View Full Version : American Civilian Beheaded in Iraq
russ_watters
May11-04, 02:38 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm
phatmonky
May11-04, 03:05 PM
1>Well, violence begets violence....and I'm all for returning the favor to al quaeda on this one.
2>This guy should have been sent home sooner, and it's a damn shame he wasn't. It's still not the administrations fault that he is dead, however it does highlight another problem that is going on.
3>I'm presently waiting for a response on this subject from an Islamic board I frequent :o I will post the general thoughts of people in the region once I get something :)
adrenaline
May11-04, 03:06 PM
How tragic. I can't begin to offer a commentary. Perhaps the adage Two wrongs don't make a right, fits. However, at the same time it is not unexpected.
Greg Bernhardt
May11-04, 05:27 PM
Terrible, completely digusting, thats all you can say. I think CNN needs to get that photo off the frontpage, hardly respectful to the berg family with the guy holding the knife about to behead him.
pelastration
May11-04, 08:19 PM
Indeed a terrible act. Killing an innocent man. And it was not the mencenary type of contractor.
This act was also symbolic, as the orange cloths reflect, an allusion to Gitmo.
An arabic news website wrote:
quote "On the Web site, one of the executioners read a statement: "For the mothers and wives of US troops, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused."
"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."
In the video, the speaker threatened both President Bush and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. "As for you Bush ... expect severe days. You and your troops will regret the day you stepped into the land of Iraq," he said. He described Musharraf as "a traitor agent."
selfAdjoint
May11-04, 09:03 PM
And it was about the stupidest thing they could do. If they had just let us stew in our own Abu Ghreb juices, we might have wound up going away sooner. But now the US population that was beginning to turn against the war will accept the countervailing horrors as a wash and the Bush administration will weather the crisis and forge on with their impossible dream.
Napoleon: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder!"
Yes, it is indeed horrible. For those of you feeling anger and hatred, remember, this is what Iraqis feel about all the dead Iraqis.
Before you go loony and scream "Anti-American!", no, I do not approve of such acts. And before you whinge about me making political points out of a death, well, everyone has been doing that for months in this political forum.
In short:
- The act is horrible.
- The act is just as horrible as every other death resulting from this illegal war.
- All those deaths are wrong.
- Hopefully those who did not previously empathise with the anger of some Iraqis (over 8,000 of them were killed, remember) may now do so.
Greg Bernhardt
May12-04, 02:14 AM
Yes, it is indeed horrible. For those of you feeling anger and hatred, remember, this is what Iraqis feel about all the dead Iraqis.
When did I miss the part where we kidnap iraqi civs and then taped their beheading?
When did I miss the part where we kidnap iraqi civs and then taped their beheading?
Apparently you didn't watch the invasion, when the USA news services were broadcasting the bombing of Baghdad, during which a huge number of civilians died. Or are you suggesting that blowing them up with bombs is somehow less horrible that using knives? Do I need to post a few pictures of the splattered body-parts from the bombings, to remind people? How about that kid Ali with his arms missing?
Firstly, what happened was quite disgusting and I can never ever say that anybody deserved it!
However, I'd like to point out the initial reaction of a couple of my friends (anti-war but they ain't into politics so we could call them the general public.)
When we heard the news on the radio this morning, my friends laughed and said that the Americans deserved it!
It's odd that this "war" has degraded into something so bad that we can't fathom how filthy it will get. The bounds of what is acceptable in todays world has been pushed so much that anyone with some moral sense is totally dumbfounded.
I think the main point here is that no more is "morals" the reason to do or not do anything. The world has degraded to such an extent that one man can start a war even though nobody else wants it, that PoW's are treated worse than animals, that people are beheaded live on-line.
The scary bit is the fact that you know have to ask: "What's next?" with the answer being one that you really rather not know.
phatmonky
May12-04, 07:16 AM
Firstly, what happened was quite disgusting and I can never ever say that anybody deserved it!
However, I'd like to point out the initial reaction of a couple of my friends (anti-war but they ain't into politics so we could call them the general public.)
When we heard the news on the radio this morning, my friends laughed and said that the Americans deserved it!
Your friend's exemplify the exact reasoning that we don't much care what the rest of the world has to say to us. We receive the same hatred no matter what. And it's ironic that it too is highly numbing.
I do disagree with the rest of your assessment on the situatoin. You claim no one else wanted it. You claim it has nothing to do with morals.
I wanted this war. I wanted Saddam out of power and the Iraqi people given their country back. Many people did!! There are tons of other reasons for this, but one of them is righting a past wrong (supporting Saddam inthe first place). I can say that perhaps morals are gone for many in Government. I am sure that many folks around the world were against the war, because they are simply against war. I am not here to argue that, it's for another thread. What I AM SURE OF is the intentions of the Russian and French governments in why they did not want a war - and it has nothing to do with the poor ol' Iraqi people. There is no morals there. I am sure of, atleast, Mr. Cheney's interest in the war profiteering, no matter what his intentions may have been beforehand. I would agree that morals in government are degraded, but I fully disagree that they are across the general populous so much so that doing something is not based on right and wrong, but full self interest. No majority in my country sat around thinking "hey, maybe if we invade Iraq, we can see some bombs go off! Awesome!"
POWs and beheadings have happened for years! this is nothing new.
The answer to "What's next?", atleast in Iraq, will depend on the events between now and next January. I would rather know - I'm not afraid of the truth, no matter how ugly.
phatmonky
May12-04, 07:18 AM
Apparently you didn't watch the invasion, when the USA news services were broadcasting the bombing of Baghdad, during which a huge number of civilians died. Or are you suggesting that blowing them up with bombs is somehow less horrible that using knives? Do I need to post a few pictures of the splattered body-parts from the bombings, to remind people? How about that kid Ali with his arms missing?
I will argue such a thing. I would rather be blown up than have my head cut off.
Ali is less vindictive than you are.
Okay, I'd argue that. I'm not vindictive at all. And I'm glad you think those thousands of Iraqi civilians had pleasant, acceptable deaths.
studentx
May12-04, 08:42 AM
Yes, it is indeed horrible. For those of you feeling anger and hatred, remember, this is what Iraqis feel about all the dead Iraqis.
Before you go loony and scream "Anti-American!", no, I do not approve of such acts. And before you whinge about me making political points out of a death, well, everyone has been doing that for months in this political forum.
In short:
- The act is horrible.
- The act is just as horrible as every other death resulting from this illegal war.
- All those deaths are wrong.
- Hopefully those who did not previously empathise with the anger of some Iraqis (over 8,000 of them were killed, remember) may now do so.
Adam i think youve just shown your distorted view of todays reality. Today, when an Iraqi civilian is killed or undressed, it appears on frontpages around the world. When an American is beheaded, he might have deserved it AND, perhaps the Americans will learn from it (perhaps they now suddenly have empathy). BUT (mentioned lastly) this beheading is wrong.
Adam, if you really think this beheading is wrong i expect nothing less from you then 25 threads about it in the following weeks and reference to it in every post you make.
What i suspect tho is that you and other regulars will wisp this away saying things like... this death is no worse than all others... its wrong but not suprising... maybe they learn from it... this is caused by Gitmo....
Maybe YOU will learn something from what the Americans do in Gitmo and Abu ghraib, so you will have some empathy for the Americans again. When the Americans cut off an Iraqis head, maybe you will get empathy for the American doing it? How in allahs name did you even think this beheading video would increase our empathy for Iraqis?
In the video, these terrorists say they offered an exchange with Abu graib prisoners. A lie to divide you. No doubt some of you regulars will become even more pissed off at the Americans for not exchanging innocent iraqi prisoners with this American. Its one of the many vague conspiracy theories that clouds your mind and feeds your anger.
In the video, these terrorists mention the abuse in abu graib. A lie to divide you. Do you seriously think this wouldnt have happened if the abuse pictures werent released? This kind of thing happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan ,before 911, and BEFORE BUSH.
In the video, these terrorists mention "other prisons" where abuse (might) go on. A lie to divide you, and seeing Pelas begin about Gitmo, it seems to have worked.
I cannot believe how youre being played by the media and these false claims and conspiracy theories evrywhere.
I think Towsend said it right in his other post: you opened your mind so far that it fell out. Empathy for the enemy does not make them right. I have no doubt i have far greater understanding of the enemy than you Adam, but i also understand the American side, a side you should explore before opening your mouth.
phatmonky
May12-04, 09:01 AM
And I'm glad you think those thousands of Iraqi civilians had pleasant, acceptable deaths.
Holding true to your user text I see.
And it was about the stupidest thing they could do. If they had just let us stew in our own Abu Ghreb juices, we might have wound up going away sooner. But now the US population that was beginning to turn against the war will accept the countervailing horrors as a wash and the Bush administration will weather the crisis and forge on with their impossible dream.
Napoleon: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder!"
You're assuming they want us to leave. While most Iraqi insurgents do want us to leave, I'm not certain Al Qaeda shares that goal, despite their protestations. The longer we are there, the more secular Sunni's will abandon the Baathists and join fundamentalist Sunni movements, like Al Qaeda.
Njorl
When an American is beheaded, he might have deserved it AND, perhaps the Americans will learn from it (perhaps they now suddenly have empathy). BUT (mentioned lastly) this beheading is wrong.
Are you saying the man deserved it? I'm quite sure I didn't say that.
Adam, if you really think this beheading is wrong i expect nothing less from you then 25 threads about it in the following weeks and reference to it in every post you make.
You can expect whatever you like. Your expectations have nothing to do with me.
What i suspect tho is that you and other regulars will wisp this away saying things like... this death is no worse than all others... its wrong but not suprising... maybe they learn from it... this is caused by Gitmo....
1) It is no worse than other deaths. They are all horrible, and unecessary.
2) I doubt anyone will learn anything from it. People are too stupid.
3) It is caused by greed.
Maybe YOU will learn something from what the Americans do in Gitmo and Abu ghraib, so you will have some empathy for the Americans again.
How would seeing Americans abuse POWs create more empathy toward Americans? When the Americans cut off an Iraqis head, maybe you will get empathy for the American doing it? How in allahs name did you even think this beheading video would increase our empathy for Iraqis?
[/quote]
Because some of you may be capable of realising that "they" are just another "us". The Iraqis who lost family members during the invasion are exactly the same as you, except that they now live in a nation occupied by a foreign military force. Some few people there are complete whackos, just as some people in the USA are complete whackos, like Tim McVeigh.
Of course, some of you will ignore reality and stick with the "us" and "them" mentality.
In the video, these terrorists say they offered an exchange with Abu graib prisoners. A lie to divide you.
On what evidence to you base the assertion that it was a lie?
No doubt some of you regulars will become even more pissed off at the Americans for not exchanging innocent iraqi prisoners with this American.
Actually I'm surprised that the US military in Iraq kept the man there against his will. I believe the parents are also quite upset about that.
Its one of the many vague conspiracy theories that clouds your mind and feeds your anger.
1) On what do you base the assertion that it is a conspiracy theory?
2) On what do you base the assertion that I feel any anger?
In the video, these terrorists mention the abuse in abu graib. A lie to divide you.
Which part exactly is a lie? The existence of Abu Graib? Odd, since the soldiers stationed there, and starring in the pictures, admit to what happened.
Do you seriously think this wouldnt have happened if the abuse pictures werent released? This kind of thing happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan ,before 911, and BEFORE BUSH.
Before Bush, that chap was alive. So were 8,000+ Iraqi civilians. Simple enough.
In the video, these terrorists mention "other prisons" where abuse (might) go on. A lie to divide you, and seeing Pelas begin about Gitmo, it seems to have worked.
1) On what evidence to you base the assertion that it was a lie?
2) Note that the man in charge of Abu Graib was put in charge there, transferred from Cuba, specifically because he was known to be able to produce results form his interrogation techniques.
I cannot believe how youre being played by the media and these false claims and conspiracy theories evrywhere.
I can not believe how many unsupported assertions you're making.
I think Towsend said it right in his other post: you opened your mind so far that it fell out.
An ad hominem now? If you really are a student, start paying attention in your classes.
Empathy for the enemy does not make them right.
1) Did I once suggest you should have empathy for the man weilding the knife?
2) Who exactly do you consider "the enemy"?
I have no doubt i have far greater understanding of the enemy than you Adam, but i also understand the American side, a side you should explore before opening your mouth.
Wow. More assumptions. You're doing well. Upon what do you abse these latest assumptions?
phatmonky
May12-04, 09:27 AM
Before Bush, that chap was alive. So were 8,000+ Iraqi civilians. Simple enough.
:rofl: :rofl: you've got to be kidding me Adam. I know you can do better than that! Really!
phatmonky
May12-04, 09:33 AM
You're assuming they want us to leave. While most Iraqi insurgents do want us to leave, I'm not certain Al Qaeda shares that goal, despite their protestations. The longer we are there, the more secular Sunni's will abandon the Baathists and join fundamentalist Sunni movements, like Al Qaeda.
Njorl
So it's reverse psychology??
Chicago, L.A. towers were next targets
By Paul Martin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
Mohammed told interrogators that he and Ramzi Yousuf, his nephew who was behind an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had leafed through almanacs of American skyscrapers when planning the first operation.
"We were looking for symbols of economic might," he told his captors.
He specifically mentioned as potential targets the Library Tower in Los Angeles, which was "blown up" in the film "Independence Day," and the Sears Tower in Chicago.
A British newspaper over the weekend published a detailed account that it said was taken from transcripts of the interrogation of Mohammed, who was captured last year in Pakistan.
The transcripts are prefaced with a warning that Mohammed, the most senior al Qaeda member yet to be caught, "has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead."
According to the transcript, Mohammed has maintained that Zacarias Moussaoui, the French-Moroccan facing trial in the United States as the "20th hijacker," had been sent to a flight school in Minnesota to train for a West Coast attack.
That would buttress Moussaoui's contention that he is improperly charged with participation in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, because he was preparing for a different al Qaeda operation.
The new transcripts confirm an earlier report by the Associated Press that al Qaeda originally had planned to crash hijacked airliners into targets on both coasts.
The London Sunday Times said the transcripts covered interrogations conducted during a period of four months after a bleary-eyed Mohammed was captured in a pre-dawn raid a little more than a year ago.
The confessions reveal that planning for the September 11 attacks started much earlier and was more elaborate than previously thought.
"The original plan was for a two-pronged attack with five targets on the East Coast of America and five on the West Coast," he told interrogators, according to the transcript.
"We talked about hitting California as it was America's richest state, and [al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden had talked about economic targets."
He is reported to have said that bin Laden, who like Mohammed had studied engineering, vetoed simultaneous coast-to-coast attacks, arguing that "it would be too difficult to synchronize."
Mohammed then decided to conduct two waves of attacks, hitting the East Coast first and following up with a second series of attacks.
"Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast," he reportedly said.
But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed is quoted as saying.
Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms.
"Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room ... and operatives had more autonomy."
Mohammed told interrogators that he remained in Pakistan for 10 days after September 11, 2001, then went to Afghanistan to find bin Laden.
When he was captured in March last year in the home of a microbiologist in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the 37-year-old was unshaven and wearing a baggy vest.
The interrogation reports also indicate that Mohammed had introduced bin Laden to Hambali, the Indonesian militant accused in the terror attack that killed more than 200 people in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2002.
Mohammed was running a hostel filtering al Qaeda recruits in Peshawar, Pakistan, when he scouted Hambali, whose real name is Riduan Ismuddin and who ran the Islamist group Jemaah Islamiyah in Asia.
Later, Mohammed moved to Karachi, Pakistan. There, posing as a businessman importing holy water from Mecca, Saudi Arabia, he acted as a fund-raiser and intermediary between militants and sponsors in the Gulf.
His first planned anti-American attack was Operation Bojinka (Serbo-Croatian for "big bang") — a plot to blow up 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific.
Yousuf and Hambali were involved in the scheme, which failed when the conspirators' Manila bomb factory caught fire. The men fled to Pakistan, where Yousuf was arrested.
Mr. Mohammed seems to think our strategy is good. :confused:
studentx
May12-04, 09:35 AM
Adam your desperately twisting it into a bewildered future strawman. Out of respect for all terrorist victims, i will let you go this time
studentx
May12-04, 09:51 AM
So it's reverse psychology??
Mr. Mohammed seems to think our strategy is good. :confused:
Osama once said, he would lure the Americans into the middle east and engage them there (easier to engage them there than in the USA). Perhaps the foreign fighters in Iraq want the Americans to stay so they can keep attacking them. But if the Americans plant a new gov in Iraq, they lose a possible new war room. If i was a terrorist, i would be very confused and blow myself up
:rofl: :rofl: you've got to be kidding me Adam. I know you can do better than that! Really!
What better argument can there be than lives and deaths?
Adam your desperately twisting it into a bewildered future strawman. Out of respect for all terrorist victims, i will let you go this time
In other words, your entire previous post was demonstrated to be nothing, completely empty, and you can't support your assertions.
jimmy p
May12-04, 11:01 AM
I dont think the extremists are making it easier on themselves... as someone said before, the situation had died down enough that people were nit-picking and finding faults and becoming very anti-war. Now they have just restoked the flames of hatred. I notice that the executioners were too cowardly to show their faces however. Just happy to hide in the shadows.
I dont know what they are trying to prove by this act. To me it seems they kill the odd soldier or westerner and generally do a lot of fist shaking and hate-mongering, but for all of this not much has occurred. OBL has said that it is easier to fight in the Middle East. So far he hasnt proved it and now this event is going to make life for them that bit harder.
I just dont know what to make of this war anymore.
phatmonky
May12-04, 11:05 AM
Osama once said, he would lure the Americans into the middle east and engage them there (easier to engage them there than in the USA). Perhaps the foreign fighters in Iraq want the Americans to stay so they can keep attacking them. But if the Americans plant a new gov in Iraq, they lose a possible new war room. If i was a terrorist, i would be very confused and blow myself up
hahahaha.....
Could you link this statement? Was there more? Thanks :)
honestrosewater
May12-04, 11:39 AM
Have any of you seen the video?
Have any of you seen the video?
I have no plans to see it. That arena has provided Australian TV with more than enough images of gruesome death.
studentx
May12-04, 12:01 PM
Adam, do you have another explanation for your 50:0 ratio of Anti-american vs other threads? Im open to change my opinion about you, grab this chance to bring peace between us!
Oh and sorry PhatMonky, i remember picking it up in an interview with an imprisoned Muslim extremist but i have no ''proof''. It doesnt sound too fantastical does it? It struck me as realistic when i heard it, the actual phrase was more like "If the Americans come to the middle east, we will make it hell for them" and according to him, Bin Laden said it. So yes, binladen might not have actually lured them there
- Hopefully those who did not previously empathise with the anger of some Iraqis (over 8,000 of them were killed, remember) may now do so.Just the opposite. This has hurt the Iraqi cause. I think things like this make people less sympathetic.
These few have re-emphasized why terrorists need to be dealt with.
Just the opposite. This has hurt the Iraqi cause. I think things like this make people less sympathetic.
These few have re-emphasized why terrorists need to be dealt with.
I too feel so. Remember what happened as aftermath when four US soldiers were killed and dragged off through streets?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
--MKG
Adam, do you have another explanation for your 50:0 ratio of Anti-american vs other threads? Im open to change my opinion about you, grab this chance to bring peace between us!
Your opinion is invariably wrong, so I don't really care. A brief skim over the forum will show that I start threads about many things. Not one has been "anti-American". If you wish to stick such a ridiculous label on me, then show reason for it. Otherwise, sit in the corner and let the adults chat.
Just the opposite. This has hurt the Iraqi cause. I think things like this make people less sympathetic.
These few have re-emphasized why terrorists need to be dealt with.
I make no differentiation between a group of nutters killing someone for a political cause, and a state killing someone for a political cause (or for money). The victim is just as dead, either way. I have never seen any valid reason to differentiate between the two. I expect others to be capable of realising that dead is dead. If people see this as further reason to hate others, it only demonstrates an inability to realise that there is no "us" and "them", regarding nationalities and such.
jimmy p
May12-04, 02:11 PM
So what do you think, should the Coalition back down, pack up our bags and leave or do they give the extremists hell? I mean, if America pulls out then Britain cant control Iraq, even though we arent the ones who have had the major problems.
I know my choices are very complex decisions... please express reasons as well.
"give the extremists hell"
Sounds like a Rambo movie...
This beheading incident... could it have been catalyzed by the recent photos of the abuse of iraqi prisoners? Or would it have happened anyway (or later on)?
studentx
May12-04, 02:44 PM
I think it would have happened anyway. If it wasnt the abuse scandal, it would be some other scandal.
According to CNN, arab papers downplayed the beheading. Some gave no comment, and some put it in the the abuse scandal report.
So it's reverse psychology??
Mr. Mohammed seems to think our strategy is good. :confused:
I believe that is in reference to our invasion of Afghanistan, and our general world-wide pursuit of Al Qaeda's assets. As we have learned, there was no Al Qaeda presence in the parts of Iraq that Saddam Hussein controlled. They are there now though.
Njorl
Motai.
The people who did it claimed it was due to the torture of imprisoned Iraqis. They also claimed they contacted the US military and offered an exchange. At the moment, the Pentagon has buckets of evidence about the situation and is deciding what to release or not, so it's hard to say for certain who did what, and why, apart from the obvious.
studentx
May12-04, 03:17 PM
I make no differentiation between a group of nutters killing someone for a political cause, and a state killing someone for a political cause (or for money). The victim is just as dead, either way. I have never seen any valid reason to differentiate between the two. I expect others to be capable of realising that dead is dead. If people see this as further reason to hate others, it only demonstrates an inability to realise that there is no "us" and "them", regarding nationalities and such.
Thats what i meant with ''your mind fell out".
There IS a diffrence between us and them(the terrorists). These criminals that beheaded the American were no Insurgents, in fact the (suspected) group leader isnt even an Iraqi but a well known foreign terrorist.
This video SHOULD enrage you against the terrorists, if you arent than only Allah can help you.
russ_watters
May12-04, 04:05 PM
This beheading incident... could it have been catalyzed by the recent photos of the abuse of iraqi prisoners? Or would it have happened anyway (or later on)? The terrorists specifically said that that was their reason for it. However, the terrorists were operating in Iraq already. The photos are just a good excuse they could use to fuel/justify already long term hatred.
Adam, your views are interesting coming from someone who was in the military. I wonder what you would do if you were ever in a situation where you had to use the military force at your disposal. There has never been a war in which civilians weren't killed. Would you refuse to fight because of the possibility that you might accientally kill a civilian?
There is a major moral difference between that beheading and the deaths of those 8,000(?) civilians. That you can't see it is a little scary, especially considering your military experience.
jimmy p
May12-04, 06:36 PM
Sounds like a Rambo movie...
That's the spirit!! :biggrin:
The main problem was the pictures of US soldiers mistreating the POWs. The coalition should have gone in their with a whiter than white attitude, ENFORCED the rules on treatment of POWs and set a damn good example. Then the middle Eastern populaces would have seen them doing the right thing and would have had nothing to complain about.
Unfortunately such as life goes, there are always a few a$$holes who ruin it for everyone.
jimmy p
May12-04, 06:49 PM
Thats what i meant with ''your mind fell out".
There IS a diffrence between us and them(the terrorists). These criminals that beheaded the American were no Insurgents, in fact the (suspected) group leader isnt even an Iraqi but a well known foreign terrorist.
This video SHOULD enrage you against the terrorists, if you arent than only Allah can help you.
Actually I thought that the idea of the video was to dishearten to populace. Think about it, no-one wants to go to Iraq and risk having the same happen. I doubt any more contractors willl go to Iraq. The civilians operating in Iraq are likely to head home. EVERYONE back at home likes to hear the propaganda that their side is doing the right thing, but when an image beams in like that, it shows something has gone horribly wrong. Now tell me. Ok would you rather dive right in and retaliate or pack up and move all non-military personnel out of there.
Personally, I'm sick of the war. To hell with it. The middle East's opinion of the coalition has dropped from warily content to bitter resentment. Screw Iraq, screw the middle East. Pull all our boys out, if the people arent happy, they can bloody well rebuild what they want and elect their own government or be led by a dictator again. Makes no difference to me. In fact does it seem to you that every middle Eastern country is run by a dictator or military presence... seems to me that by removing Saddam we have kind of destroyed a cultural way of life. Opinions are so low of us anyway, we may as well drop out and leave Iraq to scrabble in the dirt. I have had it with the killing, the hatred the bloody extremists. Sod that.
At least back in Britain our soldiers wont be attacked, and it would give no reason for further acts of terrorism, we have given them what they wanted. Let them sort their own problems out. If France went into crisis, how many middle eastern countries would come running to help?? none. Let their culture deal with things their way.
This is my humble opinion. You now have my permission to tear me to pieces like the political jackals you are :biggrin: :wink:
Thats what i meant with ''your mind fell out".
There IS a diffrence between us and them(the terrorists). These criminals that beheaded the American were no Insurgents, in fact the (suspected) group leader isnt even an Iraqi but a well known foreign terrorist.
This video SHOULD enrage you against the terrorists, if you arent than only Allah can help you.
There is no difference between Mister X being dead due to US bombs, and Mister X being dead due to some nutter's knife. Mister X is dead in either case. I feel the exact same amount of negative emotion from both cases.
Let me ask you: Why do you feel that Mister USA's death is more important than Mister Iraq's death?
Adam, your views are interesting coming from someone who was in the military. I wonder what you would do if you were ever in a situation where you had to use the military force at your disposal. There has never been a war in which civilians weren't killed. Would you refuse to fight because of the possibility that you might accientally kill a civilian?
Yes. I would refuse. In fact, an Ausrtalian F18 pilot involved in the invasion did exactly that. He was leading a US strike against a ground target which US intelligence had claimed was an enemy unit. However, upon approaching the target, he could not be certain that it was indeed a valid target. So he called off teh strike, against orders. Every soldier has the right, and the duty, to do precisely that if they are uncertain of the target.
There is a major moral difference between that beheading and the deaths of those 8,000(?) civilians. That you can't see it is a little scary, especially considering your military experience.
Okay, what is that difference?
phatmonky
May13-04, 12:31 AM
Okay, what is that difference?
The moral difference is the intention behind the act, and you know that.
We could have leveled Baghdad and had less resistance.
We could have implemented martial law and had less resistance.
We could still steamroll the place and have less resistance.
We are doing out best to not kill innocent Iraqis. The reports that some British soldiers shot civilians while they were running away, if true, are dispicable! The troops who did it should all be hung, and this goes for Americans too!!
Now, are you honestly going to tell me that stray fire that kills a person in their house has the same moral backing as a knife sawing a man's head off for a camera?
phatmonky
May13-04, 12:31 AM
By the way - show me this source you keep quoting. I believe you, but I'm curious to know if they include car bombs, and the like, that we are not planting.
The moral difference is the intention behind the act, and you know that.
I don't see things that way at all. Either way, an innocent Mister X dies. The morals of the murderer matter to me not at all. I am far more concerned with the rights of the victim.
We could have leveled Baghdad and had less resistance.
We could have implemented martial law and had less resistance.
We could still steamroll the place and have less resistance.
You could have chosen not to invade, and had zero resistance.
We are doing out best to not kill innocent Iraqis. The reports that some British soldiers shot civilians while they were running away, if true, are dispicable! The troops who did it should all be hung, and this goes for Americans too!!
I agree.
Now, are you honestly going to tell me that stray fire that kills a person in their house has the same moral backing as a knife sawing a man's head off for a camera?
One is deliberate, one is negligent, but both result in the same innocent person being dead. I do not care at all for the rationalisations people use for why they are there, what their intent was. The dead person is just as dead, either way. This is why we throw drunk drivers in prison if they flatten people with their cars. The excuse "Duh, I didn't mean it!" is crap.
By the way - show me this source you keep quoting. I believe you, but I'm curious to know if they include car bombs, and the like, that we are not planting.
Source for which bit, exactly?
phatmonky
May13-04, 12:46 AM
Source for which bit, exactly?
the civilian death numbers
phatmonky
May13-04, 12:47 AM
In response to your last reply - The question was MORAL difference.
Iraqbodycount.net collates records from hospitals, the UN, AI, and other sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ There sources for every death are viewable.
And what is the moral difference between Mister X dead from a knife, and Mister X dead from a bomb? Mister X remains dead, regardless of the excuses and rationalisations of either killer.
I must agree with Einstein on this point: "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - Albert Einstein.
studentx
May13-04, 03:12 AM
Adam the point your making about mister X, is not the point were arguing.
It matters WHO kills mister X, not to mister X but to the rest of the world. It matters to mister X mostly, HOW he is killed and i can guarantee all of humanity chooses a big bomb over a sawing knife.
Adam the point your making about mister X, is not the point were arguing.
It matters WHO kills mister X, not to mister X but to the rest of the world. It matters to mister X mostly, HOW he is killed and i can guarantee all of humanity chooses a big bomb over a sawing knife.
Definitely, I will choose a big bomb over a sawing knife AND I will choose a sawing knife over being first beaten naked without food for days and in the end my head being thrashed into a rock eventually leading to death.
cragwolf
May13-04, 07:35 AM
There is no guarantee that a bomb will land in the right place and make death quick. It could land in such a position relative to you that you might slowly bleed to death in absolute agony, or you might lose your limbs and survive, but live in great pain most of the time from the wounds, or the bomb might wipe out your entire family leaving you alive to feel guilty for surviving and not being able to protect your family, and suffering severe depression for the rest of your life. Many are the ways that bombs bring suffering. That's why it's an assinine statement to say that bombs are better than knives or beatings.
phatmonky
May13-04, 08:12 AM
There is no guarantee that a bomb will land in the right place and make death quick. It could land in such a position relative to you that you might slowly bleed to death in absolute agony, or you might lose your limbs and survive, but live in great pain most of the time from the wounds, or the bomb might wipe out your entire family leaving you alive to feel guilty for surviving and not being able to protect your family, and suffering severe depression for the rest of your life. Many are the ways that bombs bring suffering. That's why it's an assinine statement to say that bombs are better than knives or beatings.
Moral backing.
The difference between people dying as a result of bombing in a war and the result of a terrorist cutting off their head is that death by bombing was never intended.
The intention of bombing an enemy during a war is to take away their desire or ability to make war. It is much better to wound an enemy during a war than to kill them. This causes the enemy to choose between leaving them to die or helping them, taking manpower and attention away from fighting. Civilians are often injured during a bombing because they are near strategic targets. The enemy will locate these targets near civilians to force the military to endanger them in order to attack these locations. The use of “intelligent” weapons and guidance systems greatly reduce the numbers of injured and dead civilians due to military strikes.
The act of cutting off a person’s head with the words, "For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, ... Coffins will be arriving to you one after the other, slaughtered just like this." is terrorism. An extremely intentional murder, planned with the purpose of causing terror (aimed at the family’s of service men and women).
Adam the point your making about mister X, is not the point were arguing.
It matters WHO kills mister X, not to mister X but to the rest of the world. It matters to mister X mostly, HOW he is killed and i can guarantee all of humanity chooses a big bomb over a sawing knife.
The method of murdering Mister X does not matter to me. He should not have been killed either way.
The difference between people dying as a result of bombing in a war and the result of a terrorist cutting off their head is that death by bombing was never intended.
Incorrect. For any given bomb type, bombing pattern, target area, population density, et cetera, there are percentages worked out for how many civilian deaths to expect. These are anticipated, factored into the cost/benefit ratio, and filed away in triplicate.
Incorrect. For any given bomb type, bombing pattern, target area, population density, et cetera, there are percentages worked out for how many civilian deaths to expect. These are anticipated, factored into the cost/benefit ratio, and filed away in triplicate.
Yes that information is known, and the smallest weapon that can achieve the destruction of the target is employed. Destruction beyond the limits of the target is not the objective.
studentx
May13-04, 01:27 PM
Incorrect. For any given bomb type, bombing pattern, target area, population density, et cetera, there are percentages worked out for how many civilian deaths to expect.
But unlike the terrorist with a sawing knife, that percentage isnt 100 is it?
pelastration
May13-04, 05:29 PM
Yes that information is known, and the smallest weapon that can achieve the destruction of the target is employed. Destruction beyond the limits of the target is not the objective.
Check: Cluster bombs
http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/graphix/photos/clusterbomb/afghanistan.html. Only the target ...? No the whole area.
cragwolf
May13-04, 07:42 PM
But unlike the terrorist with a sawing knife, that percentage isnt 100 is it?
And unlike the terrorist the number isn't 1.
Check: Cluster bombs
http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/graphix/photos/clusterbomb/afghanistan.html. Only the target ...? No the whole area.
Cluster bombs are designed to wound personel (that is their target).
I will admit that their use can cause large quantities of civilian casulties.
Ebolamonk3y
May13-04, 08:08 PM
http://www.comedycentral.com/includes/smilros.jhtml?vidclip=dailyshow/stewart/jon_7131_300.rm
everyone is familiar with this video right? :) Bush vs. Bush. heh...
As for the beheading... It was the worst video I seen in a long time...
cragwolf
May13-04, 08:18 PM
Terrorism is the weapon of choice for those who suffer from a huge military disadvantage. It is intended to cause an atmosphere of terror, and if kept up for long enough, is expected to cause both exhausted sides to ultimately seek a compromise solution in order to avoid further bloodshed. It worked in Ireland, and almost worked in Israel-Palestine (but for the Rabin assassination, and US meddling in other areas of the Middle East). Of course, it can easily be argued that the cost is greater than the payoff. It can also be argued that it doesn't often work. But then, people with very long odds of victory (or just avoiding defeat) don't care about that.
Terrorism is one of the many weapons of war.
Ebolamonk3y
May13-04, 08:49 PM
Its a psychological thing more than actual threat...
So far the only response has been "But bombs kill more people". Clever. Have a cigar.
There is some doubt as to weather this video is real at all...
http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/berg.htm
What do you guys think? Wag the dog all over again?
Terrorism is the weapon of choice for those who suffer from a huge military disadvantage...
...Terrorism is one of the many weapons of war.
To tell you the truth gragwolf, this is one of the thoughest parts of this situation for me to deal with. I have been struggling with this issue. Afterall, the people of the US won their own independance using gorilla (sp?) tacktics.
To me it boils down to this: this was a faction. Not the entire government of Iraq. These people have their own agenda. If we give in to them, give them their demands, trade prisoners, etc., then where do you stop? What will the next little faction of radicals ask for? At what cost?
I have a problem with the news people saying that "Such and such took responsibility for the slaying." They didn't take responsibility, they just said they did it. Then they run to their hole and hide. Show us where that hole is then they will take responsibility. Our war must be fought with those who harbor these thugs. We can deal with a government for peaceful solutions, we cannot deal with terrorists.
studentx
May14-04, 11:56 AM
Adam, bombs can kill anybody. Terrorists only kill civilians
Adam, bombs can kill anybody. Terrorists only kill civilians
Terrorists hit who they aim for. The USAF hits everyone.
phatmonky
May14-04, 01:53 PM
Terrorists hit who they aim for. The USAF hits everyone.
Really??
Like the suicide bombers who blow themselves up prematurely?? :rofl:
Exactly. The terrorists aim to create terror by harming civilians.
The USAF, as you said, hits anybody.
phatmonky
May14-04, 02:31 PM
Exactly. The terrorists aim to create terror by harming civilians.
The USAF, as you said, hits anybody.
You said the terrorist hit who they aim for. A suicide bomber who blows up only himself does nothing but make for good jokes from JErry Seinfeld.
Afterall, the people of the US won their own independance using gorilla (sp?) tacktics.
True, Colonial Americans used guerilla warfare to fight the British, but I dont think they went to the lengths of terrorism. Guerilla warfare is a tactic to be used to gain an advantage when there is a size disadvantage. Terrorism (at least to me) seems like they use guerilla warfare only to amplify their ideological beliefs and not to gain territory.
phatmonky
May14-04, 03:07 PM
True, Colonial Americans used guerilla warfare to fight the British, but I dont think they went to the lengths of terrorism. Guerilla warfare is a tactic to be used to gain an advantage when there is a size disadvantage. Terrorism (at least to me) seems like they use guerilla warfare only to amplify their ideological beliefs and not to gain territory.
I partly disagree.
But it's a moot point. Slitting a civilians throat no Camera, who is of no militartistic importance to you, is not guerilla warfare anyways.
If I go to an orphanage to donate a million dollars, but I slip and fall, landing atop of a frail child (whom I couldn't've have seen) and fatally wounding him, does that make me as bad as terrorists who go around beheading people?
pelastration
May14-04, 03:33 PM
Cluster bombs are designed to wound personel (that is their target).
I will admit that their use can cause large quantities of civilian casulties.
Wound? Come on.
Eliminate. That's the goal.
russ_watters
May14-04, 03:43 PM
To tell you the truth gragwolf, this is one of the thoughest parts of this situation for me to deal with. I have been struggling with this issue. Afterall, the people of the US won their own independance using gorilla (sp?) tacktics. Its quite simple, actually. Terrorism is not guerilla warfare (or rather, guerilla warfare is not terrorism). Further, terrorism is generally not even warfare at all: Guerilla warfare is an army vs an army, whereas terrorism is a terrorist vs a civilian. Just because a terrorist may be politically motivated does not necessarily make him a soldier.
If I go to an orphanage to donate a million dollars, but I slip and fall, landing atop of a frail child (whom I couldn't've have seen) and fatally wounding him, does that make me as bad as terrorists who go around beheading people?
You could equally ask if you bomb a miltary objective knowinmg that your're going to kill 50 civilians in order to further a legitimate objective does that make you as bad or worse as terrorist who kills 5 civilians also in order to further a legitmate objective. Or again but with both objectives being illegitmate. That is to say it's not so black and white.
Of course it's certainly doubtful if the terrorists who beheaded the US contracter had only legitmate objective, but that's not what I'm saying. but what I do say is the description of the US as a philanthropist who happens to fall on orphans is loaded and oversimplistic.
(personally though, I don't think the US are as anywhere near as bad as Al-Quaeda)
pelastration
May14-04, 03:48 PM
What about that story in some newspapers that Berg was questioned by FBI or CIA some year ago because an al-Quada guy used his email account?
If that's true ... that makes the story stranger.
added: here's the link http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/193331p-166984c.html
Wound? Come on.
Eliminate. That's the goal.
Severely wounding an enemy is better than killing them during a war. It draws away manpower to help them, transport them, costs money to treat them, requires facilities to house them and distracts those around them from fighting. These bombs are designed to hurl scrapnel to wound the enemy.
pelastration
May14-04, 04:01 PM
Severely wounding an enemy is better than killing them during a war. It draws away manpower to help them, transport them, costs money to treat them, requires facilities to house them and distracts those around them from fighting. These bombs are designed to hurl scrapnel to wound the enemy.
Artman, I am not going to discuss on this. Ok, it's your view.
honestrosewater
May14-04, 09:56 PM
There is no guarantee that a bomb will land in the right place and make death quick. It could land in such a position relative to you that you might slowly bleed to death in absolute agony, or you might lose your limbs and survive, but live in great pain most of the time from the wounds, or the bomb might wipe out your entire family leaving you alive to feel guilty for surviving and not being able to protect your family, and suffering severe depression for the rest of your life. Many are the ways that bombs bring suffering. That's why it's an assinine statement to say that bombs are better than knives or beatings.
Soldiers have a discussion about this in Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory". They don't all choose a bomb.
honestrosewater
May14-04, 10:17 PM
It's easy to say a person who starts shooting at you is a combatant- and not a civilian. But what about the person who has funded the combatant who is shooting at you?
I have heard Bush make the point that the US will go after not only terrorists, but also people and nations that fund/support terrorists. Are the terrorists not allowed to make the same point? The US military is funded by all US civilians who pay their taxes.
Where exactly do you draw the line between civilian and soldier?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
I do say is the description of the US as a philanthropist who happens to fall on orphans is loaded and oversimplistic.
Adam's position that the results of the actions are the only things that matter is overly simplisitc, and that is what I was mocking. It was supposed to be a self-contained example; I didn't mean to imply any analogy with anything else.
studentx
May15-04, 04:51 AM
It's easy to say a person who starts shooting at you is a combatant- and not a civilian. But what about the person who has funded the combatant who is shooting at you?
I have heard Bush make the point that the US will go after not only terrorists, but also people and nations that fund/support terrorists. Are the terrorists not allowed to make the same point? The US military is funded by all US civilians who pay their taxes.
Where exactly do you draw the line between civilian and soldier?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
But ppl who fund terrorists arent innocent civilians, theyre guilty. Ppl that fund the army and US gvt to go after criminals and terrorists arent guilty of anything
To me it boils down to this: this was a faction. Not the entire government of Iraq. These people have their own agenda. If we give in to them, give them their demands, trade prisoners, etc., then where do you stop? What will the next little faction of radicals ask for? At what cost?
Sadr is Iranian and I didn't know Al Zaqarawi (sp?) was Iraqi, is he?
selfAdjoint
May15-04, 09:12 AM
No al Zarqawi is an al Qaedist. I don't know where from. He had a camp in the Kurdish area of Iraq before the war, under the Northern Fly Zone. And the Bush administration considered taking him out. But according to testimony they didn't because removing him would weaken the case for attacking Iraq!
Adam's position that the results of the actions are the only things that matter is overly simplisitc...
Yes, it is simple. And do you have any reason for suggesting it is wrong?
honestrosewater
May15-04, 10:20 AM
But ppl who fund terrorists arent innocent civilians, theyre guilty. Ppl that fund the army and US gvt to go after criminals and terrorists arent guilty of anything
Guilty of what exactly? And guilty according to who? Do you think guilt and innocence are intrinsic properties? Even if you do, it is nonetheless your opinion, and I happen to disagree. Perhaps if you supply the reasoning behind your opinions, we can begin a discussion.
For now, I am not talking about guilt or innocence. Civilian and combatant- what is the precise difference?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
One is trying to live a rather normal life.
The other is interrupting that life with violence, for some cause or reason which has no value to the other apart from being the reason why he/she died.
And do you have any reason for suggesting it is wrong?
Yes, I do. Would you care to respond to my hypothetical example? Is the guy donating money to the orphanage as bad as the guys beheading the American?
honestrosewater
May15-04, 11:31 AM
One is trying to live a rather normal life.
The other is interrupting that life with violence, for some cause or reason which has no value to the other apart from being the reason why he/she died.
Okay, can you be more specific about the "other" in "The other is interrupting..."? Does this "other" refer only the person doing the actual deed? Or does it include the person/people/social structure that trained, raised, funded, or in whatever way supported the person doing the actual deed?
honestrosewater
May15-04, 11:42 AM
Yes, I do. Would you care to respond to my hypothetical example? Is the guy donating money to the orphanage as bad as the guys beheading the American?
I would like to ask expilicitly what is hinted at in this example.
Do you believe that the ends justify the means?
From your other comments, I am inclined to think that you do not. But this belief is not in conflict with your belief that only the ends matter. So I wonder what other belief you hold to combat it?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
honestrosewater
May15-04, 11:47 AM
Sorry, I will try to lump these together in the future.
Do you admit there is difficulty in predicting the (future) outcome of ones actions? If so, how do you incorporate this difficulty into your decision-making process?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
I would like to ask expilicitly what is hinted at in this example.
My intent is to identify how far Adam is willing to go with his "only the end result matters" philosophy.
I chose the example so that there would be no question about the good intentions of the person acting, and that there could be no accusations of any party in the example acting recklessly or in an otherwise negligent fashion.
I hope to identify if Adam really believes "only the end result matters" in every case, or if he will only stick to it in situations where there are other factors to rationalize said belief.
studentx
May15-04, 02:31 PM
Guilty of what exactly? And guilty according to who? Do you think guilt and innocence are intrinsic properties? Even if you do, it is nonetheless your opinion, and I happen to disagree. Perhaps if you supply the reasoning behind your opinions, we can begin a discussion.
For now, I am not talking about guilt or innocence. Civilian and combatant- what is the precise difference?
Guilty of willfully helping others in killing innocent civilians. Guilty according to evrybody except the terrorists. You disagree that terrorists killing civilians are guilty? Or that the ppl who fund them are guilty? Do you think there is any excuse for killing an innocent civilian or helping others to do so?
A combatant carries a gun, a civilian doesnt.
honestrosewater
May15-04, 03:54 PM
My intent is to identify how far Adam is willing to go with his "only the end result matters" philosophy.
I chose the example so that there would be no question about the good intentions of the person acting, and that there could be no accusations of any party in the example acting recklessly or in an otherwise negligent fashion.
I understand. My questions were directed at Adam (or did you know that?). I should have said "what I perceive a hint of in this example." I didn't mean to imply that you were "only hinting" at something.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
My questions were directed at Adam (or did you know that?).
I see. Your post is now much less confusing. :smile:
honestrosewater
May15-04, 04:34 PM
Guilty of willfully helping others in killing innocent civilians. Guilty according to evrybody except the terrorists.
This is part of my objection. How do you know what everybody thinks? You apparently don't know what I think. I think it is unwise to make sweeping claims like that.
Or do you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be a terrorist?
You disagree that terrorists killing civilians are guilty? Or that the ppl who fund them are guilty? Do you think there is any excuse for killing an innocent civilian or helping others to do so?
I was asking others for their definition of the difference between civilians and combatants. I have not clarified this for myself yet. I do not disagree or agree with any of those statements- I consider the terms ambiguous/ill-defined.
I disagree with the opinion that guilt and innocence are intrinsic properties. I think they are personal and social judgements.
A combatant carries a gun, a civilian doesnt.
What about bombs, knives, axes, planes? What about threats, videos?
So you don't agree that the terrorists's support structures should be targeted? Support structures can include people who don't carry or use any of the above. I am part of a support structure as a tax-paying, voting US citizen. I have never touched a gun. Am I a combatant or a civilian? According to who?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
If I go to an orphanage to donate a million dollars, but I slip and fall, landing atop of a frail child (whom I couldn't've have seen) and fatally wounding him, does that make me as bad as terrorists who go around beheading people?
No. That is pure accident. There is no intent, and no negligence (unless it is found that the fall was caused by some negligent act so far unknown).
Again, this is why the drunk driver's "It's not my fault, I was drunk!" doesn't work.
Okay, can you be more specific about the "other" in "The other is interrupting..."? Does this "other" refer only the person doing the actual deed? Or does it include the person/people/social structure that trained, raised, funded, or in whatever way supported the person doing the actual deed?
"The other" refers to both the soldier who believes he is doing something good by going overseas and shooting people, and the society which convinced him of that, and which supports those acts.
No. That is pure accident. There is no intent, and no negligence (unless it is found that the fall was caused by some negligent act so far unknown).
This is what I wanted to establish; it is not the end result of the action that determines the "wrongness", it is the intent of said action. (at least in part) (I include safeguarding, or lack thereof, when I say intent)
Some of your previous posts suggested you believed otherwise.
studentx
May15-04, 05:34 PM
This is part of my objection. How do you know what everybody thinks? You apparently don't know what I think. I think it is unwise to make sweeping claims like that.
Or do you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be a terrorist?
I dont. But ppl that give money to terrorists KNOW they are funding terror. They dont give them money to set up mosques, build roads or buy bread, and its not accidental. If we pay taxes so our army can go after these funders, we are not the same as these funders.
If someone somehow doesnt know hes funding terrorism,i agree hes innocent. Do you know of one case where such a funder was attacked in this war on terror?
We could also say the same about the American public. Perhaps they dont know about this war? How do you know every tax paying American knows about the war on terror? Is it unwise to assume that they all know?
Remember even if the enemy kills innocent civilians, its still not ok for us to do the same. Even if our army does it, its still not ok for the terrorists to do it.
I disagree with the opinion that guilt and innocence are intrinsic properties. I think they are personal and social judgements.
Do you agree terrorists and the ppl who willfully fund them are guilty or do you see any justification in their terrorist attacks? If there is no justification, then their opinion is wrong and they are guilty.
Support structures can include people who don't carry or use any of the above. I am part of a support structure as a tax-paying, voting US citizen. I have never touched a gun. Am I a combatant or a civilian? According to who?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
You are no combatant ofcourse. Im aware the army doesnt only attack combatants but also infrastructure , tv stations and such. Even the army doesnt call these combatants. Personally i think thats apalling and they shouldnt , even if costs more soldier lifes.
Terrible, completely digusting, thats all you can say. I think CNN needs to get that photo off the frontpage, hardly respectful to the berg family with the guy holding the knife about to behead him.
Greg, I completely concur...the media forgets that real people are affected to a huge degree. Their publications of photos such as these are giving these people responsible for this murder the press they are seeking. American media exploiting these pictures is only enhancing the reputation that America has with the world-a superficial bully.
studentx
May16-04, 03:51 PM
If American media hadnt published it, it would be accused of manipulating their population and not showing the full horror of war.
Whatever they do is wrong isnt it?
the american media exploits these acts by putting a picture of nick berg about to become headless on the front page of USA today. their intent is to shock the people, not necessarily inform. their motivation is to sway the public to the best of their ability to feel a certain emotion where really their job is to merely report the facts.
the american media exploits these acts by putting a picture of nick berg about to become headless on the front page of USA today. their intent is to shock the people, not necessarily inform. I agree. It's not necessary to show a picture like that in order to report it. It's done only to sell more papers.
honestrosewater
May17-04, 07:55 AM
[your entire post, beginning, "I don't."]
Some of your questions can be answered by rereading my previous posts.
As for the rest, I'm not sure yet which is worse/better: to fight, to flee, or to lay down and die. That pretty much sums up my position- when I am acted upon, I don't know how I should react. In this case, I don't yet know how I, or the world, should react. In the meantime, I do the best I can, under the pressures of life and time.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
studentx
May17-04, 10:07 AM
Some of your questions can be answered by rereading my previous posts.
As for the rest, I'm not sure yet which is worse/better: to fight, to flee, or to lay down and die. That pretty much sums up my position- when I am acted upon, I don't know how I should react. In this case, I don't yet know how I, or the world, should react. In the meantime, I do the best I can, under the pressures of life and time.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
Ive read your previous post but i dont understand how you can see innocent civilians as guilty for paying taxes. Children that are killed by terrorists dont even pay taxes.
honestrosewater
May17-04, 11:09 AM
Ive read your previous post but i dont understand how you can see innocent civilians as guilty for paying taxes. Children that are killed by terrorists dont even pay taxes.
Where exactly do you draw the line between civilian and soldier?
I am not talking about guilt or innocence. Civilian and combatant- what is the precise difference?
I was asking others for their definition of the difference between civilians and combatants. I have not clarified this for myself yet. I do not disagree or agree with any of those statements- I consider the terms ambiguous/ill-defined.
I disagree with the opinion that guilt and innocence are intrinsic properties. I think they are personal and social judgements.
Some of your questions can be answered by rereading my previous posts.
Apparently, there is a problem. Either 1) you did not understand the meaning of those words, 2) your reasoning is full of leaps, gaps, and contradictions, or 3) you just want to put words in my mouth.
Which is it? I am not trying to insult you, but there is no point in explaining myself again until you tell me what the problem is.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
studentx
May17-04, 04:37 PM
Can you give an example of someone of whom its unclear whether hes combatant or civilian? I cant think of one and this is the problem.
Whatever they do is wrong isnt it?
Perhaps they could simply stop doing wrong things?
studentx
May18-04, 04:20 AM
humans make mistakes Ada :rolleyes:
They also do deliberately wrong things to make a profit.
honestrosewater
May18-04, 10:04 PM
Can you give an example of someone of whom its unclear whether hes combatant or civilian? I cant think of one and this is the problem.
Ben considers himself a civilian. Jerry considers herself a civilian.
Ben considers Jerry a combatant. Jerry considers Ben a combatant.
Clearly there is a problem here. People certainly don't have to be rational, and that may be the problem. The problem could also be that Ben and Jerry are both rational, but don't define "civilian" and "combatant" in the same way.
That is why I asked for people's definitions in the first place.
The example I gave in my first post: Bush has said that the US will treat as combatants terrorists and anyone who supports terrorists, whether that support is in the form of money, weapons, places to operate, etc. Are the terrorists not allowed to take that same position? If they consider the US military combatants, can they not consider as combatants anyone who supports the US military, whether that support is in the form of money, weapons, places to operate, etc.?
uuuh...aren't both Ben and Jerry guys?
and I think, really, it's the cows that are the combatants..I mean aren't they really the guilty parties...all the plugged arteries..high cholesterol and stuffl...jeez!
honestrosewater
May19-04, 12:11 AM
uuuh...aren't both Ben and Jerry guys?
and I think, really, it's the cows that are the combatants..I mean aren't they really the guilty parties...all the plugged arteries..high cholesterol and stuffl...jeez!
Yes, but are the cows crawling down our throats? :biggrin:
The name Ben just came to mind, and then Jerry came to mind, but it makes the discussion easier if you can refer to one as "he/him" and one as "she/her"; I was going to say "he considers her a combatant", but changed my mind.
Hey!!! I'll take one of those cartons of Ben and Jerry's, please! Thanks!!!! :biggrin: Make mine phatmonky. Er, no. Sorry. That's Chunky Monkey. Oh well... Same thing... phat... chunky... OK. I'm leaving now...
revelator
May20-04, 06:23 AM
I grow tired of this us and them mentality. Personally I'm outraged when anyone kills other people.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy."
- Mahatma Gandhi
Simon666
May20-04, 07:25 AM
That's the spirit!! :biggrin:
Problem is Rambo was giving the bad guys a good time, helping his buddies the mujaheddin. I saw the movie as a kid and a second time as adult, and I must say the second time I noticed the absence of any women and the near pedophile relationship between Rambo and an Afghan boy.
honestrosewater
May20-04, 07:42 AM
I grow tired of this us and them mentality. Personally I'm outraged when anyone kills other people.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy."
- Mahatma Gandhi
At who or what are you outraged? Is there a bit of the "us and them" mentality in your statement?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
Simon666
May20-04, 08:10 AM
I grow tired of this us and them mentality. Personally I'm outraged when anyone kills other people.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy."
- Mahatma Gandhi
That is my signature line on another forum. I like it, it seems a number of Americans think the Iraqis are a lot happier when killed or tortured by a democracy than by a dictator.
revelator
May20-04, 11:16 PM
At who or what are you outraged? Is there a bit of the "us and them" mentality in your statement?
I wouldn't say outraged at a group of people in particular. The outrage is directed at the violence happening in the world.
I should have been more clear earlier, what I meant is that I am outraged American soldiers abuse Iraqis, when arabs behead American civilians, when Canadian soldiers shoot Somalians, when Arabs kill Arabs, and when some punk kills and old lady for her purse, etc.
I don't like the "us" and "them" mentality, because that just makes it easier to kill "them". They're humans, and we're humans. We just look a little different. There's no difference to me between a dead Iraqi, American, Canadian, etc.
That is my signature line on another forum. I like it, it seems a number of Americans think the Iraqis are a lot happier when killed or tortured by a democracy than by a dictator.
I have no authority to comment on what Americans think, as I am not. But I am amazed at the ability of some Americans to brush aside stories of abuse, just as I am amazed that some muslim zealots think the brutal beheading of a civilian can be justified.
honestrosewater
May21-04, 12:53 PM
I wouldn't say outraged at a group of people in particular. The outrage is directed at the violence happening in the world.
You seem to be avoiding saying that you are outraged at anyone- you don't hate people, you hate what people do. Is that accurate?
Do you think people can be responsible for their actions? If so, the people responsible for the violent acts can be put into a group. Are you outraged at that group?
If a person is responsible for an act, then they are connected to that act in such a way that your outrage at the act *is* outrage at the responsible person. I think drawing a line between the two does more harm than good. People can change, acts cannot. Why not be outraged at people, if you think they deserve it?
Does your part in the violence end with feeling outraged? Or does your outrage prompt you to take action to end the violence altogether?
How can you change violent acts without changing people?
I have no authority to comment on what Americans think, as I am not.
As you are not an American? Or as you are not all Americans?
What gives someone authority to speak for another?
Should I stop asking questions? :rolleyes:
I don't mean to be annoying- maybe I should stay out of this forum :uhh:
Happy thoughts
Rachel
revelator
May31-04, 12:21 AM
My apologies for the delay, but I've been off of work this week and as such have not been online.
Don't stop asking questions. Questions are good.
You seem to be avoiding saying that you are outraged at anyone- you don't hate people, you hate what people do. Is that accurate?
Do you think people can be responsible for their actions? If so, the people responsible for the violent acts can be put into a group. Are you outraged at that group?
Accurate. I don't hate people. Hating people will do me absolutely no good, and it will not fix anything. I do believe people are responsible for their actions. I suppose the reason I try to limit my outrage to the act, is because I believe that many of the people responsible are ordinary people who are driven by various circumstances to commit violence.
If my country were being occupied, my countrymen imprisoned and tortured, my family killed in a "shock and awe" campaign, all in an unprovoked war, then I can't say how I'd respond. I know I'd be angry, that's a given. I like to think myself a peaceful man, but every (wo)man has a breaking point. If I found myself in such a situation, I believe I would fight back, with every last bit of energy I could muster.
I've been rambling a bit, so I'll get to the point. I can't be outraged at these people, because I can't say for sure, that I wouldn't be violent under such circumstances. As much as it pains me to say it.
Does your part in the violence end with feeling outraged? Or does your outrage prompt you to take action to end the violence altogether?
How can you change violent acts without changing people?
At the moment yes. I don't know what if anything I can do to put a stop to it all. I would very much like to figure out a solution, and share it with the world, but alas I have come up with none.
But if I can say this on the subject of terrorism. It won't be defeated with bombs and guns, such weapons will only breed more terrorism. I believe the only way to defeat terrorism, is take away the conditions that cause terrorism. Bush and his regime would have us believe that people become terrorists because they hate freedom. That just seems overly simplistic to me. It would seem to me that the reason terrorists attack America and Americans is because they have some grievance with America. Not a surprising thing to hear from one's President though, it's much easier to believe that the reason the terrorists are attacking you because they're a bunch of nuts who hate freedom, rather than they are attacking you because they have a legitimate grievance with your country.
As you are not an American? Or as you are not all Americans?
What gives someone authority to speak for another?
As in I am not American. As for the second question, my answer is the individual in question. I suppose I could give someone else authority to speak for myself if I felt so incline. Regardless, I never meant to imply that people have a natural authority to speak for others. Apologies for any misunderstandings.
I believe a lot of my frustration over recent events, is largely due to my feeling conflicted. I hate violence, I speak against it regularly. But at the same time, I couldn't tell an Iraqi not to fight back. I believe very strongly in defending oneself and loved one's from aggressors. Likewise, if America was being occupied, I could not tell Americans not to fight back.
I think a big problem is that a lot of Americans (forgive me if I'm wrong) only see their country as "America the liberator", and not "America the aggressor". It's as if Americans look at the actions of their country whilst wearing rose coloured glasses.
People will argue that Saddam had to go. I agree, he was one sick sonofa*****. But we must remember, that human rights was not the reason for war (at least not the first one), and even if it was, it's been blown out of the water by recent American actions at Abu Ghraib. Originally it was the WMD threat. It wasn't until after no WMD were found, that humanitarian causes became the major reason for the war. I am sure Iraqis understand this also, and is one of the causes for their antipathy towards America(ns). I think Americans need to understand, as most of the rest of the world does, that America is not necessarily a benevolent force in the world. Remember that 20 years ago, America was arming Saddam.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.