OT: The Beheading Videos

[Anonymous]

You seem to be talking about a different UN. As far as I remember, almost everyone there was against attacking Iraq given the state of "proofs" back then.

As for the murdered: Exactly. They were killed because they came from "enemy countries". Yes, it is stupid, and I hate the fact, but that's how it is - if you are a member of a group, nobody cares whether you did or didn't want to be! You are one with the enemy, you will be punished for that. As simple as that. That's how most people think, the idiots :-(. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

How "can I see where they are coming from?" Easy. Just imagine that you want to hurt some country, for some reason (I can't imagine any such reason for myself, but I do realize that somebody else might have such a reason). But you can't. In such a case, it does make some sense to hurt something/somebody that's related to that country and reachable for you. It is unfair to those you hurt, sure enough, but it is as close as you can get to your goal. That's why people do it, even though it is stupid in the long run. Sad but true.

Regarding your "liberation argument": Are you sure there would be as much willingness to do so if their country wasn't so rich in resources we want? I mean, I don't see anybody liberating North Korea or Zimbabwe... (And that's assuming those people actually want to be liberated in the sense we mean it - I assume they do, but I would not bet any money on them wanting to be liberated by the USA)

[maria paula]

"you seem to be talking about a different UN. As far as I remember, almost everyone there was against attacking Iraq given the state of "proofs" back then."

i was about to say the same, the UN was againts the irak invasion, and its a well known fact.

[Acidburn]

They were against the INVASION of Iraq, but they were all for going in and looking for the weapons.  When any proof was found (like the canisters of whatever gas it was) they always seemed to look away and say "well they must have just forgot about them" .   We decided NOT to look away .  
I suppose you did not see the footage of the people celebrating the fact that the dictatorship(sp)  fell.  They knocked over statues and rip down posters.  They were HAPPY to be free.  The people who are doing these things we are speaking of  are the same people that help POWER  and now that is gone.  They are just trying to scare us into leaving so they can establish that again.  

As far as them wanting to just hurt something from that country....really think about what you said.  THEY want to hurt US.  Now try and explain why.  They killed over 3000 of our people on 911.  What would you suggest we just sit back and let them do whatever they want and think that we will not do anything but slap them on the wrist and say 'Now dont do that again.'   I just cannot see how anyone can say that they are just reacting to us being there.  
No MORAL person would do such a thing.  They are fanatics, and the only reason they do not like us is because we are a mostly christian country.  They have never liked us and I think it is time that we set their asses straight.  I personally do not care what they think or do, but when it comes to the point that I am scared to take my family to Disney world during a holiday because the news people say watch out for attacks, it is time to do something.

[Ash]

Acidburn wrote:

"HOW CAN YOU SAY 'I CAN SEE WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM'!!!!"

Ok...I just want to say first off that I'm not taking any sides here.  I previously stated that I do try to look at it from both perspectives so I completely understand where Anonymous is coming from.

Anyway, I think the whole "looking at it from both sides" issue can be a little easier understood by watching the movie "The Beast" (1988) which was directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Here is the plot summary for it:

"Afghanistan, 1981, and the Soviet Union are locked in a futile and bloody battle with the Mujahedeen. Separated from their patrol after a vicious attack on an Afghani village, a T-62 tank engages in a deadly game of cat and mouse with the local mujahed, led by the Afghan Taj. The tyrannical and increasingly unstable tank commander Daskal pushes the moral boundaries of the tank driver Constantine Koverchenko to the limits, with almost dire consequences. Sensing a mutiny, Daskal abandons Koverchenko to die in the desert at the hand of the Afghans, only to find that he's sealed his own fate."
I want to add that Koverchenko eventually joins the Afghan rebels to fight against his former commander.  A part that I do find somewhat hard to believe but it does help you to see the conflict from both sides.

Go here to Amazon.com to read the great reviews of it:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6302875153/103-3319025-1031008?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews

Here's the link for the trailer:
http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=800

You must click on the small tab to the left on that page that says, "Watch Video".
I only mention it because the tab's easy to miss.

Go rent and watch that film then let me know.

[Anonymous]

Acidburn:
- We say: "They did this and that to us, it's right for us to defend ourselves." They say essentially the same thing. Revenge will only lead us to a spiral of violence, but certainly not a solution. I mean, after 911 was pretty much the whole world with US. Today, the world is pretty much united against US. Guess why.
- No question that people who take their religion too seriously are dangerous to just about everyone around them. It doesn't matter which religion that is.

Ashthecat:
- Exactly. Same with me. I am trying to understand BEFORE I take any sides. Something is wrong when that is interpretted as advocating the violence.

[Acidburn]

Anonymous,
I am not trying to imply that you are wrong with what you are saying.   If I came of in that way and offended anyone I am sorry.   I just do not like that fact that some peopel ( I know you are not one of them as you said earlier) do not think that these people are doing anything wrong.  
Trying to look at it from both sides I simply cannot, I grew up in a family that showed me love and acceptance.  I simply cannot place myself in a situation that I would kill someone because they knew someone else or are a part of a club that was trying to help me out in some way.  I may not even agree with the way they are doing it, but I would be able to tell that they  mean well.  I might even possibly try and speak with them about it  and perhaps work something out.  
But I could not do what they are doing.

[trekgeezer]

You don't have to explain anything to me. I understand what you are trying to say  about their motives.  And as far as I know  the US mililtary doesn't go around selecting people , kidnapping them and then murdering them in a public forum.  Unfortunately warfare can't be carried on free of  innocents being killed., but to equate that with what these terrorists do is outright stupidity.  

I have often times thought  our leaders in Iraq and in Washington have been asleep at the wheel with what's going on there.  We need to stabilize the situation and not make it worse, and then get our folks out of there.  Whether Iraq stays free and becomes democratic is ultimately up to the Iraqis.  

I can understand some of these peoples motives, but that is no excuse for  what they do and comparing the US to them is sheer stupidity.  This is the end of me being civil with you about this, because it's evident you have your head up your ass.

[Anonymous]

Acidburn:
- I couldn't either. I am merely saying that I can imagine why weak/stupid/unstable/whatever people could. That's what my argument is all about.
- I don't want to underestimate you, but in many cases it is VERY difficult to "be able to tell that they mean well". Given just the right amount of biased information, the "help" can be easily changed into "abuse". In Iraq, many would argue that the invasion was more about oil than about everything else. I personally think that's too paranoid a view, but it is a possibility. Add just a little prejudice and voila, here goes the goodwill.

[Anonymous]

Trek_Geezer:
- "And as far as I know the US mililtary doesn't go around selecting people , kidnapping them and then murdering them in a public forum" -  One could argue that, e.g. given the status of Guantanamo prisoners (who might all be terrorists, or might not, we don't know and won't know until they are tried in an impartial court). And again, I must stress that if you are kidnapped on the street and murdered by terrorists, the result for you is the same as being hit by a trigger-happy soldier or a misfired missile: you are dead. The good/bad motives of the guilty parties are rather irrelevant.
- I couldn't agree more with the second paragraph

[Acidburn]

I just dont see how simple human morals can be just stripped away like that.  But seeing as how they are raised from birth to hate us and kill us.  They do not know any better.  But when you get to be an adult, would you not be able to see that what you are doing is wrong?   Or atleast have some remorse for killing someone in such a fashion.

[Ash]

Acidburn wrote:

> I just dont see how simple human morals can be just stripped
> away like that.  But seeing as how they are raised from birth
> to hate us and kill us.  They do not know any better.  But when
> you get to be an adult, would you not be able to see that what
> you are doing is wrong?   Or atleast have some remorse for
> killing someone in such a fashion.

You must understand that the insurgents have a completely different mindset than regular Iraqi's and Americans.
Yes, human morals can be stripped away just like that.
These followers of Zarquari and others are in it to the end.
They think that they're in the fight of their lives.
It's sad too because if they weren't raised to hate Americans, they could've become 'good' people.
Remember that 'good' is an objective term that can be looked at differently from both sides.

[Anonymous]

Acidburn: Well, I am afraid the answer is "no". Unfortunatelly. Lifelong beliefs can be most devastating, just as blind adherence to a given truth (which is why I question everything), and they seem to be almost impossible to change once set.

[JohnL]

>1) I don't have enough information to say who's right and who's wrong. Perhaps
>all concerned are wrong (or right, from a different perspective).

Us - We attack governments and the military that serves those governments. Although abuses and accidents DO occur, the US goes out of its way not to kill civilians.

Them - They go out of their way to kill civilians. If you were to give one of these groups a briefcase sized nuclear weapon and a way to sneak it into the US, they would be peeing their pants with joy at the thought of detonating it in the middle of Disneyworld on the busiest day of the year. Unless of course, they used it to destroy Washington D.C.

Yeah, it's real hard to tell who the bad guys are...

>We aren't doing those things, granted. The question is - would we not do them if
>we had our most hated enemies occupying our country?

We would be attacking the military, not the civilians. Some civilians might get hurt in the attacks, but I doubt we would specifically target them.

>I mean, after 911 was pretty much the whole world with US. Today, the world is
>pretty much united against US. Guess why.

Mostly because the US actually ACTED rather than sitting on its butt and throwing harsh words at the people that did this. Don't get me wrong, I think George Dubya screwed up royally, but I feel something had to be done. The Arab countries claimed that they were shocked at waht happened on 9/11, but I don't see them shutting down terrorist training camps and rounding up Al Quaida members. In fact, when the US attacked the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a lot of them fled over the border into countries tthey knew wouldn't do anything to them. Everyone seemed to agree that Saddam was a horrible dictator, but I don't see as anyone else did anything about it. Now the Iraqi people want the US and other troops out of their country. If that were done today, how long do you think it would be before the fanatics were back in power, the current leaders of Iraq dead, and the people even worse off than they were under Saddam?

>I am trying to understand BEFORE I take any sides.

What's to understand? They're animals who think murdering some innocent person and showing off that killing on the internet is going to get results. It's not, it's only going to make people hate them even more and make governments want to hunt them down and kill them. The only thing to wonder about is how monumentally stupid these idiots are.

>One could argue that, e.g. given the status of Guantanamo prisoners (who might
>all be terrorists, or might not, we don't know and won't know until they are tried in
>an impartial court).

First off, let me state that I do NOT agree with holding people prisoner with no right to a trial or to see a lawyer. I applaud the supreme court decision that these people deserve to have their say in court.

Now, having said that, if you had to choose, would you rather be a prisoner accused of terrorist in Guantanamo, or a civilian kidnapped by fanatics in Iraq?

[Anonymous]

JohnL:
- As for attacking civilians: That's hardly a distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. I am not quite sure someone who works for an occupying power is a civilian, either.

- As for who would we attack: That's your belief. Mine is different. We can only hope we will never find out.

- As for the loss of popularity after 911: Yes, that's a possible explanation. I don't think the US are blameless in this matter, though.

- We seem to agree that those terrorist attacks are stupid in the extreme.

- Regarding your last question: I don't know. I don't know when (if) the prisoners are tried - and until they do, the difference is rather academic (I think I would prefer death to a lifetime virtual slavery, but that's speaking from the safety of my home; I have no idea which would be preferable in reality). I just know that there's a much better chance I will be scooped up by US authorities because I am in the wrong place at the wrong time than a chance I'll be captured by terrorists.

[dean]

Ok...

Having just completed a course on Terrorism at Uni [no, not how to be a terrorist, it was a history subject] I have to make a few points as to stop this continuing cycle of accusations and blame.   I don't like terrorists or terrorism, I don't agree with their methods, but I can see why they do it.  I am extremely frustrated with the way the US have handled their affairs, yet I also see the good they are trying to do in Iraq.  People need to stop blaming each other and acting emotionally and start trying to solve the problems with rational thoughts and reasons.  The cycle of violence has two sides, those who start it, and those who hit back.  So here are a few points I will try to make.  Arguing about it isn't going to stop it:

1.  First off, to all those saying ''why don't the terrorist leaders die for their cause?''

Think about this for a second: without leadership there is no organisation, and without organisation there is no success rate.  It's just impractical to have all your leaders die in the middle of a 'war'.  

The 'terrorist' group in South Africa, Umkhonto we Siszwe suffered exactly that problem when their leaders [including Nelson Mandela] were arrested and imprisoned in the 60's.  The attacks dropped off for almost a decade until they reorganised.  That reason is quite sensible: Just because you say you will die for a cause doesn't mean that you have to.  It just means you have no problem if it has to be that way.

2.  Yes people were happy that Saddam was gone, and it is no contest that the liberation was justified. But there a plenty more who hate the US for 'occupying Iraq.'  Now that the US forces are in their, they have to stay and stabilise the region, but that's not how it is seen by all Iraqis.  Yes there were celebrations, but there have been much, much more protests about ongoing US occupation.

3.  I'm assuming that most of you are from western societies.  For the most part, what everyone needs to realise is that we are dealing with a very different culture over there.   Kids aren't raised just the same as us.  To apply our values to a culture that doesn't necessarily agree with those values is very stupid indeed.  There's a thing called objectivity that you need to remember.  The right way to go with things will become clear in the end after you deal with ALL the facts, not just the news that you see on TV.

In the Middle East it is a much more brutal culture than ours as westerners, so it's with no stretch of the imagination that you can see why death is so much easier to carry out in the Middle East than in western society.

4.  We are not dealing with a conventional war.  The insurgents and terrorists take civilian prisoners and kill civilians because it is much easier to attack them than the military.  Because there is no way they can beat the US in open conflict, their backs are to the wall.  The reason why they would love a bomb to go off in Disneyworld is simply because that would do so much more damage to America than a single attack on a military target, and it would probably be much easier too.  It's just a tactic to a group that is actively engaging in a war they know that they are losing.

5.  What makes 'us' better than 'them' is the fact that we don't kill our prisoners, we all understand that.  But someone asked me this recently:  Would you torture somebody who knew the location of a bomb that was due to go off in a city in your country, and was going to cause alot of deaths: would you go that far to stop this threat?

People can sit around saying that violence is bad and all that, but the majority of people would resort to torture to extract the information required to save the lives of those threatened by this bomb.  It is an ethical grey area that is going to be crossed by both sides.

6.  The US have kept the prisoners at Guantanamo for almost two years without trial.  Recent events are gradually changing this, but what of the media blanket over the area?  If we aren't allowed to see what is going on, one must logically assume that alot of it isn't exactly humane.  That and the events in Abu Garib [or whatever the name was] point to the fact that we aren't exactly clean in the moral area.

Now because terrorists aren't a government group [they may have support from countries, but they aren't a country themselves] they don't have the luxury of being able to simply keep people in a prison.  If they captured people they thought could be classed as the enemy, such as 'enemy country' civilians how is that any different?  I'm not talking about beheading and execution, just capture.

It would be hard to treat American prisoners humanely when you can barely live yourselves [being driven underground isn't exactly classy living]


Now for my closing points, I would like to tell you all a few theories [from scholars] about terrorism:

*some acts are committed deliberately to get a harsh response, in order to rally public support: case in point, 9/11: the US has a knee jerk reaction and soon develops a bad rep within the 'oppressed' culture.  Thus people willing to fight are recruited.

*there is no end to a war on terror, especially one that has religion at the heart of it: if you keep fighting, you may crush an immediate threat eventually, but you won't eliminate the threat.  The defeated will just grow more and more angry, and a new threat will pop up in it's place.  Violence begets violence.


I don't condone terrorism, I don't like the fact that it exists, and their methods, but it doesn't mean I don't understand why they do it.  The US made the wrong move by going into Iraq the way they did.  Yes the fact that the Iraqis were oppressed is a good cause, but if anybody cares to remember, we were worrying about WMDs: that was the main reason, we wanted to protect our own butts more than liberation: it's only after that excuse came up as a bust that our governments tell 'remind' us about the oppressive Hussein regime.  The UN would have supported the US if the weapons inspectors came up with proof [and I don't mean just a few empty canisters] but since that didn't happen, to go to war claiming that there was an extreme threat of WMDs was just stupid.  I don't support the war in Iraq, but I do think that now we are in there, we should stay until we have fixed the country up after we took away their government.

Nobody is clean when it comes to civilian deaths: just look at some of the atrocities in Vietnam.  Also, the fact that the US was responsible for more civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan than in 9/11.  Yes these were accidental, but it doesn't change the fact that they were committed.

We are stuck in an impossible situation in a debate that can never end: we cannot let the terrorists take over, but we also can't strike back just as harshly.  There were simply too many other avenues open to us instead of out and out war.  

So let's not get sucked into propaganda given to us by the media, and let's look at things with a bit of intelligence, and maybe somebody can come up with a better idea than just 'kill the Arabs'.