Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[~Jackie~ 30]

I have started and deleted probably 20 comments I wanted to post here. I have found that by not participating in the political threads, my blood pressure stays lower.

I hear and read about the war from both sides. I am an American married to an Arab and what dismays me most is to see fellow Americans brainwashed into believing everything they are told. Wake up America! Do the research and learn what is really happening.

Jackie

Edited June 18, 2006 by jmagayreh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is everyone hung up on this one particular video? There's plenty of others and I really don't think you can deny that numerous people have been executed in a barbaric fashion. Clearly the fundamentalists do this (and other atrocities) - I don't think that's in question. The effect of a relative handful of beheadings recorded on video is designed to cause outrage. Clearly that has succeeded as well - but I would argue the number of people killed in this manner is relatively low.

The majority of people that have been killed by the insurgents have been killed by bullets and bombs.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Why is everyone hung up on this one particular video? There's plenty of others and I really don't think you can deny that numerous people have been executed in a barbaric fashion. Clearly the fundamentalists do this (and other atrocities) - I don't think that's in question. The effect of a relative handful of beheadings recorded on video is designed to cause outrage. Clearly that has succeeded as well - but I would argue the number of people killed in this manner is relatively low.

The majority of people that have been killed by the insurgents have been killed by bullets and bombs.

I don't know that "everyone" is hung up on this one particular video.... however, it would seem to me that a discussion of the Nick Berg video would be entirely appropriate in a thread about al Zarqawi.

But please don't let our little discussion distract you -- if you would like to explore other aspects of this topic instead of the Berg angle, go right ahead ! I always find your posts interesting reading.

-MK

[slim 1,533]

Put it this way....would YOU...`Slim`...or whatever your name is in real life, prefer to have YOUR head slowly and laboriously cut off......or would you rather have yourself been blown unknowingly to smithereens without hardly feeling a thing?

Then you tell everyone there is NO difference.

Your telling me that EVERY means to kill a person is the same? If someone is killed by slow torture, there is no difference?

I also disagree with your views on Nick Berg. What they did to him (as well as the victims of 9/11) was the cowards way out. If the members of Al Quaeda and whomever they are recruiting in Iraq and other places were REAL men....and not total cowards, they would go head on against the military.....and not attack women, children (as on the planes that flew into the Trade Center and in the buildings). etc...

Instead, they behead a man who was not directly involved with the military, and also blow up others who are weak targets .........in other places, cities , etc...

That is one major difference I see between THEM...and us. (we do NOT intentionally target civilians....they do)

That is what separates us from them. (it is also not saying our government is perfect, either)

But I still see a MAJOR difference between our way of thinking......................and theirs.

I would rather not die in the first place. However, whether I'm killed by slow torture, beheaded, or die in the middle of orgasm, I'm still dead. (Obviously, I'd prefer the mid-orgasmic way to go.) And if I'm engaged in a war with someone, and I along with all my buddies die before they do or before they give up, then I have lost the war. The aim of engaging in a war is to win. It's not about being a REAL man and fighting toe-to-toe with a military force that would annihilate just about any other force on the planet, that would defeat the purpose of fighting, because the so-called "REAL men" would lose. If I was in a war, I would use any means necessary to defeat the enemy in the shortest amount of time possible. When small groups of folks fight against the US, they know they can't defeat the US quickly or in a heads up battle. They can, however, influence public support for the war both at home and abroad to the point where the US loses the will to fight and withdraws it's troops. (It's happened before....)

When people in the US see video beheadings of "innocent" Americans, they start to realize the resolve of the enemy, then they start to question the motivation behind our involvement with that enemy. Mothers who send their sons off to fight the good fight, start to see that if their son is going to get his head chopped off, it's not really worth Halliburton's vested interest in the region anymore. After all, gas is still $3/gallon, and their baby isn't getting his head chopped off just so those CEOs can make millions more dollars.

I'm not arguing the point that beheading is bad.... it is. I just don't see why everyone is so enraged by a group of militant men (on the enemy side) terminating one of their enemies, when a group of militant men (on our side) also terminates one of it's enemies. To me the argument of "this way is more barbaric than this way" is invalid. I disagree 100% with anyone who thinks beheading someone is worse than piloting a $20M UAV from 70 miles away then shooting a $2M missile into the side of their vehicle to kill them. The huge difference there is not that one way is more barbaric than the other way, the huge difference is the fear instilled in the survivors, and those who hear about the death of the targeted individual. When you have a group of people who find it "honorable" to be killed during their struggle, getting a bomb dropped on their head is almost an encouragement to keep fighting. When you have a group of people who are scared shitless to die in any manner, the worst, most gruesome death imaginable to them may just deter some of them from fighting so hard.

[MPGGPM 0]

Put it this way....would YOU...`Slim`...or whatever your name is in real life, prefer to have YOUR head slowly and laboriously cut off......or would you rather have yourself been blown unknowingly to smithereens without hardly feeling a thing?

Then you tell everyone there is NO difference.

Your telling me that EVERY means to kill a person is the same? If someone is killed by slow torture, there is no difference?

I also disagree with your views on Nick Berg. What they did to him (as well as the victims of 9/11) was the cowards way out. If the members of Al Quaeda and whomever they are recruiting in Iraq and other places were REAL men....and not total cowards, they would go head on against the military.....and not attack women, children (as on the planes that flew into the Trade Center and in the buildings). etc...

Instead, they behead a man who was not directly involved with the military, and also blow up others who are weak targets .........in other places, cities , etc...

That is one major difference I see between THEM...and us. (we do NOT intentionally target civilians....they do)

That is what separates us from them. (it is also not saying our government is perfect, either)

But I still see a MAJOR difference between our way of thinking......................and theirs.

I would rather not die in the first place. However, whether I'm killed by slow torture, beheaded, or die in the middle of orgasm, I'm still dead. (Obviously, I'd prefer the mid-orgasmic way to go.)

Who wouldn`t... .....but that wasn`t really a choice.

The 2 choices were between having one`s head lopped off.......and getting blown to bits by a bomb. (getting BJ`d to death was NOT a choice).

And between the 2 , whether you want to admit it or not...and want to avoid picking a choice......I think the answer is obvious.

You brang up the argument that there was No difference between the 2........so don`t shy away from it.

I will also argue that their tactics have done any good. In fact, I would argue that the tactics that they HAVE used..........beheadings.......bombs (such as in London).......9/11...etc... have not accomplished anything for them except to turn most of the world against their side. It has done NO military good whatsoever and has been a waste of time. They thought it would scare us.....it has done the opposite.

If anything, I`d say those beheadings and bombs being set off increase OUR resolve, and just remind everyone of why we are fighting these people. It has actually backfired against them.

I mean.....wasn`t there more outrage against the people we are fighting in the days AFTER the beheadings...and bombings....9/11...than now?

They have shown themselves to be the barbarians that they are and have displayed it for the world to see

I would also argue that when our troops are actually been killed ......that that seems to be the number the American people are fixated on lately. If we feel we are losing the war...THAT is what lessens our resolve. And in that sense.....because they are unable to fight us militarily.......they tried other things and it hasn`t and will not work.

Edited June 18, 2006 by MPGGPM

[yabasta 0]

I believe if you read it again Slim did pick from your choices. The what way would you prefer to die question is rather irrelevant however. If you die in a beheading i imagine it would hurt. I also imagine a bomb would hurt. Not all people die straight away from bombs. People might lose limbs or lose skin etc. You can`t really say door number one is a better way to go. Of course even if one was was a better way to go what difference does that make? It is a war not a game of soccer. The USA and Britain and whoever clearly don`t abide by the rules do they?

Also i would say it takes more guts to kill a man with a sword or your bare hands than to pull up G12. In a previous thread i was told i was not brave enough to serve in the military and this made me remember the simple fact that modern warfare is a lot different to the olden days.

[MPGGPM 0]

I believe if you read it again Slim did pick from your choices. The what way would you prefer to die question is rather irrelevant however. If you die in a beheading i imagine it would hurt. I also imagine a bomb would hurt. Not all people die straight away from bombs. People might lose limbs or lose skin etc. You can`t really say door number one is a better way to go. Of course even if one was was a better way to go what difference does that make? It is a war not a game of soccer. The USA and Britain and whoever clearly don`t abide by the rules do they?

Also i would say it takes more guts to kill a man with a sword or your bare hands than to pull up G12. In a previous thread i was told i was not brave enough to serve in the military and this made me remember the simple fact that modern warfare is a lot different to the olden days.

No he didn`t. He convieniently skipped around the issue and said that ALL ways to die are bad (duh...but that wasn`t the issue).......when he was the one who started the point that neither was worse than the other.

If they are both the same.....why not just come out and say....I`d rather be beheaded, because it is no worse or humane to be beheaded than blown up`

Why be afraid to say that if as he says....they are both equal ways to die?

He skirted around the question. If his point was they are the same, then go ahead and admit he`d just as soon be beheaded.

But I don`t think he would admit to that.

I do not mind the arguments going on around here. I think what bothers me about some of you is......that you make almost NO distinction between US....and THEM.

In your eyes...the USA is the same as the terrorists/insurgency....and our tactics and methods not much different or humane. And I disagree with that line of thinking.

I clearly see a difference between us and them.

And whether you like or dislike our government (and I have no love for GW)........I`ll be damned if I will come onto a forum and spend almost all of my time making a case for the enemy.

That type of thinking...especially from Americans....to devote more time making the case FOR the enemy, than your own country.......is worrisome.

So much of this thread makes the arguments for them....rather than us.......

Pretty spooky.......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will also argue that their tactics have done any good. In fact, I would argue that the tactics that they HAVE used..........beheadings.......bombs (such as in London).......9/11...etc... have not accomplished anything for them except to turn most of the world against their side. It has done NO military good whatsoever and has been a waste of time. They thought it would scare us.....it has done the opposite.

If anything, I`d say those beheadings and bombs being set off increase OUR resolve, and just remind everyone of why we are fighting these people. It has actually backfired against them.

I mean.....wasn`t there more outrage against the people we are fighting in the days AFTER the beheadings...and bombings....9/11...than now?

They have shown themselves to be the barbarians that they are and have displayed it for the world to see

I would also argue that when our troops are actually been killed ......that that seems to be the number the American people are fixated on lately. If we feel we are losing the war...THAT is what lessens our resolve. And in that sense.....because they are unable to fight us militarily.......they tried other things and it hasn`t and will not work.

I asked this before - but I'm really curious to know the answer. The whole premise here is that we are engaged in a coordinated effort to fight terrorism, specifically that perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. My question is simply - is this what we are actually doing?, seeing as our two biggest allies in the Middle East - Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are well known for bankrolling that kind of thing.

Not only that - but why it is we are fighting terrorism in a country that didn't have it before we moved in there (we brought Al Qaeda into Iraq, they weren't there to begin with), instead of say Darfur (where hundred of thousands of people are dying in a civil war) or Somalia where Islamic militias are on the verge of installing a theocratic government. Just seems to me that the policy is extremely selective, and purposefully so...

As I said before, if we're really being honest here, we would drop the pretense of lofty idealism, because that's not (and has never been) what this is about.

I clearly see a difference between us and them.

Sure. But as long as we continue to allow the threat of terrorism to curtail our own civil liberties, to persecute the innocent (I'm referring to the Fischkoepfin's article from the other day here), break various articles of international law and repeal decades worth of human rights legislation, it's fair to say that we are becoming less and less dissimilar to the people we are fighting.

[yabasta 0]

Again i am not American.

Also the differences between the U.S. and their allies and the insurgency are mostly differences of budget and resources. The insurgents are fighting a war with the resources available to them and the U.S. etc are using state of the art(at least if you ignore the apparent equipment shortage i recall they had) technology. If the war required U.S. and co troops to go and cut throats then no doubt they would be issued such orders. The fact is they are not given such orders as much as they are given a button or whatever it is.

Another difference would be of course that one country invaded the other which of course would reflect negatively on the invading troops even if they were just following orders.

Pointing out things like these does not mean however that i am advocating any act of violence by anybody, i am simply saying that only one side here can really claim self defense. If you are apalled by the actions of Zaqawi then surely you should find the actions done against him and those around him to be equally as inhumane.

Also it is worth pointing out that if got beheaded then it would be quite specific that i would die. If a bomb was dropped then of course the kill zone would grow killing and wounding more peopl.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Simply speakinig, the difference between the modern age and say the medieval / ancient world is education - people in the west are broadly better educated than equivalent people in the 3rd world. As I said, people often turn to religion in the absence of a decent education system.

In our society its no longer acceptable to behead people, to hang draw and quarter criminals or flog people (as Charles suggested we should a page or so ago). That's simply not the case in many 3rd world countries.

I wouldn't say the root of this problem is in the religion of Islam, but in the fact that many of these countries are still dealing with the results of political instability that goes back many years, instability that has been perpetuated artificially (in recent decades) by US and European imperialism.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

instability that has been perpetuated artificially (in recent decades) by US and European imperialism.

more apologism. so now it's not just the fault of the usa, it's britain/france/germany too?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

instability that has been perpetuated artificially (in recent decades) by US and European imperialism.

more apologism.

Your opinion. Not mine. Simply trying to explain why there are broad disparities between the developed and developing world. Which is actually what I've been saying all along.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

instability that has been perpetuated artificially (in recent decades) by US and European imperialism.

more apologism.

Your opinion. Not mine. Simply trying to explain why there are broad disparities between the developed and developing world. Which is actually what I've been saying all along.

continue how it's the fault of europe too. i need some entertainment. work is boring.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

continue how it's the fault of europe too. i need some entertainment. work is boring.

Unless you have anything to say to rebutt what I'm saying, there's not much else to say really.

[Mirorgate 0]

Unless you have anything to say to rebutt what I'm saying, there's not much else to say really.

I'd disagree with the quality of the education in comparison... but quantity actually. A university degree isn't as expensive in some 3rd world countries as it is here in USA or Europe, it is just that most ppl seem to drop out of schools a lot earlier to help feed their families, especially the more rural the area becomes. It is a way that governments are viewed also in the 3rd world as everyone is corrupt, out for just the money and not the ppl... and unfortunately when they are proven correct time and time again... a feeling of helplessness happens and they turn to someone/something that promises to end it all.

As noone likes to be viewed as being unintelligent.... some will turn to religion and fanaticism to over-compensate. Extremism either way is bad.