Viewing Thread:
"Hostages/Beheadings thing"

I'm surprised to see there's not loads of topics about this already (sorry if there already is one - couldnt find one) but I think it's a pretty important issue.

So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.

Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"

Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.

For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.

So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.

Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?

Light wrote:
> Religion doesn't kill people. Religious fanatics do.

Calling the police, woo woo woo...

Ashley I see where you're coming from when it's terrorists involved, as the media going ape over something like the current situation gives the terrorists exposure. But in an actual war situation you can't only report allied casualties. It's like saying just becuase we are fighting against people they are no longer humans and their lives are worth nothing. Also, in such a climate allied troops can easily commit atrocities, as we know troops on any side of a conflict are capable of carrying out.

What's perhaps more frightening is that if we didn't report on 'enemy' casulaties people may become more and more desensitised to the fact that they are people too, and hence just accept it if something horrific (ie. torture in allied prisons) did get out into the public domain.

Cyclone wrote:
> Ashley wrote:
> Personally i only think we should report allied casualties, and that
> only as a courtesy and thanks for the sacrifice they have given.
>
> Hah! I would be bothered, but you've just disappeared off my
> esteem-radar.
>
> At the very bottom end.

you might have read that wrong, but i do think we should only report allied casualties, what i meant was ideally we shouldn't report them, as it just means the enemy will attack them more to get more exposure.

I have the fullest respect for any man or woman who puts them selves on the line for our and others safety. just wanted to make that clear.

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. Only way to be sure.

Trouble is how do they get out of this big massive hole they've dug themselves into? They can't pull the troops out or straight away they'll be jumped upon and seen as 'leaving the scene of the crime' but the longer they stay there the more lives are lost and the worse the country gets. No win situation in all it's glory if you can call it that

lalakersrule wrote:
> Watching different news programs to me then Light as i've never heard
> anyone refer to that when talking about Dubya. 'Stupid',
> 'War-hungry', 'Cowboy' etc etc i've heard though.

Heh. Fox News can't push Dubya's Christian credentials enough. After all, he can't be a warmongering blood clot on the tampon of life if he lurves Jesus...
>
> Still not convinced on the oil aspect, the price of this war alone
> makes me question that reason plus the fact the Americans are still
> there, surely they could have got all the oil they want out by now.
> Finishing off daddy's business makes far more sense to me. But then
> let's not go down this route for like the thousandth time eh?

Oh ordinary Americans are paying for this, yes. However, Haliburton and the Carlyle Group are making an absolute fortune, as are numerous other businesses. Seeing as Daddy Bush is a member of Carlyle, Cheney continues to draw the Haliburton dollar, and other senior members of the Bush administration have various other conflicts of interest concerning businesses they have connections with and who are making money out of Iraq...well, d'you think they give even the tiniest, remotest toss about tax bills going up in order to finance the billion dollars a week this land grab is costing, just so long as they're personally making money?

Like you say though, it's getting to the stage where it almost doesn't matter what the reasons were; everyone can agree that the result is an unmitigated balls up.

Watching different news programs to me then Light as i've never heard anyone everytime they refer to the old dumb texan remind us how much he loves that great guy Jesus Christ.

Still not convinced on the oil aspect, the price of this war alone makes me question that reason plus the fact the Americans are still there, surely they could have got all the oil they want out by now. Finishing off daddy's business makes far more sense to me. But then let's not go down this route for like the thousandth time eh?

lalakersrule wrote:

> Speaking of which, as i haven't been watching the news on this, has
> anyone popped up yet to remind us that Islam is a 'peace loving
> religion and we respect all people' and the usual spiel we seem to
> hear every time some islamic terrorist appears on the scene?


Perhaps it'll be the same chaps who remind us that Dubya's favourite philosopher is Jesus "Peace be unto you and for f**ks sake try and be a bit nicer to one another" Christ?

Islam is about peace and brotherhood. So is Christianity. Problem is, the people who are supposedly adherents of either are neither peaceful nor interested in brotherhood. The religions themselves aren't at fault; it's the mongtards who twist them to justify their every hateful action that are.

Religion doesn't kill people. Religious fanatics do.
Religion doesn't molest children. Catholic Priests do.
Religion doesn't declare war on a country to steal it's oil. Presidents do.

Cyclone wrote:

> Islam
> being a religion that at the best of times is perhaps not the most
> gender-equal religion, and yet these are the fools who take the
> religion far to far and take the (or rather their readings of the)
> doctrines of Islam to its extremes!


Speaking of which, as i haven't been watching the news on this, has anyone popped up yet to remind us that Islam is a 'peace loving religion and we respect all people' and the usual spiel we seem to hear every time some islamic terrorist appears on the scene?

phi11ip wrote:

> Maybe the best idea is to have a small 'locator' chip or something
> implanted into your back or something. They must have the tracking
> technology to do that?

I already mentioned that. And yes the technology does exist, as demonstrated by things like birds getting tracking chips attached.