Another Beheading

[MisterSwig]

The militant Islamists have struck again, this time slicing off the head of American Paul Johnson, Jr. and dumping his body on the streets of Riyadh.

U.S. response: "Americans should leave Saudi Arabia."

Al Qaeda Militants Kill American Hostage

Where are we going to go when the militant Islamists start beheading us in the United States?

[DavidOdden]

The militant Islamists have struck again, this time slicing off the head of American Paul Johnson, Jr. and dumping his body on the streets of Riyadh.

U.S. response: "Americans should leave Saudi Arabia."

Al Qaeda Militants Kill American Hostage

Where are we going to go when the militant Islamists start beheading us in the United States?

What angers me the most at the moment is that the US media have made a nightly point for over a month of repeatedly reshowing numerous Abu Ghraib photos, but showed only fragmentary pictures of Nick Berg's execution once, period. They did not feel that it was "appropriate" to show the barbarous act of sawing off a man's head, so that people could see what exactly we are dealing with.

Chalk up another one for cultural relativism and tolerance.

[Sokrates]

Its a shame that anyone loses their life. It was unfortunate that this man had to lose his life.

[F*ckCommunism]

Where are we going to go when the militant Islamists start beheading us in the United States?

Wouldn't you then send them home?

If the iraqi army occupied america then wouldn't you be doing whatever you could to get them to leave? I thought galt said no violence unless violence has been visited upon you... and don't tell me 9/11 was the excuse, osama and sadam are two different people... the invasion of afghanistan was warranted.

Yet american contracters in iraq? they wouldn't have gotten killed if they had not been where they don't belong... (turning iraq into another territory of the US) especially since the iraqi militants needed to react to the disgraceful treatment that the so called civilized US officers proffered to their prisoners.

[DavidOdden]

Wouldn't you then send them home?

The US government has no power to send citizens home, especially from a country where we have normal diplomatic and business relations. They did what they can do, namely suggest that all Americans get out. Now I can tell you that I personally have been in four countries (Peru, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique) where State had issued completely pointless safety alerts at the time, and this informational overkill is quite counterproductive because it makes their advice totally useless. These warnings are meaningless because they are automatic: beheading American citizens or burning them alive is the only effective way to warn people that a country is dangerous, it seems.

If the iraqi army occupied america then wouldn't you be doing whatever you could to get them to leave?

As a reminder, the most recent beheading took place in Saudia Arabia, not Iraq.

Your table-turning argument is fundamentally wrong, because Iraq invading America would be solely for the purpose of imposing dictatorial Islamic rule on the US; whereas the purpose of the US invading Iraq is (nominally) to eliminate a despot and extend the domain of freedom.

I thought galt said no violence unless violence has been visited upon you... and don't tell me 9/11 was the excuse, osama and sadam are two different people... the invasion of afghanistan was warranted.

Do you know how many people in Iraq were killed by Saddam Hussein? Recall the gassing of Halabja, for example (his largest single-day massacre). How many were tortured? Do you recall that Hussein publically offered cash awards to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis? The specific lame-ass conspiratorial connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida is wrong and only W and Rummey believe it. What is not lame and what is indeniable is the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein share a method, namely terror, and a goal, namely domination by destruction of reason.

Yet american contracters in iraq? they wouldn't have gotten killed if they had not been where they don't belong

Where exactly do humans "belong"? Why is it that a human born in the US does not "belong" in Iraq if he can find employment there, but a human born in Iran or Turkey does "belong" in Iraq for the same reason. It's undeniable that American contractors would not have been killed if they were not there -- your assumptions regarding where people "belong" should be reexamined. The logical extension of that is that European-Americans do not "belong" in the US, Israelis do not "belong" in Israel, Hungarians do not "belong" in Hungary, and so on.

People have a right to be anywhere on Earth, as long as they are not trespassing on a specific individual's property.

[Spearmint]

What angers me the most at the moment is that the US media have made a nightly point for over a month of repeatedly reshowing numerous Abu Ghraib photos, but showed only fragmentary pictures of Nick Berg's execution once, period. They did not feel that it was "appropriate" to show the barbarous act of sawing off a man's head, so that people could see what exactly we are dealing with.

I was under the impression that the more graphic photos from Abu Ghraib have not featured in the media.

[F*ckCommunism]

Do you know how many people in Iraq were killed by Saddam Hussein? Recall the gassing of Halabja, for example (his largest single-day massacre). How many were tortured? Do you recall that Hussein publically offered cash awards to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis? The specific lame-ass conspiratorial connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida is wrong and only W and Rummey believe it. What is not lame and what is indeniable is the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein share a method, namely terror, and a goal, namely domination by destruction of reason.

if you think that is why W sent the troops over, maybe you should re-examine your premise... really, americans need oil... irag has the oil... if this was about weapons of mass destruction or the mistreatment and massacre of people, then wouldn't he also attack N. Korea, wouldn't he have sent the armies to stop the massacres in Africa, Tibet and China? There is injustice throughout the entire world, yet W seems occupied with solving it in the oil rich countries...

Where exactly do humans "belong"? Why is it that a human born in the US does not "belong" in Iraq if he can find employment there, but a human born in Iran or Turkey does "belong" in Iraq for the same reason. It's undeniable that American contractors would not have been killed if they were not there -- your assumptions regarding where people "belong" should be reexamined. The logical extension of that is that European-Americans do not "belong" in the US, Israelis do not "belong" in Israel, Hungarians do not "belong" in Hungary, and so on.

People have a right to be anywhere on Earth, as long as they are not trespassing on a specific individual's property.

The Iraqi rebels seem to be responding to an extreme situation with extreme answers... i don't condone beheading, but i tell you, were the us army to occupy my province because they had the right to take NB air, lumber, water or power, i'd be kind of upset as well...

[Spearmint]

if you think that is why W sent the troops over, maybe you should re-examine your premise... really, americans need oil... irag has the oil... if this was about weapons of mass destruction or the mistreatment and massacre of people, then wouldn't he also attack N. Korea, wouldn't he have sent the armies to stop the massacres in Africa, Tibet and China? There is injustice throughout the entire world, yet W seems occupied with solving it in the oil rich countries...

If this war was primarilly for oil, then it would be the most expensive oil ever bought in the history of the world. I would say that the invasion more was more strategical than anything else; Saddam probably wasn't that great a threat to America in himself, but the Middle East as a whole most certainly is, and even the greatest of campaigns have to start with a single battle. The Iraq war had been planned for at least a decade, but recent events have certainly played a part in increasing the sense of urgency.

[DavidV]

Is it me, or have peaceniks surreptitiously switched from claiming that the war fought for lower oil prices to claiming that it was for higher oil prices?

[F*ckCommunism]

I do not ban people for their view per se, but the next time you imply that the war in Iraq was fought for air, lumber, water … or oil, I am going to ban you on the spot in light of your ignoring all evidence and arguments to the contrary, not to mention the prices at your local gas station.

I never said it was for PRICE of oil, but meant that the war, started to save the iraq people from more death and destruction at the hands of the a tyrannical despot, to fight terrorism, to bring the light of democracy to the darkened corners of the middle east, is a cover... your american army is fighting for control of a very important bit of fossil fuel VITAL to the economy of the united states, vital to the wealth and economic well being of Bush's cronies (Bush Sr.'s friends)...

Who cares how much the oil costs as long as they have the control over it. What Bush and his pals want most is POWER, And OIL=POWER.

when i mentioned air, water and lumber, i meant because i live in New Brunswick, and those are our natural resources... i do not think the war is being fought for lumber or water, that would be silly...

Since Bush declared war i have stood by my opinion that THIS war is wrong... I supported the attack on Afghanistan in answer to the 9/11 events... but the reasons for the iraq invasion were never fully honest, from the claims of weapons of mass destruction to the purpoted link of Saddam to Al Quaida (sp?).

As for the banning, i give up... go ahead... i left one church that deified its founder and stumbled across another form of founder-worship... "true believers everywhere, whatever the object of their belief, are unwilling to criticize their deity."

I had enjoyed discussing current events with more rational people than i am blessed to associate with (most of my friends are hippies, punks and socialists), so thanks to all!

[oldsalt]

If all we were interested in was the oil in Iraq, we would have simply left Saddam in power and lifted the sanctions. Use your head and read something else besides wherever it is you get your information. Your assessment reads like every left-liberal handout I've seen.

I am not one who says that the oil isn't an important factor in every move we make in the Middle East. Can you tell me why it shouldn't be? Our entire economy -- and Canada's, by the way -- depends on oil to fuel it. So, I may add, does our ability to protect ourselves. It was the West that discovered and developed the oil fields in the Middle East. It was the despots who stole it. Or don't you believe in property rights?

Of course, if you were really concerned about the part oil is playing in this war, you would be screaming for France, Germany, and Russia to be brought before the International Court. It is they who brought Iraq to war by trying to protect their illegal deals. It was France, in particular, who told Saddam not to worry, that they would block America from attacking. They made him think he could win, and we all lost because of it. All of these countries needed to hide the fact that they were complicit in the corrupt Oil-for-Food program. There is even a question of your own ex-PM being involved. You don't suppose that would have anything to do with their protests against the US? Hmmmmm?

While Iraq was not directly responsible for 9-11, it was responsible for adhering to the cease-fire that it signed with us. It was Saddam who tried to kill an ex-president. It was Saddam who murdered a US Air Force pilot who had been taken as prisoner-of-war and never heard from again. International law meant nothing to the bloody tyrant, not in the conduct of the Gulf War, not in the cease-fire he signed, not in the human rights of his own citizens, not in the genocide he committed against the Kurds, and not in his consistent refusal to cooperate with the UN inspectors, which he agreed to do. And please don't bring up WMD. If he had really destroyed all of those weapons and didn't prove to the inspectors that he did so, it is on his head, not America's. There is too much evidence to show that he didn't destroy them, but hid and/or moved them to Syria.

Is your complaint that this man isn't still in power? Do you think that those who are "resisting" do so for the sovereignty of Iraq? How, then, do you explain the presence of al Qaeta, Syrian, and especially Iranian forces? Do you not recognize the power-plays going on there? How do you explain the fact that the rebels are targeting Iraqis?

Go to the Iraqi blogs and hear something else besides the claptrap you've obviously been listening to.

There were good strategic reasons for going into Iraq. For one thing, we already had a presence there. We already had cause to go in (and had legitimacy under international law to go in as soon as Saddam threw the inspectors out). We knew that Saddam had terrorist camps set up and functioning. We knew he paid money to terrorists and had al Qaeta terrorists living in Iraq. Both of these facts have been proven to be true, though the media and certain politicians don't care to mention it.

Again, we didn't start this war, it was declared against us. The enemy isn't merely one state, but an ideology that is spread throughout the world, and thus must be fought throughout the world. But the roots of the bloody tree are in the Middle East. Having troops in Iraq, with Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia around us makes sense. And as for the deaths, I would rather the terrorists fight us on their own ground and not mine. I would rather they gather to do battle with armed forces, not unarmed innocents who are merely going about their business.

Having ranted about all of that, I will say that I don't like the way the war is being conducted. I am a student of history and everything I've learned through my studies tells me that we are setting ourselves up for a much bloodier war than was necessary in the beginning. Don't think, though, that your own country will be able to sit on the sidelines and offer nothing but self-righteous pontification forever. If America loses, the world is lost to another dark ages. Already the third battle of Vienna is being waged and Europe is losing the battle.

I'm no fan of President Bush. I think he has made critical mistakes. Going into Iraq wasn't one of them, though. (How he's handled it since, is.) Bush didn't start this war, however. Blaming him isn't going to change that fact that you and I are infidels worthy of nothing but death. Trying to pick one terrorist state and separate it out from all the rest as untouchable isn't going to change it. Agreeing with the terrorist propaganda isn't going to change it, but it will prolong the war and has the power to defeat those who stand between you and sharia law or a beheading.

Lastly, none of the countries you mentioned attacked us. Saddam did, or have you forgotten the daily attacks on our fly-boys in the no-fly zone -- against the signed cease-fire agreement. (Or does that agreement, signed not just with America, but with the UN, mean nothing to you?) And, if we had sent troops into the countries you mentioned, do you honestly think that the world would not have screamed just as loudly against it as they are screaming now about Iraq? No matter what America does, it is deemed evil. The only choice is to pick our battles based on our own national interest. That national interest isn't for other countries to determine or dictate. It isn't your country or your countrymen who have been repeatedly attacked since 1979.

I apologize for the scatter-shot nature of this post. I know it could be much better, but I'm not going to take the time it would take me to better organize it. Please just except it for the disorganized screed it is, the fact of which doesn't change my meaning.

[Yes]

People have a right to be anywhere on Earth, as long as they are not trespassing on a specific individual's property.

Perhaps so, but the foreign governments have to have the same commitment to protect individual rights that America does. Realistically, that is not so.

Given the turmoil in the Middle East, the governments are unable to ensure the protection of individuals there. Therefore, Americans and their businesses are working at great peril to their own lives there.

[chuckles]

At least the Saudi Police acted fast. Now, considering the amount of fanatism and wish for matyrdom, the death of al-Muqrin (the former ringleader of the al-qaeda) will in no way serve as a deterrent to the renagading saudis. While the American government can force its citizens out of Saudi, it is its responsibility to warn of imminent dangers faced by Americans who still choose to reside in Saudi Arabia.

[Hannibal]

The reason this keeps happening is because we're willing to compromise with the terrorists. We can't keep pussy-footing around like this.

[Silent Bob]

The reason this keeps happening is because we're willing to compromise with the terrorists.  We can't keep pussy-footing around like this.

How are we compromising? If anything we are not willing to back down. Granted I do not think we can at this point because all that will show is that their tactics are working and they will step it up. Wipe them out for all I care, its just one big pissing contest, and the US has been trying to show terrorists whose boss for over two decades, it is to the point now where one side will just have to wipe the other out.

[chuckles]

"Compromise" didnt happen at the Abu Graib prisons. America's fair share of a raw deal if you like, and thats the way its looking.

[DavidOdden]

Perhaps so, but the foreign governments have to have the same commitment to protect individual rights that America does.  Realistically, that is not so.

Given the turmoil in the Middle East, the governments are unable to ensure the protection of individuals there.  Therefore, Americans and their businesses are working at great peril to their own lives there.

No, they don't "have to". They should, but it isn't required that foreign governments respect rights in order for Americans to have the right to exist and work in those foreign countries. It is undeniable that when you are dealing with fundamentally irrational people, you put your life at risk. The irrationality of these Muslim fanatics does not excuse their actions. It does make the outcome more predictable.

It does, in addition, provide a fundamental justification for the US government to protect the rights of its citizens, including those citizens who are in irrational countries.

[oldsalt]

Silent Bob, you ought to have remained silent. A pissing contest? This is how you see it? That's the shallowest assessment I've seen yet.

[chuckles]

Gory pictures.

http://www.koolpages.com/sout19/index.htm

[AshRyan]

The militant Islamists have struck again, this time slicing off the head of American Paul Johnson, Jr. and dumping his body on the streets of Riyadh.

U.S. response: "Americans should leave Saudi Arabia."

Al Qaeda Militants Kill American Hostage

Where are we going to go when the militant Islamists start beheading us in the United States?

I notice that once again, Bush vows that those responsible will be brought to justice.

Yeah, right.

[oldsalt]

Yeah, Ash, that bit of formulaic response lost its power a long time ago, under Clinton. Every time I hear it my stomach turns. It makes me think of that tune from My Fair Lady, "Words, words, words! I'm so sick of words."

I prefer the words spoken by General Powell, during the Gulf War: "First we're going to hunt them down, then we're going to kill them."

[pvtmorriscsa]

The militant Islamists have struck again, this time slicing off the head of American Paul Johnson, Jr. and dumping his body on the streets of Riyadh.

U.S. response: "Americans should leave Saudi Arabia."

Al Qaeda Militants Kill American Hostage

Where are we going to go when the militant Islamists start beheading us in the United States?

Personally, I have a hard time feeling sorry for this guy.

He had three things against him.

1. He was an American

2. He was an "infidel"

3. He was in a country that hates Americans, and hates "infidels"

That fact that he was killed is not surprising to me. What is suprising is that people are amazed he was killed. I harken back to Daniel Pearl, a jewish american reporter. Investigating terrorists in a country that hates Jews, Americans and Reporters.

Any civilian that does not have a swat team as a bodyguards and goes into any muslim country should be nominated for the Darwin Award.

[MisterSwig]

Personally, I have a hard time feeling sorry for this guy. 

He had three things against him.

1.  He was an American

2.  He was an "infidel"

3.  He was in a country that hates Americans, and hates "infidels"

That fact that he was killed is not surprising to me ... Any civilian that does not have a swat team as a bodyguards and goes into any muslim country should be nominated for the Darwin Award.

Does saying that make you feel good about yourself? You, who are so wise in the ways of survival?

[MisterSwig]

At least the Saudi Police acted fast.

I don't trust anything coming out of Saudi Arabia. They are bold-faced liars. And they can't even get their story straight about what happened to Paul Johnson.

[pvtmorriscsa]

Does saying that make you feel good about yourself? You, who are so wise in the ways of survival?

In fact yes. I am always happy with myself, and my ability to survive. The issue is not my happiness however.The issue is not even that Paul Johnson put himself in a place where he might get killed. His living and working in Saudi Arabia was risky behaviour. I am sure he was aware of the risks when he first started living over there. He accepted the risk, and he got killed.

The issue it seems to me is that we are surprised by it, when we should not be. It is not as if he was a private contractor in Europe. He was in the middle east, an area of the world that is overwhelmingly ruled by mystics, attillas, and looters. Being surprised by the actions of muslim wackos, especially when they are only doing what they have always done, is just silly.

To go there as a westerner, and more importantly an American is foolish. I stand by my original statement.