Condolences to Paul Johnson and his Family

[The Willow Sword]

"Condolences and many good prayers to the family of paul Johnson".

As you may or may not know this is the second US citizen who has been beheaded by a fundamentalist islamic faction.


Proud to be an American for PEACE,,,TWS

[Nevermind]

Cowards! If they're so brave, why are they hiding? Why do they wear hoods? Why do they target innocent civilians? What kind of inhuman scum condones this? It sickens me to no end that they are doing this in the name of God. Seems pretty satanic to me, don't you think? I hope they find these nutbags and do the same to them. Let the punishment fit the crime. Terrorists would be attacking us even if we hadn't invaded Iraq. What did we do to provoke 9-11? Sorry for the rant, TWS. My heart goes out to the victim's family.

[red5angel]

I bet 40 megatons would weed out the cowards that did this....

[norther practitioner]

Along with parts of other countries surrounding there.

[red5angel]

ok

[rubthebuddha]

nevermind -- they aren't brave, period. i believe most psychiatrists would say anyone who deliberately uses murder as a means to an end has a certain level of mental deviance.

note -- i did not say war, or many other things. just the simple act of threatening murder to achieve, in this case, the release of prisoners, however unlikely that may be, and the follow-through of a promise when demands were not met.

[The Willow Sword]

yeah i am mad as well about this, as i was about Nick berg getting beheaded. we have to look at this from a perspective of circumstance. if we were not there trying to force our agenda on these people, they would not be doing sh!t like this. i certainly do not feel that their actions are justifyable, but then again i dont think that OUR actions there are justifyable either.

but on another note "FUK Saudi Arabia":mad:



Peace,,TWS

[red5angel]

that's ok, sounds like they may have bagged the fukking scum that did this.

[Starchaser107]

I am truly saddenned by this.

[Becca]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
yeah i am mad as well about this, as i was about Nick berg getting beheaded. we have to look at this from a perspective of circumstance. if we were not there trying to force our agenda on these people, they would not be doing sh!t like this. i certainly do not feel that their actions are justifyable, but then again i dont think that OUR actions there are justifyable either.

but on another note "FUK Saudi Arabia":mad:



Peace,,TWS

Ummmm.... They have been "doing this" for all of recorded history. They were "doing this" to U.S. citisens long before we went over there. They are "doing this" to gain attention and what they percieve as power. We are a compasionate people, as a whole, and this makes us targets. The power they hord is feer and hate. The uncarring would not feer for the death of someone not of thier blood lines. Nore would they be able to maniputate the uncarring with hatred.

To say they would not be "doing this" if we weren't trying to force our agenda is like saying an ax murderer would not be doing anything wrong if we didn't force our laws on them. You would be right in both cases in a leagal sence, but at some point we as decent humans have to protect ourselves. 'Cause they ain't going to stop the killing innocent people just 'cause you're choosing to ignore it.

[3rdrateIMAkilla]

I don't think this psichiartry **** applies to these guys. What if they do it just for revenge. Or honor? Would they kill themselves if they dishorored islam?

[Becca]

They think they honor Islam by killing themselves. And everyone around them. If pushed for a spacific reason, they give some dipsh!t reason like the "he's eveil cause he works on Apache helicopters!" they spewed with Paul Johnson.

[PaulH]

It's inhuman and satanic. The tragic thing is these murderers were once human. My sincere condolence to the ones who have to bear the burden of memory of the loss of their loved one. May God comfort you.

Paul

[The Willow Sword]

To say they would not be "doing this" if we weren't trying to force our agenda is like saying an ax murderer would not be doing anything wrong if we didn't force our laws on them. You would be right in both cases in a leagal sence, but at some point we as decent humans have to protect ourselves. 'Cause they ain't going to stop the killing innocent people just 'cause you're choosing to ignore it.

what kind of retarded mentality is this? did you go back and reread your statement Becca? i think not because if you did you would see just how retarded a view point that is, LOL.

and Just FYI it was the BRITISH that fuKed up the middle east, and we went in there later on and tried to rescue things(as we usually do but fail miserably at) but you seem to be of the mindset that i give a sh!t about what goes on in that part of the world politically and religiously, and i dont. i mean i love humanity and all that and i want peace,,but if we are to take the path that we as a country are taking with OTHER countries, WE need to be solid within our own borders and we are NOT that solid when it comes to our own poverty, ecomonic decay and our own crime and violence. yes my viewpoint is a liberal one but i also take a conservative view when it comes to our foreign policy, and that conservative view is not necessarily a republican labeled view.

not trying to insult you Becca but the axe murderer analogy is uhh,,how shall i say it, "Silly".

Peace,,,TWS

[YinYangDagger]

kill'em all

[Mr Punch]

It's just ****ing ridiculous. Who do these extremist sheep think they're kidding... or helping for that matter...

But that's enuf about YinYangDagger, the same goes for these extremist sheep Moslems too!

And I was just reading this morning an Ijara edict from a couple of devout Moslem clerics (this is a sacred tribal offer of protection) for Johnson. 'They' are as usual, not a 'they', and in this case 'they' were obviously the wrong 'they'.



BTW WS, just to point out that to say it was the British that ****ed up the Middle East is over-simplistic. Or in your parlance to somebody who disagrees with your opinion: 'retarded'!

I think the Middle Eastern tribes and dynasties had been doing a pretty good job of ****ing each other up for many centuries as the European crusaders had been before then: the Brits were on the face of it doing good (to their own face anyway), but really just looking after Number One and its economic interests... (sound familiar...?!).

Even if you can blame the Brits; do you justify a black American killer by saying his family had four hundred years of slavery? An white American killer by saying that his extremist family was persecuted out of Europe five centuries ago? No, didn't think so.

Sure, history's important, but **** it, time to grow up, take some responsibility, and realize that if you kick somebody in the nuts they're gonna wanna kick you in the nuts.... in the present day. With the possible exception of Chirac, most of the European politicians who were responsible for arming/training Moslem extremists in the name of containment, or even just, honestly, as a business, have been fired or faded into obscurity. Unlike supporters of Bush's administration, and Pop's, who are still saying 'It was in the name of containment' like it makes up for making a lot of ****ing huge mistakes they should be cleaning toilets for.

RIP to Johnson, and any more of you Americans who are gonna follow. Dunno what he was doing over there, or if he was a 'good guy', but nobody deserves what he got. Except his killers.

[Chinwoo-er]

While I normally avoid political dicussions, I would just like to put this across.

After what happened to Nick Berg, why is anyone surprised they would do it again ? Sure our heart goes to the family of the deceased, but I am pretty sure that we can expect more of this in the near future.

Despite what we want to believe, this IS a war - 'war on terror'. The difference is the 'enemy' is not a country. So they are not bound by international laws (not that the 'good' side is doing well on that account). They will strike anyone, anywhere, anytime should the oppotunity arise.

When you are grossly outmatched in terms of training, guns, number, equipment, money, allies, intel..... hell, everything, then you fight like this. You strike anything you can and in the method that would cause the most damage to the opposing system (not military). Ethics and morality have very little meaning for desperate and hunted people (and they are being hunted by the most powerful military/intelligence force in the world). Is desperation a justification for such astrosity ? That is a debate I would not go into.

Welcome to the age old human thirst for revenge. You hurt them one way, they hurt you back another, you hurt them again. Soon, no one would remember who hurt who first. All we remember was the last time we were hurt and that retribution is needed. Even just on this board, we can see the seeds of vengence being planted in some of us. And we are supposed to be from a culture that condemn such things.

I personally believe that if we really want to help our fellow men while not being dragged into arguing for or against this war, just try and mend the pain we have suffered. As my friend once said, strength comes from compassion and benevolence, not hatred and revenge.

[The Willow Sword]

BTW WS, just to point out that to say it was the British that ****ed up the Middle East is over-simplistic. Or in your parlance to somebody who disagrees with your opinion: 'retarded'!

Obviously you do not know nor have you studied history Mat. Its okay, the rest of us who read think and comprehend will make up for the rest of you that dont:rolleyes:

and as for my "parlance" to becca's uhh retar....Silly analogy?
did you even read that anaolgy she gave? LOL.

i dont have a problem with a disagreement of viewpoint kiddo, it makes for a good exchange of ideas opinions and i like a good debate everynow and then,,but at least try to make your viewpoints and "analogies" make sense:confused:



PEACE,,,TWS

[Royal Dragon]

TWS,
I don't think you understand Becca's analogy. She's saying that if we make it legal to ax murder, sure there's no crime in it, but it's STILL wrong by any moral standard.

if we were not there trying to force our agenda on these people, they would not be doing sh!t like this

As for us, weather we were there, or not there would STILL be brutal killings, and beheadings. Don't Forget Sadam himself ordered more headdings and murders than we will ever know the details about. Reguardless of what we are only NOW seeing on the news, Iraq's death/ Murder rate has been cut down by 60-80% since we invaded them (maybe even more). These two instances are insignificant by comparison. By taking him out, we have saved far more lives than have been lost in these two individual incidents.

Not to be cold hearted, but why is the lives of these two worth more than the hundreds, and probably even thousands that Saddam surley would have killed if we had left him alone?

You bring up problems on the home front, and I agree we have our issues, but the very nature of this country affords incredible oppertunity to those who apply themselves. We already have a free ride welfare system that gives an untold number of people a free existance for no other reason than they are too damm lazy to take advantage of the fantasic number of resources, education, and opertunity this country offers. Those that chose to ignor those oppertunites are NOT oppressed. They are NOT facing death form an opressive government bent on siezing and maintaining power through fear, violence and murder. They live realtively saftely in the streets, and they survive just fine free, to do what they will, when they will. They have no tyranical dictators to fear. Most of them are there by choice.

This country is SO generious, that if you dress in rags, and stand on a busy street corner, you can make over $100.00 and hour in donations by just making passing cars feel sympathy for you. I've sat, watched, and COUNTED what these "poor, homeless, depressed" People make, and trust me they pull in as much or more than many of us do. I've seen them get Paper $$ from over 100 cars in less than an our. Assuming all they got was $1 per car, were talking serious cash for just begging for it 2-3 hours a day, and doing nothing else. Our "poor & homeless" problem is no where near as severe as you think. Many people CHOOSE to be out there because they are too lazy to do what it takes to exist a better existence.

The people of Iraq did not/do not HAVE that choice. They were at the mercy of uncaring, unfeeling powermongers who's greed, Ego, and selfish drive to accumulate everything deprives their people of even the "OPERTUNIY" to improve even if they DID have the drive to do so. Here, all anyone needs is the drive, and will to over come the odds, and they can.

The most sucsessfull people here fail many, many times before they find their sucsess. The difference between them [Iraqies], and us is we are FREE to get back up again, time and time again, till we can figure out how to prosper. The Iraqies Don't have that option, so thier needs out way the needs of our homeless because our homeless have the oppertunity to get out of thier situation if they so choose.

[MasterKiller]

Saudi Arabia is not our ally. Sooner or later, Americans will figure that out.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Not to be cold hearted, but why is the lives of these two worth more than the hundreds, and probably even thousands that Saddam surley would have killed if we had left him alone?

The sad and scary truth: those two deaths matter more to many people because they are white; and the thousands of deaths matter less because they occurred in the context of a socialist agenda which people find favorable.

[Royal Dragon]

Very true. SICK, but very true.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Obviously you do not know nor have you studied history Mat. Its okay, the rest of us who read think and comprehend will make up for the rest of you that dont:rolleyes: ...
i dont have a problem with a disagreement of viewpoint kiddo, it makes for a good exchange of ideas opinions and i like a good debate everynow and then,,but at least try to make your viewpoints and "analogies" make sense:confused: How very enlightening.

So come on then, 'Pops', dazzle me with your debating skills and evidence, educate me with your superior comprehension and in-depth reading experience...

since you don't seem to be able to string together a viewpoint that actually disgrees with what I said, perhaps you'd like to supply at least a viewpoint of your own?

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M
The sad and scary truth: those two deaths matter more to many people because they are white; and the thousands of deaths matter less because they occurred in the context of a socialist agenda which people find favorable. 1) How was Saddam's regime socialist? (serious question. I know what socialism is: I was brought up with a lot of exposure to socialist Prostestantism and the socialism of the ('Old') Labour Party in the UK, and I fail to be able to equate socialism with Saddam's regime, idealogically or methodologically.)

2) Who finds it favourable? (serious question)

3) If you are saying Saddam's regime was socialist, given that Cheney and Rumsfeld and other members of both Bush administrations had long had business dealings and offered logistical and infrastructural support to the same regime, are you saying that the Bush admin found it favourable or at least acceptible, that Saddam's regime was killing and torturing thousands of people? (disingenous, facetious nonsense, but an answer may be interesting...! :D )

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
How was Saddam's regime socialist?

The Hussein regime was one of two prominent representatives of the Ba‘ath Arab Socialist Party; see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party).


Who finds it favourable?

People favorable to socialism.


are you saying that the Bush admin found it favourable or at least acceptible

If you mean the Bush Sr. regime, then yes: they explicitly found Baathism favorable, insofar as they believed at the time that it was preferable to, and an important factor in opposing, Moslem theocracy.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M
The Hussein regime was one of two prominent representatives of the Ba‘ath Arab Socialist Party; see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party).Interesting. So the Baath Party call themselves socialist, therefore they are socialist. Funny, I used to call myself socialist but I was closer to Tony Blair on the political continuum than to Saddam Hussein, and believe me, I'm not at all close to Tony Blair.

From the site you directed me to:
Other ideologies including the word "Socialism"

The German National Socialists (Nazis) claimed to be "socialist". However, these are generally considered conflicting ideologies, especially by their respective supporters (see Socialism and Nazism). Similarly, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq claims to be in a tradition of secular, non-Marxist socialists. These claims, however, are controversial.


Originally posted by Christopher M

The sad and scary truth: those two deaths matter more to many people because they are white; and the thousands of deaths matter less because they occurred in the context of a socialist agenda which people find favorable.OK, so who are the people who care more about the deaths of those two people?

If you're talking about the American public, I can agree with your first supposition;

if you're talking about the Bush admins' preferences I could agree with the second supposition, but

if you're talking about the American public, I can't agree that they support socialism or the agenda that the Baathist espoused, and

if you're talking about some particularly malicious elements in the insidious would-be empire of the EU I could maybe agree with the second supposition, but probably not, cos the people of the EU have always traditionally been more vociferous in their opposition to Western governments supporting any kind of human rights abuse, whether they are in possession of a substantial proportion of the 'facts' or not...

if you're talking about
People favorable to socialism....and the Baathists are really socialists, then the first supposition would not be correct.

So, how many of what people are you talking about?

And, do you agree with the actions of the Bushs' admins that supported the Baathist parties, and if so why?

BTW, I'm gonna be busy from now so I can't stay and chew the fat, but interested nonetheless.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
So the Baath Party call themselves socialist, therefore they are socialist.

No. I linked up an article which discusses Baathism's ideological foundations, presuming it would be understood as part of my reply, rather than fixating on their name.


so who are the people who care more about the deaths of those two people?

The original context of this statement concerned people whose worldviews place more emphasis upon them than the much greater proportion of deaths under the Hussein regime.


do you agree with the actions of the Bushs' admins that supported the Baathist parties, and if so why?

No.

[Mr Punch]

For your last answer, is it too late, or has it too oft been answered, to ask why not?

If not: Why not?

:)

[Christopher M]

Too late, suckah!

Umm... I don't think it's a good idea to artificially impose any political ideology across the world and I think that if international intervention is warranted that it ought to be executed in the first person rather than via puppet-warring.

[Mr Punch]

Fair enuf.

[Becca]

:D Nothing like a bag of popcorn and a good debate on KFO to make a borring day at work go faster!

... Though this one's ending suprised me a bit woth such a civil ending...

;)

[DragonzRage]

Very sad, what those idiot extremists are doing over there. I cannot hide my contempt for the backward and self destructive state that the religion of Islam is in. We can kill as many terrorists and topple as many tyrannical dictatorships as we want, but the terrorism situation will not change until the Muslims implement reform and a more modern/open-minded approach to their faith. Don't get me wrong...I'm not racist and I don't hate all Muslims or anything like that. I also am aware that there are many Muslims who do not agree with what the terrorists are doing (even if they may not have much love for the USA, either). But the fact is that there are some serious institutional problems within the religion of Islam that must be reformed. Extreme intolerance, oppressive fundamentalism and delusions of persecution are disturbingly prevalent characteristics of Islam. While such backward fundamentalism can be found in any religion/culture, Islam is the only modern day religion where it seems to be the norm rather than the exception. It is a very small percentage of Muslims that are actually perpetrating these terrorist acts, but there is a much larger percentage of Muslims worldwide who share the terrorists' victim complex and silently condone the terrorist cause.

An interesting point regarding Saudi Arabia: surveys have shown that a good majority of people in Saudi view Osama bin Laden favorably. And we call these people our allies?? To me they're worse than the Taliban. You have a citizenry that completely hates us, and a corrupt a$$ oil fattened government that publicly pays us lip service while harboring terrorists behind our backs. Fukk them.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Becca
Though this one's ending suprised me a bit woth such a civil ending...

Sorry... what I meant was: Mat, you uncouth Scottish catamite. You insult me, my family, and the Shaolin temple. I **** in your general direction.

[rogue]

Just for the heck of it. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)

[Christopher M]

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.

Yeah, but this didn't phase the supporters of his last work. Irredeemably divisive, this climate is.

[Chang Style Novice]

decapitating people is bad

[ZIM]

Belmont Club (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_belmontclub_archive.html#10878123344039 9059) had an interesting take on this tragedy:

Al Qaeda has three audiences: the Islamic world, non-Islamic U.S. allies and the United States. In the United States, as al Qaeda surely knows, the impact of the beheadings ... will reinforce the feeling that al Qaeda must be resisted at all costs ... It is also not working particularly well among U.S. allies. ... That leaves the third audience, the Islamic world. ... Beheadings are a demonstration of will and ongoing capability. Al Qaeda may have come to the conclusion that if it hopes to win abroad, it must first of all win at home.

[DragonzRage]

This just in: they killed the South Korean hostage. Fukkin' savages.