Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
argive99

American Beheaded

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Fox is reporting the decapitation of an American contractor in Iraq. The video is floating around the internet. The man's head was sawed off while he was alive and then displayed to the camera with its eyes still open.

I wonder if the left's outrage will equal that over the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners.

I won't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They inevitably will puppet the claim of the terrorists that "It was in response to the abuse of the prisoners in the Abu Grhaib prison.

From:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...erican_beheaded

On the Web site, one of the executioners read a statement:

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused." "So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the Web site, one of the executioners read a statement:

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused." "So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

If that's the case let's start shipping those coffins to Iraq for them to use for the scores of dead they might suffer as a result of them humiliating us in that woeful matter.

It's time for us to drop the bomb in Abu Gharib.

The Bush administration couldn't fight a war if their lives depended upon it. Why fight a war if you don't want to vanquish your enemy?

This nonsense is what happens when you fight a war without the principle of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need to leave the country, then engage in a live fire nuclear excercises. Then the next country we invade will be very nice to us.

Where is General Jack Ripper when you need him?

I hope someone in the military, a rogue general perhaps, has the moral courage to do what is necessary to put us on the right track toward victory.

Bush certainly has no clue what he is doing. In fact, his military ineptitude may cost him the presidential election. If that happens, Kerry will likely pull us out of the battle and let militant Islam run wild throughout the world.

America is far from being morally and psychologically ready to annihilate its enemy. Our foe is playing with us, like a cat on a frightened mouse.

It's a goddamn shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe one of the greatest problems we face in this war is the government's inability to address who the actual enemy is. This is, in fact, a holy war. We are at war with Islam and until the administration faces the fact that multiculturalism and democracy do not mix, we will continue to be at war with Islam. We'll just have to fight it in Europe instead of the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe one of the greatest problems we face in this war is the government's inability to address who the actual enemy is. This is, in fact, a holy war. We are at war with Islam" DG

This (Labeling the war on terrorism as a war against fundamentalist Islam, if thats what you are doing) strikes me as a short term conceptualization of the problem. There may currently be more Terrorist acts coming from "Islamic" sources. But it seems to me as if a long term approach to the War on Terror recognizes that technology and globalization make it much more possible for a small minority of people to do a great deal of harm. I'm not arguing against G or T, just pointing out that Law Enforcement etc.. Is Currently adjusting to the new reality.

Whether its a Anti-Globalist Luddite crashing a plane into a building or a Muslim makes no difference to me. Those who support them must be caught and dealt with. The problem is the assholes who support Terrorism, not the guise they support it under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i didnt realize we were fighting a war.

mission_accomplished.jpg

Uh-huh. Bush said so. Our mission in Iraq is accomplished.;)

Hey, If one were to believe that, I got a nice old bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush certainly has no clue what he is doing. In fact, his military ineptitude may cost him the presidential election. If that happens, Kerry will likely pull us out of the battle and let militant Islam run wild throughout the world.

How do you know that Kerry won't drop the atom bomb on some strategic point in Iraq?

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of my disgust and anger over the beheading, I found this from a supposed Objectivist or as he would put it, a "Randian."

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1880_0_1_0

This is Arthur Silbur's take on the beheading. Silbur is a compatriot of Chris Sciabarra and shares the same Libertarian views although he is like a rabid dog in comparison. Silbur has the audacity to say in affect that Berg "deserved it" for being there in the first place without knowing the language and without "connections". And of course anyone who calls the Islamists who butchered him savages is just a poor, deluded, war-mongering neo-conservative.

How the hell does this man link himself to Ayn Rand?

There are few things more intellectually disgusting then an ersatz Objectivist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On top of my disgust and anger over the beheading, I found this from a supposed Objectivist or as he would put it, a "Randian."

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1880_0_1_0

This is Arthur Silbur's take on the beheading. Silbur is a compatriot of Chris Sciabarra and shares the same Libertarian views although he is like a rabid dog in comparison. Silbur has the audacity to say in affect that Berg "deserved it" for being there in the first place without knowing the language and without "connections". And of course anyone who calls the Islamists who butchered him savages is just a poor, deluded, war-mongering neo-conservative.

How the hell does this man link himself to Ayn Rand?

There are few things more intellectually disgusting then an ersatz Objectivist.

I thoroughly agree with you on that. The faux objectivists comments were reproachful, to say the least.

The only comment I have to make regarding Berg is that he and his company could not be ensured any semblance of protection against assault by terrorists, because of the government situation there.

Neither Berg nor the contractors deserve that.

Be glad I don't run America. I have no sense of mercy for this fundie scum who murdered Berg in cold blood.

So why in hell does the Bush administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last straw. If there is not a clear and unequivocal response to this outrage then Bush will have lost my vote this November. This is his last chance to prove that he will keep Americans safer than John Kerry would (which shouldn't be hard).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that Kerry won't drop the atom bomb on some strategic point in Iraq?

First, there is no strategic point in Iraq. Iraq is not the primary target in this war. Iran or Saudi Arabia, as the greatest sponsors of militant Islam, are. If we drop a bomb, it should be on one of those two nations.

Second, we have already invaded Iraq and are about to install a puppet regime. Nobody is going to drop the bomb there.

If Kerry advocated dropping the bomb on Saudi Arabia or Iran, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I would send him love letters.

But, judging from his track record and what he has been saying, Kerry is a spineless altruist, like the rest of our political leaders. If you can provide some evidence for his willingness to even glance at a nuclear warhead, I might consider him.

I'll probably vote for Bush, because he, at least, can be held responsible for the "axis of evil" comment. And we can say: "Okay, Bush, it's time to invade Iran."

My suspicion is that a President Kerry would hand everything over to the UN. Then it will only be a matter of time before all of us are either dead or worshipping Allah.

If you don't think it can come to that, I urge you to seriously take a look around. Where do you see us defeating militant Islam? All we are doing is trying to defend ourselves, while they invade.

Fact: militant Islam takes over much of the world and destroys the World Trade Center. What do we do? We conduct a half-ass war against the Taliban, letting Osama bin Laden escape. And we invade probably the most secular Middle Eastern country there was, allowing the most anti-Western militant Islamists to invade Iraq.

We are not winning anywhere in the world. All we do is chase little terrorists from here to there. We are a long way from even considering stopping the ideological movement of militant Islam at its source nations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, there is no strategic point in Iraq. Iraq is not the primary target in this war. Iran or Saudi Arabia, as the greatest sponsors of militant Islam, are. If we drop a bomb, it should be on one of those two nations.

I'm in general agreement with your post.

Regarding the above, Bush has made Iraq a primary target in this war, and a primary target in the war on terror itself.

It's my opinion that Bush made a mistake in prioritizing Iraq- so we agree there, I think.

Iran should have been a prime target.

Bombing the two nuke plants to smithereens would be the first obvious move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious fundamentalist terrorists value neither their own lives, nor the lives of ANY other human being.

Regretably, Nick Berg's "humanitarian spirit" and the attendant values that normally accompany such spirits contributed to the "bargain" he arranged with the people who killed him.

Everything in his actions support the notion that he did not hold his own life as his highest value. He could not have accepted the idea of his fundamental right to exist because he did nothing to support or defend it. His subconscious estimate of his own life's value agreed with the terrorists' estimate.

The actions of both sides permitted the ideal circumstances under which their meeting could take place, their bargain made. and a deal concluded. Mr. Berg's death was a logical consequence of the life premises unconsciously held by each side.

Could a Howard Roark ever find himself in such a predicament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Religious fundamentalist terrorists value neither their own lives, nor the lives of ANY other human being.

  Regretably,  Nick Berg's "humanitarian spirit" and the attendant values that normally accompany such spirits contributed to the "bargain" he arranged with the people who killed him.

  Everything in his actions support the notion that he did not hold his own life as his highest value.  He could not have accepted the idea of his fundamental right to exist  because he did nothing to support or defend it.  His subconscious estimate of his own life's value agreed with the terrorists' estimate. 

  The actions of both sides permitted the ideal circumstances under which their meeting could take place, their bargain made. and a deal concluded. Mr. Berg's death was a logical consequence of the life premises unconsciously held by each side.

  Could a Howard Roark ever find himself in such a predicament?

What on earth are you talking about? Berg was over there to win business contracts for the cellular company he was working for. He was inspecting communication towers. His biggest mistake was that he travelled alone. He was foolish in this regard, but to say that he did not "hold his own life as the highest value" is unwarranted.

As for Berg's "humanitarian spirit", his purposes there seem more entrepreneurial to me than "humantarian." The Bush Administration has conducted a massive civilian recruitment campaign on three continents to "rebuild Iraq." However, they have not provided a safe, secure environment to do so. They have essentially invited civilians into a hellhole without the guarantee of protection. This is yet one more example of Bush's failure to understand the nature of the war he is fighting. He is so motivated by altruism that "rebuilding Iraq" takes precedence over destroying terrorists and the culture which produces them.

Berg was a careless young man. He paid for it with his life. But to say that his "subconscious estimate of his own life's value agreed with the terrorists' estimate" is the height of absurdity. Why is it that some people are so cold towards this man's gruesome execution? It reminds me of the argument that a sexy women in really short mini skirt deserved to be raped because "she didn't respect herself." I don't agree with either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that Kerry won't drop the atom bomb on some strategic point in Iraq?

LOL John "Frenchie" Kerry wouldn't hurt a fly if his life depended on it. He's a g*d [email protected] liberal!

I agree with you that Bush is being way too weak. But you have to face it: his challenger is a "man" determined to be twice as weak as Bush, no matter how weak Bush gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

argive99,

People who consciously hold life as their highest value are not careless with it.

I only suggested that what happened was a logical consequence, not that it was deserved.

My comments make me appear cold, but I assure you that after watching that video of his death my blood boiled with rage against the "animals" that perpetrated it.

I question the values of anyone going to Iraq without any means of self-protection just as I would question it if someone climbed into the polar bear exhibit at the zoo. The only difference is that the "animals" in Iraq are more dangerous, and predictable.

The video serves as a brutal reminder of what human beings are capable of doing to each other and that it can happen here just as well as Iraq. It should also reinforce one's resolve to remain vigilant and both physically and psychologically prepared to defend one's highest value and the right to exist against ANY person or entity that threatens it. That means TO KILL for it.

I am sorry for Mr. Berg and his family. I wish I could have had the opportunity to advise him on a different course of action, or to have been there to defend him when he was abducted.

Unlike our soldiers who are in Iraq in defense of our supreme right to life, whose lives are stolen from them (not sacrificed) despite they're being well armed, Nick Berg made himself a sacrificial lamb. THAT makes me angry, because I appreciate the value of his life and I'm enraged that the terrorists took it without having to pay a price for it with their own blood. Their success has emboldened them and they will seek out more lambs.

As for President Bush; he can call for more americans to help rebuild his monument to altruism, but they should tell him to SHOVE IT unless they are permitted to defend themselves in any manner they find necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL John "Frenchie" Kerry wouldn't hurt a fly if his life depended on it. He's a g*d [email protected] liberal!

I agree with you that Bush is being way too weak. But you have to face it: his challenger is a "man" determined to be twice as weak as Bush, no matter how weak Bush gets.

The assumption is made that Kerry's foreign policy would be pacifist-based, and would be weak.

Best I can do to counter that argument is refer you to his own website, in which he says:

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

Key points highlighted in bold by me.

Doesn't sound like a man determined to be twice as weak as Bush to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that Nick Berg was a sacrificial lamb.

What is most tragic about this incident is that he was there as a worker for a private company trying to rebuild a damaged infrastructure. Despite how enticing such an opportunity is, such individual or company undertaking it places themselves in great danger due to the fact that there exists no form of government to protect his rights.

I feel deeply saddened by the death of such individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AutoJC, to think that Kerry is not a pacifist based on a few out-of-context statements seems like evasion on a massive scale to me.

On the other hand, CF, I don't see how Bush could get any weaker at this point. Today's news headlines have been reclaimed by the prisoner abuse scandal, and all I could find about the beheading of Berg was Bush's statement that "there's no justification" for it. Well, no fucking kidding. Until he actually does something about it, he shares in the responsibility for it as far as I'm concerned. So unless the situation in Iraq changes dramatically, although I know that John Kerry will be a horrible president, I will not be voting for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...