American hostage beheaded.

[a_unique_person]

People: That's why it was madness to poke a stick in that hornet's nest in the first place!

I knew this was going to happen. I knew we would bumble around and create a new unstable spot in the world for barbarism and terrorism to grow, all because of our outrageous hubris in thinking Only We Can Set The World Right. I knew that acts of barbarism would occur and, rather than realizing the folly of the exercise in the first place, we would wrap ourselves in the g*dd*mn flag again and strike back with righteous indignance.

Sorry to rant, but it makes me insane that this is all going precisely how I knew it would.

Australia's PM is now going on about the Labor parties call to get out of the mess a mistake, because it gives the terrorists the message that we are giving in to them.

He was the idiot who was part of the call for them to 'bring it on'. Idiocy.

 

[demon]

Nikk:
"I wonder why they don't just shoot the hostages. Is there something in the Koran about beheading unbelievers being a good thing or am I confused?

I know, they should just bomb and frazzle them from 30,000 feet and then go home for their tea...just isnt` cricket is it?

 

[zenith-nadir]

The beheading has nothing to do with Iraq, the Middle East issue, Bush or Afghanistan. It is the result of 30+ years of Saudi-funded Islamic fundamentalism which has come home to roost. From America to Pakistan the House of Saud has been teaching intolerance in Saudi-funded madrassas/mosques. Islamic terror groups have always been able to look at Saudi Arabia or Iran for funding, until the fallout after 9-11 that is.

The House of Saud has had to capitulate to America's demands following 9-11, (another Saudi achievement), or be destroyed. The House of Saud is now seen by the terror groups it created as American puppets. That is why there has been such a rise in anti-Saudi operations.

The beheading is classic guerilla warfare. Kidnap a low-value target/civilian, make ridiculous and undoable demands and then use the media's own avarice to advertise your agenda. Hell, CNN made it a whole afternoon media event yesterday complete with telephoto-shots of the grieving family outside their home. I dunno what's more unpalatable, the beheading or the media repeatedly "blowing their loads" over it for hours.

 

[Skeptic]

The Muslim world did not fly jets into our buildings. A small minority of extreme fundamentalists did that.

...while the large majority of "moderates" merely expressed satisfaction, danced in the streets, called bin Laden a hero, or (like the moderate Bhahatir Muhammad) merely claimed the whole thing is due to the fact that the jews control the world--a "discovery" for which he recieved a standing ovation in the conference of Islamic nations from all the other moderate leaders.

Is it just me, or is the whole "tiny minority of extremists" excsue wearing rather thin lately?

 

[WildCat]

Nikk:
"I wonder why they don't just shoot the hostages. Is there something in the Koran about beheading unbelievers being a good thing or am I confused?

I know, they should just bomb and frazzle them from 30,000 feet and then go home for their tea...just isnt` cricket is it?

Was Johnson a military target?

If the US adopted the tactic of killing civilians just for the hell of it we could turn the entire region into a sheet of glass. We don't, and won't. I don't think the same could be said of the militant muslims, if the weaponry available was reversed.

 

[WildCat]

The view from the "Arab street":

But residents of three Islamic fundamentalist districts in Riyadh, interviewed before news broke of Johnson's killing, suggested that the kidnappers enjoyed popular support, partly because of U.S. policy in Iraq and its perceived backing for Israel.

"How can we inform on our brothers when we see all these pictures coming from Abu Ghraib and Rafah," Muklas Nawaf told The Associated Press as he ate meat grilled on a spit at a restaurant called Jihad, or holy war in Arabic.

If it's nor Abu Ghraib, it's Israel. If not Israel, it's Iraq. If not Iraq, it's Afghanistan. The "Arab street" will always have a reason to want to kill us. At it's root, it has nothing to do w/ our Middle Eastern policies, and everything to do w/ our decadent (in their view) western lifestyle.

Just where are all the "moderates"?

 

[Skeptic]

Just where are all the "moderates"?

Atually, WildCat, they DO exist. Arabs with the views you call "moderate"--e.g., that religion is a private matter, that terrorism is wrong, that democracy is good (at least in principle), that women have rights, etc., do exist in the Arab world.

Only there, they are known as "extremists", or "a danger to Islam", or "mossad agents", or "brainwashed by American propaganda", etc., etc., etc., and are hounded and either killed or silenced on trumped-up charges of "spying for israel (or the equivalent).

No wonder you rarely hear from them.

 

[Rob Lister]

No wonder you rarely hear from them.

Maybe the whole disconnect westerners have is viewing Islam as a religion instead of a political system. It is at least as much the latter as it is the former. In my (current) view, it is much more the latter than the former. Some talking head on tv put it fairly in saying that, in the case of state-sponsored religion, religion does not sanctify the state anywhere near the extent that the state corrupts the religion. Thirty plus years of state-sponsored and mandatory indoctrination from cradle to suicidal-grave is sufficient to meet any short-term political goal. And lest there be any doubt, thirty years is fairly short-term in politics, especially when the systems in place is blatantly monarchy.

I guess the real trick is finding a way to either undo it or protect yourself from it when it turns on you. The HoSaud is but one example.

 

[zultr]

The Islamic world has performed pathetically over the last few hundred years vis-a-vis Europe and the Far East, and it is my opinion that Islam itself is the problem.

Politically, sure, but the biggest problem with Islam is economically. How can you function in a global economy when half of your citizens (women) aren't allowed an education or a job - or in Saudi Arabia, even to drive? Take oil out of the equation, which currently provides the only real economic crutch to the region, and the Arab world descends to the lowest wrung of the third world. If they didn't have the oil, perhaps their religion wouldn't be so extreme. It will be interesting to see which comes first: they run out of oil and self destruct, or they gain access to nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of the world.

 

[Rob Lister]

Politically, sure, but the biggest problem with Islam is economically. How can you function in a global economy when half of your citizens (women) aren't allowed an education or a job - or in Saudi Arabia, even to drive? Take oil out of the equation, which currently provides the only real economic crutch to the region, and the Arab world descends to the lowest wrung of the third world. If they didn't have the oil, perhaps their religion wouldn't be so extreme. It will be interesting to see which comes first: they run out of oil and self destruct, or they gain access to nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of the world.

I'm posting mostly from ignorance here so don't berate.

Your first point concerning women/economy would be better viewed in terms of women/politics. How did American politics change when women got the vote?

Your second point concerning Islam/oil wealth seems accurate but I'm not up to endorsing it. How many problem have poor, un-oil-funded islamic nations caused us. Does Afganistan fall in that category? How about Malaysia?

Your third point about running out of oil is wasted. That's not going to happen anytime soon. I suspect oil will go the way of the buggy whip before that happens. That means the neclear aspect dominates. Would the world (read westerners) stand by and let Iran get da bomb? Maybe. They certainly let Pakistan get it. And India. There was no stopping Israel (their 'people' pretty much invented it in the first place) but they are certainly more western than even those farther west.

 

[Tony]

As tragic as this is, is anyone really surprised? This is par for the course when dealing with the religion of peace.

 

[c0rbin]

Rob, I agree. This has been an excellent, level-headed discussion--dispite the recent additions by the "usual" suspects

Adding: In the oil-rich countries, aren;t the royal families the ones profiting the most? Or does the average citizen enjoy the profits of the oil fields?

Are there any recommended sources for this kind of info?

 

[Skeptic]

Why not take American interference in another (any) country's affairs as the starting point?

...you mean, like interfering with Hitler's plan of world domination?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Sundog
Yet again, it's no fun correctly predicting all this.

What did you predict? Extremist Islamic violence?

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but that was around long before the US invaded Iraq. Predicting it would continue is sort of like predicting that you will go to work on Monday morning.

Originally posted by Sundog
America, especially the idiot half of it behind the war, has no understanding and less than no acceptance of the culture over there. We proudly display our disdain for it.

Well, I disdain the mind-set of those who think a public beheading of some random civilian to further a political cause is a good thing. Am I wrong for that?

Originally posted by Sundog
We start a war of "liberation". Then we screw up so badly restoring normality to the country that they are pissed at us instead of grateful.

Who do you mean when you say "they"? All Arabs?

Originally posted by Sundog
Then we put a shoe in the face of their entire culture with this prisoner abuse stuff. Because of the first point, warmongering Americans don't see the harm; what's the big deal? Worse happens at frat parties, right? Sheer ignorance and arrogance.

If prisoner abuse is the cause of this beheading, why were there no beheadings to protest abuses by Saddam?

Seriously, I’d like to see an answer to that question. How come when Americans do something wrong (and it was wrong) we think it’s perfectly natural for Arabs to respond with murderous violence against innocent civilians, yet similar and worse wrongdoings by Arab leaders doesn’t draw similar actions? What is the mechanism here?

Originally posted by Sundog
Thereby making some of them hate us vehemently. Imagine your favorite righty if someone came to his house and took a **** on his flag. This is how we have made the more fanatical Iraquis feel now.

Is it really natural to assume that Arabs are made to hate, that they carry no individual responsibility for their actions and feelings?

Originally posted by Sundog Therefore reaping their fury, expressed barbarically. And because of point 1, stupid righty Americans didn't exoect this!!!

Listen to their shocked rhetoric. Why, those people are animals! Nuke them!

Look at that, you call their behavior barbaric too.

Originally posted by Sundog
People: That's why it was madness to poke a stick in that hornet's nest in the first place!

So what should be done about the hornet’s nest?

Originally posted by Sundog I knew this was going to happen. I knew we would bumble around and create a new unstable spot in the world for barbarism and terrorism to grow, all because of our outrageous hubris in thinking Only We Can Set The World Right. I knew that acts of barbarism would occur and, rather than realizing the folly of the exercise in the first place, we would wrap ourselves in the g*dd*mn flag again and strike back with righteous indignance.

Look at that, you’re calling them barbarians again. It seems as though you have some things in common with the pro-war crowd. It seems as though your disagreement is not in the assessment of the situation, but in the solution.

 

[Skeptic]

We start a war of "liberation".

I'd say getting rid of Saddam WAS liberation.

Then we screw up so badly restoring normality to the country that they are pissed at us instead of grateful.

Who do you mean when you say "they"? All Arabs?

Here is something I don't understand. According to those who opposed the war in Arab countries (or more generally, US inteverntion anywhere), the situation is roughly this:

1). US intervention / actions make the vast majority of Arabs (or whatever group is "interfered" with) angry.

2). The acts of terror they perform are a natural reaction of angry people who are "interfered" with.

3). But only a tiny minority of the group are terrorists, since the vast majority of them are moderates and are against terrorism.

Therefore, according to this worldview, terrorism (or support for it) is, at the same time, both the natural reaction of the majority of Arabs to "US interference", and a sick extremism that "only a tiny minority" of Arabs commits or supports.

So... which one is it? It can hardly be both!

 

[mummymonkey]

Therefore, according to this worldview, terrorism (or support for it) is, at the same time, both the natural reaction of the majority of Arabs to "US interference", and a sick extremism that "only a tiny minority" of Arabs commits or supports.

So... which one is it? It can hardly be both!

Perhaps this demonstrates the natural revulsion of most human beings to violence of that kind, however severely provoked?

 

[Skeptic]

Perhaps this demonstrates the natural revulsion of most human beings to violence of that kind, however severely provoked?

So your solution to the discrepancy between the "they are all angry and naturally react with terrorism" claim and the "only a tiny minority supports terrorism" claim is the natural disinclination Arabs have towards violence?

I dunno... you might want to reconsider that one.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Therefore, according to this worldview, terrorism (or support for it) is, at the same time, both the natural reaction of the majority of Arabs to "US interference", and a sick extremism that "only a tiny minority" of Arabs commits or supports.

So... which one is it? It can hardly be both!

It is a fundamental contradiction, and I've yet to hear an explanation for it.

Here's another I don’t get:

When the US invades Afghanistan or Iraq, every single civilian that dies in the process is our responsibility just as though they were directly targeted for death. This concern for human life trumps all other considerations including the number of civilians that might die if we did not go to war.

Yet when Arabs kill Arabs, it’s an "internal" matter that shouldn’t concern anyone else. It’s their right to work things out for themselves, no matter how many people die or how brutal the person that eventually comes into power is. In these circumstances, human life is not a consideration at all.

 

[Skeptic]

The solution to this discrepancy is, essentially, RACISM. Real one, not the "you disagreed with me" kind, I mean. To some "sensitive" folks here, Arabs (and Muslims) are essentially savages, and as such simply cannot be held to the same standards of behavior expected even of a criminally delinquent fifteen-year-old westerner.

When Arabs or Muslims are angry at something--no matter what--it is simply expected that they will react with terror, intimidation, and outrageous behavior.

When Arab or Muslims lived under murderous thugs, that is considered natural--only people like Hussein & co., after all, know how to deal with those savage people. On the other hand, when they are offered democracy, it is explained to us how it is too good for them (er, I mean, "not their culture".)

The "feminists" who rant against GWB's "disrespect for women's rights" say nothing at all about the way women are treated in the Arab/Muslim world--after all, it's only MUSLIM women, so they deserve ("It's their traditional culture!") to be essentially slaves.

The best course, say these "sensitive" people, is to let those savages rot in their desert hellhole, I mean, "respect their culture and stop imperialist cultural influence" with silly things like human rights or democracy or modernization.

After all, you don't want them to be angry with us--and we all know how these savages react when they're angry, don't we?

 

[mummymonkey]

So your solution to the discrepancy between the "they are all angry and naturally react with terrorism" claim and the "only a tiny minority supports terrorism" claim is the natural disinclination Arabs have towards violence?

I dunno... you might want to reconsider that one.

I didn't mention Arabs.