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.
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.”
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.
This nonsense is what happens when you fight a war without the principle of winning.
I agree. I’m sick to my stomach over it. Altruism is such a disgrace.
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.
This nonsense is what happens when you fight a war without the principle of winning.
i didnt realize we were fighting a war.
Those with a hard stomach can view the video here.
i didnt realize we were fighting a war.
Then you are as stupid as George W. Bush.
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.
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.
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.
i didnt realize we were fighting a war.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
Here is a link to the recent post of Robert Bidinotto’s Blog. While I don’t agree with everything from Bidiotto, he is on the mark here with regards to the media double standard. He quotes from Jeff Jacoby’s latest column and shows recent NY Times headlines. Its a good piece.