On my way to work this morning I heard on the radio station that Al-Jazera is reporting (video) the execution of a captive U.S. soldier by some Islamic faction in Iraq. I have not seen anything on CNN nor anywhere else. Anyone else hear anything about this?

Never mind..it just popped up onto CNN LINK

FUCKERS. Now if only they could die slowly.

---

Wherever you go, there you are.

Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's Guild Cybertron's Finest Justice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2

I'm all for finding the sons of head chopping bitches and crucifying them and before they die lighting them on fire. For detterance purposes only of course.

At "least" they didn't saw this poor guys head off...he was shot.

Not surprising. The Jihadists want the US occupation to continue so they can run around and play war with the infidels. The last thing they want is an Iraqi goverment and democratic elections. This was simply a mean for them to vent their frustration over yet another defeat.

---

I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!

They don't want an end to this, they want a holy war that will justify their control of every part of the Islamic world. The people they are dragging with them can be reasoned with, but these fanatics cannot. As long as the people inside their dominion desire even the slightest bit of freedom, other free nations will be a threat to them, because their existance proves that living in freedom is possible. With the advent of modern communications they cannot deny this to the people they oppress, so they must use any excuse they can to maintain power. Hunt them down and kill them all, one by one if necessary, there is no other way.

The insurgents are getting barbaric.

---

I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.

And water is wet....

---

"Brian, if I parked a supertanker in Central Park, painted it neon orange, and set it on fire, it would be less obvious than your stupidity." --RedImperator

ouch

Uhh...

When the killed civilians, ok...

But hellloooo? This was a soldier. And they shot him. What's so wrong about that? It's what the soldier signed up for. Since when is fighting back (against a legitimate target this time) not allowed? So they videotaped it. I remember certain pictures of Iraqi prisoners somewhere...

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

There are some things that are wrong even in war, this is one of them. Just because one side did something wrong, doesn't mean it's okay for the other to go on a killing spree.

Just what exactly is wrong?

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

Killing defenseless prisoners? Recording them pleading for their lives?

So according to your logic it is completely ok to kill ALL captured combatants. I see. Well that WILL solve the prisoner problem in Iraq. First wring them dry for info..then a bullet in the head. Naw...lets slowly saw their heads off with a 6-8 inch long knife.

And people are still wondering why we're fighting here, or what we're trying to accomplish.

There is no way to "make peace" with these terrorist animals. For them, there is only one of two ways-- either they will die, or we will die (those that don't convert to their brand of death cult).

Then what are they going to to with the captive? It's not like the US will give in to their demands. They can't lock him up in a prison either. So yeah, when dealing with an invader like the US it's perfectly acceptable to kill these captives.

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

Dude...I consider myself a very open minded person, but the find it hard to believe that you feel that it is justifiable killing helpless prisoners.

In your original post you stated
I assume you find it wrong killing civilians…however the civilians executed have ALL been working for/with the US military (with the exception of the Korean man who a believe was working for some humanitarian organization, someone correct me if Iam wrong) How can you support executing a soldier who is helpless as a prisoner, and not support executing civilians, held helpless as prisoners who work to support the military (just for your information…in war, civilians who work for the military are legal targets)?

By the way dipshit...people do not join the military to be summarily executed.

So in other words they're not a conventional army nor even a guerrila army, they're terrorists - and this to you translates into 'acceptable'? They kill a bunch of civilians and this is seen as unacceptable; what makes a soldier less human in your eyes that he doesn't deserve the same consideration?

If they worked directly for the military (wasn't aware of that) then they were apparantly legitimate targets as well and basically I won't have much problem with that either. Problem is that they aren't fighting directly, so that makes it a bit slippy.

But what would you suggest doing with them instead when the US is unwilling to give in to the demands of the insurgents?

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

So then we can trot a death squad down to GITMO and plug those prisoners, then clear out Abu-Garbairarbararharabrahrabhrarhbribiarb? After all, it's "perfectly acceptable", They ARE combatants, right? Well, as far as we know. Best to just kill them, it's the only way to be sure, right?




Are you american? Are you human? How can you look at that poor guy on TV, know he's probably scared out of his MIND, Then when you find out he's been murdered, simply shrug your shoulders and say "Meh, he got what he signed up for."? When you're paralyzed in a car accident, while you're in the hospital, I'm going to come up to your bed, smile real big and say "Well, you had a driver's license, you got what you signed up for."

To classify any resistance that isn't officially part of the state as terrorist is a bit excessive. Insurgents or resistance fighter is more appropriate IMO. The tactics the French resistance used during WW2 for example weren't pretty either.

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

Strawman. I never classified terrorists as having to be separate to the state. There is such as thing as state-sponsored terrorism, you know.

And I wasn't calling them terrorists because they happen to wear towels around their faces and are in Iraq killing Americans - they're fucking terrorists thanks to their tactics. Beheading a civilian is wrong, videotaping it is atrocious, and there's no difference from executing a soldier and doing the same thing (videotaping it).


Oh really? They beheaded collaborators and plugged the images onto the internet and Al Jazeera? The two examples aren't comparable because the French were fighting a resistance to the German occupiers; from what I've heard, the terrorists in Iraq aren't fighting for Iraqi freedom, they just want to kill Americans. Therefore 'resistance or freedom fighter' doesn't apply to them. Insurgent is accurate. But so is terrorist. Call a spade a spade.


Why the fuck do they have to take prisoners in the first place when they know the US gov't will never give in to their demands? First of all it's not guaranteed the US won't negotiate with terrorists, as it's happened in the past. Secondly, the demands are immaterial as what the terrorists REALLY want is to spread terror (a big fucking DUH from the obvious machine). That said, do you seriously think the terrorists expect their demands to be taken seriously? As it has been said before by others here, the victims were dead the second they were taken hostage - the terrorists have no intention of playing ball with the US, so why the fuck are they going to keep the prisoners safe in a cell somewhere?

And none of this at all justifies what they do to their victims.

Problem with those is that you're NOT sure. Plus the afghanis there were NOT the invading nation, which makes a difference. Though it might be better for the prisoners there to get killed then tortured like they are now.


No, but the country I was born in has soldiers there too, and had casualities too. Didn't cry for them either.


My body appears to be human. I don't know about the rest.

When I drive I'm fully aware of the risks of it, so you don't have to cry for me either when I have an accident.

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

There's a little thing called "empathy" which is hardwired into most people as part of our evolutionary background. It can, of course, be overcome with hatred and dogma, but it's still part of our nature as human beings. If a normal person comes along someone who is horribly wounded in a car wreck, he will feel bad for him, instead of feeling nothing because the individual behind the wheel chose to drive.