[Lightspeed]

indeed.

[Gank]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I guess you guys didnt really read into this did you?

He was planning on leaving for Ireland with his wife due to the warning to go. He worked there in the Middle East, it was his job, and so when he had planned to leave they nabbed him and beheaded him.  

I think the main point here is where he was at the time of the abduction, I dont think the terrorist were to interested in his future career plans, and I seriously doubt they grabbed him because he was leaving, as you seem to be impling.

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Quite frankly, killing someone is bad enough, but slicing off their heads and then jabbing a knife in their eyes is just too medieval gruesome for me. We have evolved past a state of being barbarians, running and screaming at the joyous sounds of death and killing. For christs sake, as long as "infidels" are around there will always be terrorists, but taking out an extremely large number of them would help to thin their ideas that "Hey, maybe if I did this I might get killed so I probably shouldnt..."

And how do you propose taking out large numbers of them without creating even larger numbers of more terrorists? Look at Fallujah, the US went in to take revenge for 4 dead mercenaries and ended up creating a little Islamic mini-state after killing near a thousand, enraging most of the world and having to withdraw in defeat. All very well to say lets take out a large number of them and everything will be ok, but thats what the US said it was going to do three years ago and unless I'm mistaken theres been a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks in that three year period than there was in the three before.

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We have evolved past a state of being barbarians, running and screaming at the joyous sounds of death and killing.

Thats what you see, this is what they see:

http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow1.htm

[ARothers]

According to British magazine S2 that comes with the Sunday Express newspaper if things keep going the way they are we are going to have a huge Third World War that may use nuclear weapons.

I agree and the only way to stop it is to show those terrorists and rogue states that the USA and UK aren't going to put up with it.  The reason why those terrorists and rogue states start commiting attacks or build up weapons that we know will be used is because we are essentially letting them do it.

We should be going out there and wherever we find a terrorist cell we crush it before anything can happen, and the business with the hostage, what's one life compared to another atrocity like 9/11 etc?

I think that the USA and the UK should adopt a new zero-tolerence policy on terrorism wherever we find it.

And also, when has terrorism solved any problems, it creates more.

[Fineus]

Originally posted by ARothers
I think that the USA and the UK should adopt a new zero-tolerence policy on terrorism wherever we find it.

And also, when has terrorism solved any problems, it creates more.

Funny that, so has policing the world to change it to suit the way we think it should be.

Things were more straightforward in medieval times. A country could have a war between north and south in an attempt to overthrow whatever ruler they had. If one side one then life went on, every day people carried on their same old lives. The neighbouring country wouldn't give a damn.

Then, suddenly, everyone starts messing around in other peoples business because they think it should be done differently. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying such things as internal genecide is a good thing or something I'd like to see - but I also think it'd be a lot easier for the average farmer if he could just farm without having to care who was in charge.

These days, war happens to everyone - not just the soldiers.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Gank

Thats what you see, this is what they see:

http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow1.htm

Exactly. Some people are just pretentious.

Humans are the most vicious animals ever to exist. Period.

Every animal can kill for their own survival. But humans are the only creatures that can and will kill eachother for just about anything.

[vyper]

Non-interference is the prime directive.

[Kosh]

Here is a couple of problems with "shooting terrorists on sight":

1.) You usually can't spot terrorists right away. They often can blend right in with the innocents. So do we just go ahead and wipe all the innocent people out too?

2.) It also depends on who you consider to be terrorists. A lot of people around the world most likely consider Bush to be a terrorist, so do we go and execute him on the spot? Also some Republicans in the state of Oregon called a teachers union a "terrorist organization", so do we go and wipe them out too? And what if those same Republicans said that all the millions of anti-war (the ones who marched all across the world to oppose the Iraq invasion by the New Evil Empire) are terrorists, so do we go and kill them all as well?

[Flipside]

Tempting.......

Seriously though, my problem with it is this. It seems to be permanently escalalated into a Political thing. A man get's kidnapped, held against his will and then videoed having his head hacked off for being American. That's it. End of story. We can dress this up in 'Right and Wrong' and 'Desperate people', 'current situation' etc etc, and it won't add up to ****.

When I saw the pictures of Americans torturing Iraqis I was disgusted and appaled. There was no possible Political or Social motivation or justification to it. Exactly as in the case of this beheading.

What has been commited here is a cold blooded crime against someone for their nationality. Just as cold blooded, if not more so, than what happened at Abu Ghraib. It should be judged in precisely the same manner.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Flipside
Just as cold blooded, if not more so, than what happened at Abu Ghraib.

In Abu Ghraib the ones doing the torture should've known better. From the Al-Qaida you can expect that but from American military personell, no. In my view it's worse that Americans degrade themselves to the level of Al-Qaida itself then that Al-Qaida doing that ****.

[Flipside]

A lot of these higher ranked terrorists were educated quite well, though I must admit, I don't know whether this current man is one of them. And these people claim to follow the teachings of the Quoran, which strictly forbids this kind of behaviour.

I won't try to justify America's behaviour in Abu Ghraib, there is no justifiction. But if we are all willing to accept that many members of Al Quaida are bloodlusting savages, and not intelligent people who are using internal power and media manipulation to a massive degree, they will continue to advance and grow.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Flipside
It amazes me, in this particular instance. For example, if America said it would start executing it's Prisoners in Guatamano Bay by electric chair, live, on prime time TV, until the Terrorists gave up. I bet you there would be no indecision in the worlds reaction whatsoever.

Of course, because "America is the focus of evil in the modern world".[/sarcasm]

Abu Ghraib

The Guards at Abu Grahib should have known better, true.  The problem is what they did, while revolting, did not result in any permanent consequences to the victims.

There were permanent consequences for the beheaded and his family.  He's dead and his family has lost both father and husband and the primary source of income for the family.

That is why it's considered worse than what happened at AG.

[diamondgeezer]

Hurrah for Christian forgiveness

Why is what happened to the prisoners, including the dead ones, of less consequence? Are they and their families of less worth?

Lib, you never cease to amaze me. I know this will lead to a locking, but I have to say it - you are a racist and a bigot

[HotSnoJ]

bigot -- a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

[diamondgeezer]

If that was aimed at me, then yes - I am intolerant of racists amd the idea that one human life is worth more than another

[Aspa]

If an american got attacked and eaten by a bear while hiking in the woods, would Canada get invaded for harboring terrorist bears?

[Grey Wolf]

There are so many replies to Aspa's post that would be fun, but would lock this thread so quickly....

[Flipside]

Nahhh... It's the old God Given right to arm bears Or was that bear arms?

[Gank]

Originally posted by Liberator
The Guards at Abu Grahib should have known better, true.  The problem is what they did, while revolting, did not result in any permanent consequences to the victims.

See that picture up there I posted Libby, that guy is dead, beaten to death. I think that counts as a permanent consequence. Prime example of the racism I mentioned above, you think an american dying is much more serious than an Iraqi dying.

[Flipside]

No, I just don't think Lib knew that people had died at Abu Ghraib to be honest. The humiliation was bad enough, in some cultures, ancient japanese for example, certain kinds of humiliation were worse than death, they became 'non-people', people would commit suicide rather out of dishonour. Some cultures are still like that.

But I think Liberator is angry, and rightly so, just as you are justifiably angry at the horrors of Abu Ghraib. The hard part, and I mean the really hard part, is how to see past that anger and start to diminish it. At the moment, that is not going to happen, the wound is too fresh.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Flipside
No, I just don't think Lib knew that people had died at Abu Ghraib to be honest.  

That would be the entire point. Iraqi dies who gives a ****, Yank dies kill em all. Racism.