a bloody century, indeed. All due to greed, fear, and exceptionalism!
Yeah but the otherside has no chance of winning as long as we are determined enough. We can wipe them out of existence if absolutely necessary in order to win. They would have a better chance of survival if they weren't chopping heads. Their antiques are actually decreasing the odds they will be around this time next year. Some times you have to get a grasp of reality and realize what your real options are. Although having Democrats preaching everyday on tv how rotten this war is, is giving these people hope and making this so called war last longer than it has to.

If France and Germany had been behind attacking Iraq odds are we would not of had to. Saddam would have nuckled under. But their veto's and their game playing gave him hope that we wouldn't attack. Therefore we had to attack. Otherwise if he had no hope he would've abided by the peace treaty and we wouldn't of had an excuss for attacking him.

Amani

Jun 25, 2004, 12:49 PM

Yeah but the otherside has no chance of winning as long as we are determined enough. We can wipe them out of existence if absolutely necessary in order to win.

Wow, that says it all.

Voltron

Jun 25, 2004, 01:03 PM

Wow, that says it all.
Which means it would be in their own best interest to stop the terrorism. Their best possible chance of surviving.

zimv20

Jun 25, 2004, 02:01 PM

Wow, that says it all.
he's already on record w/ being fine w/ genocide. just so you know who you're dealing with.

Voltron

Jun 25, 2004, 09:44 PM

he's already on record w/ being fine w/ genocide. just so you know who you're dealing with.
If they aint smart enough to figure out they could be wiped completly out of existance if they don't back off, then why should we try to appease them and give in to them? Their survival is in their own hands. They don't have to fight for survival, their fighting for extincsion and the sooner they figure this out the sooner they can go back to living their normal lives.

blackfox

Jun 25, 2004, 10:56 PM

If they aint smart enough to figure out they could be wiped completly out of existance if they don't back off, then why should we try to appease them and give in to them? Their survival is in their own hands. They don't have to fight for survival, their fighting for extincsion and the sooner they figure this out the sooner they can go back to living their normal lives.
God da**...SO anything short of killing them all is appeasement if they don't see it our way? Are you advocating Nuclear warfare to accomplish this task? The Soviet/Afghanistan War of the '80's proves that even a superpower cannot defeat a guerilla army on their own territory by conventional means...and most "terrorists" (including Bin Laden) participated in that war, and were taught specific techniques to combat a Superpower's military force, by the US and Pakistan (among others). Is compromise appeasement? Because peace is kept in such ways...these "terrorists" are fighting for what they believe in, some of which has merit (even if their tactics do not), and are willing to die for this...do you really believe they are just going to give up because their enemy has more weapons and money? Again, see USSR - Afrghanistan...what you fail to understand (among other things) is that "terrorism" and/or guerilla tactics are weapons of the weak...they are used because from a conventional military standpoint, the fight would not be effective. If Bin Laden had 500,000 Well equipped and trained soldiers, hi-tech weapons, vehicles and logistics that the US employs, he would probably behave like we have with regards to Iraq...with a full-scale invasion.

Voltron

Jun 25, 2004, 11:18 PM

The Soviet/Afghanistan War of the '80's proves that even a superpower cannot defeat a guerilla army on their own territory by conventional means...
We have proved that with modern warfare weapons it can and we did in the same Afghanistan the Soviets failled in. :p

They will either give in or they will die. They are fighting for the right to subjugate their women. They are fighting for the right to teach their children that killing infedils is fun and is necessary while not allowing them to learn the things that will actually help them make their country better, like the ability to compete in the world marketplace. They are fighting for the right to be totalatarian assholes.

blackfox

Jun 25, 2004, 11:28 PM

We have proved that with modern warfare weapons it can and we did in the same Afghanistan the Soviets failled in. :p
That is debateable...The situation the Soviets' had was more comparable to what the US has been facing in Iraq...

As to the rest of your post...I swear, If I didn't fear the moderator's wrath...saddening...

Voltron

Jun 26, 2004, 07:50 AM

That is debateable...The situation the Soviets' had was more comparable to what the US has been facing in Iraq...

As to the rest of your post...I swear, If I didn't fear the moderator's wrath...saddening...
In another post I posted a link to one of their own web sites where it shows cartoons they teach their children in school and on tv how to kill Jews or any infedil and about how right it is to kill. Instead of teaching them reading, writing, and arithmatic.

I'll post it again.
Hamas kids' magazine: 'Destroy rapist Jews'
Periodical claims Iraqi children being 'torn to shreds' by U.S.

for those who can read arabic here is the magazine itself I think. http://www.al-fateh.net/

A monthly children's magazine published by the Hamas terrorist organization urges Palestinian and Iraqi children to pray for Allah to "destroy the cruel, rapist Jews" and bring victory to the Palestinian and Iraqi causes.

"The eighth edition of Al-Fateh [The Conqueror], was published [last month] and it seems that over the last eight months it has caught the eyes of its young readers," says an analysis by The Media Line, an Israel-based group offering news and commentary on the Middle East.
Pleas for violence against Jews, contained in the magazine's editorial, is preceded by descriptions of alleged suffering by Iraqi children as a result of the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein. It says the children are suffering due to cruelty being committed against them by coalition forces
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/hamashorse.gif
The Conqueror" icon of the Al-Fateh magazine.

The editorial says the enemy's hatred and insensitivity "are caused by the Jewish filth, and they are inspired by the Jews' cruelty, heresy and barbarity."

Felice Friedson, president and CEO of The Media Line, told WorldNetDaily she believes the magazine's creators are ratcheting up the hate-filled rhetoric against Israel and the Jewish faith to attract more readers – a ploy that seems to be working.

She said the magazine's website has attracted 1.6 million visitors since its launch. It uses simple language, light stories and endearing illustrated characters, TML analysts have said.

+ more http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31943

also here http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29535