Another Beheading

[takeanumber]

What's your reaction?

Personally, I think it's horrific and terrible.

The CIA needs to find these guys.

[Try2Live4God]

I absolutely agree. I just think that these people who are very unappreciative of our services to them. I don't understand why they keep doing this. They know that the US don't negotiate with terrorists. It is sad though. My prayers go out to the families!

Nonetheless, the sad thing is they claim this is for God and all that garbage. What blasphemy! :angry:

This should be a war fought on our knees praying to the Mighty God that he will guide us and protect us.

[August1991]

I'm waiting for the resident "underdog defenders" to refer to the deaths provoked by the US military. "What is different between a beheading and a fatal gunshot?"

The US military does not deliberately and methodically target or kill non-combattants.

This is a centuries old battle. Let us be on the side of light, not darkness.

This should be a war fought on our knees praying to the Mighty God that he will guide us and protect us.

Go read The Name of the Rose or you can see the DVD (with Sean Connery) if you're a slow reader.

[takeanumber]

It's pretty sick, and it illustrates the lengths that Islamists (*note the language pls) will go to get their way.

Such actions are never justified.

They don't even PRETEND to respect the Geneva Convention. It's sick.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Try2Live4God,

This should be a war fought on our knees praying to the Mighty God that he will guide us and protect us

It is very difficult to fight from one's knees. A distinct disadvantage if you're actually trying to win. But what if you've got it wrong? What if Muhammed was the last 'Prophet of God'? You're just making Him madder and madder.

Dear August1991,

I have read a couple of Umberto Eco's books, he is a true 'contemporary genius', if I do say. The character "Brother William of Baskerville" is indeed worthy of emulation, in a pragmatic sense.

I'm waiting for the resident "underdog defenders" to refer to the deaths provoked by the US military.

The insurgency, yes, provoked. The methods, not. But equating the two is a mistake.

The US military does not deliberately and methodically target or kill non-combattants

Did you mean 'as of now', or always?

[Black Dog]

The US military does not deliberately and methodically target or kill non-combattants.

Does that make the innocents killed by gunshot slightly less dead?

More moral reletavism.

Is it difficult to accept that killing is fundamentally wrong? Is that so hard?

Why are some innocent deaths deemed acceptable and others horrific?

[August1991]

The US military does not deliberately and methodically target or kill non-combattants

Did you mean 'as of now', or always?

Revolutionary war? Hiroshima? Dresden?

Does that make the innocents killed by gunshot slightly less dead?

No, but I see a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter.

Is it difficult to accept that killing is fundamentally wrong? Is that so hard?

No argument from me, whatsoever. But would you have killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 if you could have?

Why are some innocent deaths deemed acceptable and others horrific?

I have wondered the same question.

[socrates]

theere is no difference between how dead you are if you are dead, but how you kill the person is more or less morally wrong in lots of cases.i believe what most people find morally wrong about beheading is that the body cannot be recovered in one piece to be buried which is the tradition. also being beheaded means you were a prisoner a pow.prisoners whether of war or any other kind shoud never be killed once again this goes into the field of ethics.

[socrates]

hitler was a brilliant man but also a evil one. this came from being insane.(in my opinon) but other than the fact that he massacered the the jews what makes him so evil. world unity is not such a bad thing.it was because he killed his prisoners.

and for your question of whether i would have killed or not. no i would have taken him prisoner

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

But would you have killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 if you could have?

That would depend on where I was coming from. From 2004, or 1935? In 1935 he was revered, even in the 'west'. The scary part was that he had basically announced his intentions in 1924 in Mein Kampf, but it was too 'flighty' and repetetive for many to read. Even Albert Speer, Hitler's architect cum Armaments Minister, did not deign to read it.

[Slavik44]

Does that make the innocents killed by gunshot slightly less dead?

I personally would rather die in a battle rather than on my knees sh1tting my pants waiting for someone to cut my head off.

[Slavik44]

Dear August1991,

But would you have killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 if you could have?

That would depend on where I was coming from. From 2004, or 1935? In 1935 he was revered, even in the 'west'. The scary part was that he had basically announced his intentions in 1924 in Mein Kampf, but it was too 'flighty' and repetetive for many to read. Even Albert Speer, Hitler's architect cum Armaments Minister, did not deign to read it.

who could i tried reading it, got maybe a chapter in, hitler really needed to gets some cliffs notes to go along with the book.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Slavik44,

I personally would rather die in a battle rather than on my knees sh1tting my pants waiting for someone to cut my head off.

Amen. It makes you wonder why these victims allow themselves to be taken alive. Perhaps the foreign workers should be the ones with bombs on their belts!

who could i tried reading it, got maybe a chapter in, hitler really needed to gets some cliffs notes to go along with the book.

I read it a few times, and it got 'no less painful'. Still, you'd be surprised at his occasional brilliance, and equally surprised how many people still believe in the same things he did. Many theories are still espoused by the 'right-wing'. (Not the genocidal ones, of course).

[takeanumber]

A death is NOT a death is NOT a death.

They're not all equal.

That's just my opinion though. There's no political proof I can show or offer, so I'll leave at that.

Geneva should be respected by all.

[April]

Why are some innocent deaths deemed acceptable and others horrific?

because of religion...if you put yourself at the side of GOD its called collateral damage...

and whether its accepted or horrific depends what side your on.

[theloniusfleabag]

I find it strange that the beheadings are taking place at all. They don't seem to be in keeping with Osama's tenet of offering conversion first (unless it was offered, and refused, which would make the victims 'martyrs'), and indeed, are condemned by the majority of Muslims.

[Black Dog]

Is it difficult to accept that killing is fundamentally wrong? Is that so hard?

No argument from me, whatsoever. But would you have killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 if you could have?.

The more relevant question, I believe, is: "If you had the chance to have killed Hitler in 1935, would you even if such action would result in a dozen random innocents also perishing?"

personally would rather die in a battle rather than on my knees sh1tting my pants waiting for someone to cut my head off

What about dying while shopping? Or while rubbernecking a car accident (much like what happened last week when 10 Iraqis and a journalist watching a destroyed APC burn were killed by an Apache helicopter strike).

I find it strange that the beheadings are taking place at all. They don't seem to be in keeping with Osama's tenet of offering conversion first (unless it was offered, and refused, which would make the victims 'martyrs'), and indeed, are condemned by the majority of Muslims.

There's a simple reason for this: most Iraqi militant groups are not affiliated with OBL. Wahabbism is a Sunni Muslim sect. The majority of Iraqis (60 per cent) are Shiite Muslims.

[socrates]

The difference in dying between a bullet shot and being beheaded is simple when you think about it. Its that they are killing prisoners.

For those who disagree lets take Hitler for example. Why is he so evil. Why is he so differnt from Ghenghis khan, or julius cesar, or atilla the Hun, they all tried to take over the world but do you know what we all aht e hitler because he killed prisoners

He killed innocent jews gas chambers gilotines and many other gruesome ways. And thats why we hate him he killed his prisoners and thats why beheading is worse

[Black Dog]

Discussing whether it's better to have one's head chopped off or blown off is pretty pedantic, and not reallly relevant. The broader issue it speaks to is whether there's a differnce between the deliberate execution of noncombatants, or the unintentional killing of noncombatants during military operations.

[socrates]

thank you black dog thats what i was saying.

[- Name Removed -]

I think socrates has the right idea its all about the prisoners

[Black Dog]

I  think socrates has the right idea its all about the prisoners

Killing prisoners is a smuch a part of war time as killing civilians. In Vietnam, US troops tossed Viet Cong prisoners out of helicoperts. During World War 2, both Allied and Axis forces executed prisoners. And one need only look at Abu Ghirab to see that mistreatment of prisoners (including killing) is taking place on all sides in Iraq.

So why are some people outraged over the execution of prisoners, yet so balse about civilian deaths ("collateral damage")?

[takeanumber]

True.

The killing of hostages is very different from collateral damage.

The US et al always try not to bomb hospitals or schools.

You can't say the same with respect to some insurgents and Al Queda.

When an American bomb hits a hospital, it's pretty horrific, granted, but I think there's something to be said for degree.

[August1991]

The broader issue it speaks to is whether there's a differnce between the deliberate execution of noncombatants, or the unintentional killing of noncombatants during military operations.

This is not the issue.

But it raises the correct idea. There are "degrees" to warfare and that's why I have always felt that Clausewitz was right: "War is a continuation of political activity by other means."

I see a difference between words (however threatening) and actions.

I see a difference between unintentional and intentional killing of non-combattants.

In Greek times, "total war" meant burning olive trees or poisoning wells. WWII eventually gave us "scorched earth", the siege of Leningrad, death marches and Hiroshima.

I think the West is appalled because the Islamists have raised the stakes so quickly. But then, should we expect them to conduct a war by conventional degrees?

In Iraq, this is a war of terrorism; I would use the Lebanese conflict 1975-1992 as a point of reference, despite the tremendous differences.

Incidentally, car bombs (like the WTC attack) are the most "effective". Even the most fatalistic person has a constant voice in the back of their mind.

[Black Dog]

The killing of hostages is very different from collateral damage.

The US et al always try not to bomb hospitals or schools.

You can't say the same with respect to some insurgents and Al Queda.

When an American bomb hits a hospital, it's pretty horrific, granted, but I think there's something to be said for degree.

The distinction vanishes once you realize there's fundamentally no difference between intending to kill innocents and knowingly engaging in an action that will likely result in innocent deaths. For example, the helicopter pilot launching a missile at targets in a residential area knows there is a high probablility such an action would result in innocent deaths. As such, the pilot is as culpable in any innocent deaths that occur as sure as if he had taken aim at innocents intentionaly.