# Terrorists kill British hostage: news reports



## Guardian (8 Oct 2004)

Report: British Hostage Killed in Iraq
Abu Dhabi TV Reports British Hostage Kenneth Bigley Killed in Iraq, but Britain Cannot Confirm

The Associated Press

 DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Oct. 8, 2004 â â€ British hostage Kenneth Bigley has been killed by his captors in Iraq, Abu Dhabi television reported Friday. The British Foreign Office said it could not confirm. 
An editor at Abu Dhabi TV in the United Arab Emirates said the report was based on "informed sources" in Baghdad, but would not comment when asked if a videotape had been received.
Abu Dhabi TV said only that it was confident in its sources and would not say if it had a tape of the killing. There have been past claims about hostages being killed including Bigley that could not be substantiated.

No postings surfaced immediately on Islamic Web sites, where such claims often are posted, about Bigley being killed following the Abu Dhabi report Friday.

In London, a British Foreign Office spokesman said he had no information that would confirm the report.

Bigley, 62, was abducted Sept. 16 with two Americans from their residence in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood by the militant Tawhid and Jihad group, led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Americans, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley, were decapitated. Graphic videos of their slayings were posted on the Internet, along with videotapes of Bigley pleading with Prime Minister Tony Blair to save him.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What can be said?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Oct 2004)

As far as I am concerned, that man was dead they day the captured him.  If you are going to be a Westerner who chooses to live in "an upscale Baghdad neighbourhood", you better be prepared at all times to take decisive action - otherwise you'll just become a victim.


----------



## pappy (8 Oct 2004)

my personal soution to the Iraq and every other terrorist nation.  I'm sure slightly radioactive oil will burn just as well as before.  Plus a tad easyier to pump out of the craters.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Oct 2004)

That's effective.  Use a sledgehammer to remove a cancer.

As much as I may have trumpeted it here before, a Carthaginian peace is the wrong approach to dealing with both terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.


----------



## dutchie (8 Oct 2004)

As awful as the execution of civilians in Iraq is, it is just one life. It has huge impact because we see them on the TV, alive, sometimes begging for their life, or sometimes we see the actual beheadings. There is a reason the killers use beheadings - it creates the most anguish and sympathy, with a minimal amout of risk and work.

While I understand why someone would feel so outraged/angry/distraught over the continued torment and senseless execution of innocent (in our eyes) civilians that they would promote the nuking of an entire nation, I can't help thinking that this reaction is exactly the desired effect sought by the killers in the first place. 

Or, as Infanteer said much more succinctly, "That's effective.   Use a sledgehammer to remove a cancer."


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Oct 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> As awful as the execution of civilians in Iraq is, it is just one life. [/color]



Just one life? I am sure you'd have a different opinion if this man was your Dad! This is the most outragous comment I have heard from you yet, and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying such.

I am sure Pappy's comment, is frustrated "toungue in cheek". Besides, maybe you would feel a tad different if over a 1000 of your countrymen had been killed.

With me these gutless killings, don't promote anquish and sympathy, but just rage, and a serious case of payback, which I am sure is coming, as its just a matter of time until these grubs are caught/shot.

 :


Wes


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

The British ought to send in every available member of the SAS from all the commonwealth nations including the Gurka's (sp).  Not exactly a sledg hammer but perhaps even more effective.


----------



## dutchie (8 Oct 2004)

Just one life? I am sure you'd have a different opinion if this man was your Dad! This is the most outragous comment I have heard from you yet, and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying such.

First of all - settle down. I made a post stating rational, levelheaded thoughts and actions are necessary, and your response was anything but.

 But I will explain what I mean: the beheading of one civilian seems to create just as much outrage as a bombing that kills 100's. I am not suggsting that one life is worthless, but that a beheaded man's life is just as valuable as the life that is ended amongst many in a car bomb. Read my post before you freak out.

And as far as how I would feel if that was my Dad? I can't say, and neither can you. You (or I) could not possibly understand what it's like to have a family member be beheaded by terrorists, so don't preach to me about how I should feel.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

I think its more the way he was killed then the fact that he was killed that is inflaming the west.  I think that although is still would have been tragic, if he were shot the impact would be significantly less.


----------



## dutchie (8 Oct 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> I think its more the way he was killed then the fact that he was killed that is inflaming the west.   I think that although is still would have been tragic, if he were shot the impact would be significantly less.



Bingo CFL.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Oct 2004)

Caesar is right in the sense that proportionality is important.

It may go along way in demonstrating that we have an absolute advantage in firepower, but leveling a city (or a country) in return for random beheadings of individuals would not be justifiable to us as a society on a moral level.

PS:  It is interesting that in this sort of conflict which is fought on the moral level (which some are referring to as "Fourth Generation" or "Non-Trinitarian") that billion dollar bombers are rendered obsolete while one of the most effective weapons is a simple sword.


----------



## dutchie (8 Oct 2004)

It is very interesting, Infanteer, and it will be quite a challenge for all nations, not just the west, to come up with new ways of dealing with 'Rogue Nations' or however you want to characterize them. I know you have given this very topic a lot of thought, but I have some ideas as well:

1)-We must stop thinking in terms of 'nations', but rather 'threat'. In many cases, it is not the government that is the enemy, but elements within a region, crossing national boundaries. Destroying the government in many cases will not produce the desired effect.

2)-We must start thinking about 'cost' and 'benefit'. Despite the rhetoric coming from any number of sources, there is little truth in the statement "At all costs", because everyone has a limit of what they are willing to give up to achieve a result.I am not saying that we have reached that limit, but we should be aware there is one, and ideally, we should know what that limit is (more difficult).

3)-As you indicated, and as the US/Brits are discovering, massive firepower, hi-tech weaponry, and the aggressive use of these does not guarantee victory. This is linked to point # 1. By defeating the Saddam gov, it does nothing to defeat any terrorist threat within the country. In fact, by removing the only stabilizing element (albeit a brutal element), you allow any terrorist to ply their destruction more freely. This is independent of the merits of removing Saddam (which has been discussed ad nauseum). This needs to be addressed.

Thoughts?


----------



## winchable (8 Oct 2004)

"1 person's death is a tragedy, where a million deaths is a statistic."
I hate using old Joe's quotes but that seems to be somewhat pertinent. I have no doubt I'd be outraged, sickened, distressed and saddened to a incomprehensible point if it were my father, but I'd be the same way if he died with thousands of others. I submit that the only difference is, and this is going to piss someone off, alot other people would be less sickened and outraged by the latter of the two.



> I think its more the way he was killed then the fact that he was killed that is inflaming the west.  I think that although is still would have been tragic, if he were shot the impact would be significantly less.


I'm thinking that infanteer can, if he gets the chance and wants to, post his thoughts regarding the different "mechanisms" we possess regarding war, death and killing in general, which also seems pertinent.

I sicken myself by discussing someones death as it relates to politics, but...



> 1)-We must stop thinking in terms of 'nations', but rather 'threat'. In many cases, it is not the government that is the enemy, but elements within a region, crossing national boundaries. Destroying the government in many cases will not produce the desired effect



Spot on, prior to western colonialism the near-east was a big "sandbox" (so sorry to use that term,) largely without borders. Where we (the west, I hate the term) are fighting in terms of nation-states the enemy/insurgents/terrorists if you want, are fighting without regard to borders. Of course we only have ourselves (apply that as you wish) to blame for that, it is our invention of the nationstate which has given us the inability to fight in the same way.



> 2)-We must start thinking about 'cost' and 'benefit'. Despite the rhetoric coming from any number of sources, there is little truth in the statement "At all costs", because everyone has a limit of what they are willing to give up to achieve a result.I am not saying that we have reached that limit, but we should be aware there is one, and ideally, we should know what that limit is (more difficult).



Exactly, What is the point of fighting for a planet waiting out a half-life?
How far are we going to go to be able to say "we won" even though it would most likely be the start of an entirely new conflict?



> 3)-As you indicated, and as the US/Brits are discovering, massive firepower, hi-tech weaponry, and the aggressive use of these does not guarantee victory. This is linked to point # 1. By defeating the Saddam gov, it does nothing to defeat any terrorist threat within the country. In fact, by removing the only stabilizing element (albeit a brutal element), you allow any terrorist to ply their destruction more freely. This is independent of the merits of removing Saddam (which has been discussed ad nauseum). This needs to be addressed



Different kind of war fighting it the old way won't work. 
I read somewhere that a counter-insurgency that lasts 12 years is a *short* one, and I believe that alot of people are getting caught in the trappings that this war could be fought like the other "great" wars of our century(Or the previous one I suppose) in 5 years until one nation gives in. This relates to the "We're not fighting a nationstate" argument.
Wes often states "We're in for the long haul." and I think that needs to be taken quite literally regarding Iraq and any other conflict in the middle east really, really literally. If you consider that historically few important wars affecting the known world last as long as many of the wars modern historians care to remember than we really are in for the LOONG haul and we can't keep looking to short term goals and short term victory.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2004)

SCUM!!! :rage:


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2004)

Check out this take on Ken Bigley's murder.  It is posted by a chap name of Sam who claims to be an Iraqi.  He posts on http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

This comes from a comment he posted updating one of today's articles.




> Alan and others
> See this important report below please
> The new reports says that the killers beheaded KB (May God give his family peace and his soul mercy and comfort) in Al-Latyifiyah south Baghdad where the MN forces and IP fought a special type of war against the thugs. It has been said that KB was nearly freed by these forces and so the thugs killed him prior to that and after 66 of them killed and other captured.
> 
> ...



He has suggested elsewhere that the recent uptick in MNF activities is having an effect in Fallujah and also that there has been a noticeable outmigration of Islamic foreigners at Iraqs borders.  Also there is apparent infighting amongst the thugs with Zarqawi on the outside looking in. 

His posts also state that the remaining "patriotic" thugs have announced that if only they could get all 7000 of themselves to co-operate then they could throw out the infidels.  Kind of a dumbass move to publicly announce how many of you there are don't you think?  If true.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

3 words
grain of salt


----------



## pappy (9 Oct 2004)

First I'll say a couple of my post have stirred the **** and ruffled a few feathers.  If I offended anyones sensibilities, that was not my attention.  War is a serious business, and should only be a last resort, I'm sure all of us will agree with that.  No one really wants to do it, it just has to be done.

But we do have to be able to step back at times from the insanity of war and at times this insanity can be buffered a bit with some distance and a sense of humor.  A sense of humor most civilians don't and never will understand.  War is a serious and dangerous occupation, stepping back at times and looking back at the horror with a sense of humor is the only way we can survive.

Sometimes I think we forget war is killing, plain and simple.  They want to kill us, we want to kill them before they do.  An over simplification, yes. We all join the service for our own reasons.  But in the end we fight for those that stand along side of us. To keep them alive and they the same.

Terrorism is a tactic in war, its a weapon used against the enemy.  Lets not kid ourselves this is not a war againest Terrorism, its a war against extremist Muslim fundamentalist.
(and yes Saddam had to go period.  It should have been done in 1991.  We will be fighting the Muslim extremist for years to come in Syria, Iran and other places in the middle east.  We couldn't have conducted these future operations with Saddam being at our backs.)

These are the same people that killed 244 of my fellow Marines in Beirut in 1983, that slaughter Innocent athletes at the 72 Munich Olympics, push an old Jewish American man off a curse ship in the Mediterranean, blew up embassies in Africa, blew up the USS Cole, trained and fought with the Militias in Somalia, hijacked planes since the 1970s, the list is almost endless.  Some might even say this can be traced back hundreds of years, when Muslim tribes kidnapped westerners along the coasts of Algeria and Tripoli for ransom.  The causes for the problems of todays middle east can be spread widely over all nations equally, western and Muslim.

Some feel this is Americas war.  What if we Americans had said that to the Allies in WW1, WW2, Korea....  Canada, Britain and others came to our aid just as we came to yours.  Just as we both will continue to.

Its sad civilians die in war, name one war they haven't.  That of course doesn't make it right, it's just a side effect of the insanity war is.  My point of the nuke, yes a little humor, but also a statement that we need to win this war, with as much commitment as our fathers and uncles fought WW2.  You have to win at all costs.

US, British and Canadian pilots dropped bombs by the thousands on German and Japanese cities, killing thousands in the process. (as of course they did to us too)  In one raid 1000 B-29's hit Tokyo with HE and Fire Bombs, fire storms with winds of over 100-150 mph killed 1000's.  This is acceptable to some, but sending one plane with one nuke was somehow wrong? or excessive? 

Sending riflemen in mass waves againest the machine guns in the trenches in WW1, insanity by todays tactics, but it happened over and over.  It's what they had to do to win.

Films, TV, novels, etc. make hero's out of pilots dog fighting the skys shooting the enemy down.  Planes shot down counted, "kill marks" painted on the side of the winners planes.
This is socially acceptable in our societies.  But the Sniper killing the enemy with one shot is somehow wrong?  (Granted as one commented the photo of a solider holding a served head is a bit over the top, but isn't each one of those painted "kill marks" on the planes a trophy in the same way? a man was flying the plane that was shot down.)

We watch TV and see gun camera footage of bombs being drooped on "targets" or cannon fire taking out enemy troops, this is OK? but one shot to some unsuspecting enemy solider is not acceptable?

If my comments in some of my posts where not politically correct and offended some, then I apologize to them.


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Oct 2004)

Pappy ,I'm from Liverpool and have been chatting with my family back home and the whole of Mersey  Side is in utter shock over this.
I all's I can say is "Look out,Scouser's are Pissed Off!"
When you Piss off the Scouser's London listen's.
Wait out and I think we will see some results.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

Scouser is what???

Can you win a war against a extremist enemy through "civilied" methods?  Or do you have to become just as extreme to defeat them?

"Sometimes I think we forget war is killing, plain and simple.  They want to kill us, we want to kill them before they do.  An over simplification, yes. We all join the service for our own reasons.  But in the end we fight for those that stand along side of us. To keep them alive and they the same."

Its this that our public and gov't have seem to forgotten or at the very least try not to think about.


----------



## Marauder (9 Oct 2004)

I think for each beheading, 25 prisoners in Abu Gharib should befall the same fate. No matter the opinion of how and why they got there, the troops on the ground need to be given the go ahead to reslove this thing and get home. And I think the time for half measures and feel goods are waaaay past. I can just hear the self-rightous  indignation from some corners right now, but victory in this situation means getting blood on the hands.

And if you're a white dude living in Baghdad, for Christ's sake, use your head and plan for these bastards looking to take you alive. Fight back with overwhleming violence or don't get taken alive. Simple as that.


----------



## winchable (9 Oct 2004)

Terribly sorry you find indignation to be self-righteous but if you lot ruled the world I'm afraid we'd be just as bad off as we are now.

So we execute 25 prisoners at Abu Graib for every beheading, this helps how?
There's getting blood on the hands in the process, and there's going out of the way to get blood on the hands because one genuinely wants to.
Execution of prisoners without access to fair trial goes against every reason the Americans are there. To bring the liberty, Justice and rights that Americans enjoy and that Saddam denied. WMD's Aside(Remember those?) if they can't even be there for the second reason they came up with then all they're going to do is prove every hippy leftist bleeding heart correct in their assumption that they don't belong there.

All irrational knee-jerk arguments cannot argue with the underlying fact that the Americans are there to bring the freedoms that they enjoy at home and one cannot pick and choose who those freedoms apply to without undermining those same principles and freedoms.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Oct 2004)

Since it seems to be rolling that way (and Che requested it) I'll share some of my thoughts on the issues of beheadings from a different discussion:

---

I believe a modern Western society can prove to be stronger if it sticks to its convictions.  If we stick to what we believe in, apply it fairly to the enemy, and eliminate him with extreme prejudice, we can keep the moral highground and be sure that we can stay the course and still maintain what we are fighting to protect at the end of the conflict.

Just because beheading people as a form of punishment is not in our modus operandi does not mean Western society is a less effective killing machine.  Just as we revile their methods of suicide bombings and beheadings of civilians, they are equally reviled by our methods of dropping laser guided bombs on them from 15,000 ft or balaclava'd troops swooping in on helicopters to execute targets.  It's the ability to stay the course that is the key.

So much of how societies organize to fight and apply force upon eachother is wrapped up in culture.  Look at the writings of Keegan and Victor Davis Hanson to get a idea of this in the grand scheme of things.  We would do well to heed that notion when we contemplate "cutting their heads off with a dirty knife".

Since culture is such a force behind the doctrine and dogma of how people fight, what does this mean to us?  It gives us, as members of a Western society, our own peculiar approaches to ideas such as the individual, command relationships, application of force, surrender, treatment of the defeated (That is why we in the West seem to be the only ones who want to play by the Geneva Conventions).  I remember reading an article a while back that stated that the beheading of prisoners was a psychological tactic employed at the cultural level; cultures on the Oriental/Occidental divide (ie: East/West) have always been keen to use the scimitar in the execution of justice, whether it be a head or a hand.  This style of killing people is "normal" (if you could call it that) to cultures in SW Asia.  We, in the West, have historically been more keen to hanging people by the neck, or using firing squads.  I don't know if I'm taking this too far, and I am unsure of the root causes of these sorts of things (it's probably buried in centuries of social and psychological evolution), but I think we need to heed this phenomenon.

There is "thinking outside of the box" and then there is "refusing to recognize the box at all".  The proposal to "cut their head off with a dirty knife" may seem like a measure of alternative attacks on the enemy, but I have a feeling that adapting such tactics, with all its inherent cultural baggage, may do us more harm then good.  This could be real, psychological trauma to the poor guy who has to lop the head off of some terrorist, the commander who carries out the punishment, and society which bears the knowledge that it is condoning such acts of reprisal.

In essence, our society has the cultural mechanisms to deal with an AC-130 hovering over and vaporizing scores of terrorist in the middle of the night; this comes out of the way our culture has evolved in its "way of war."  I don't believe we possess the same mechanisms to deal with the proposal to "cut their heads off with a dirty knife"; just as we don't possess the mechanisms to deal with strapping explosives to Pte. Bloggins and sending him into a market to immolate himself and anyone around him.

I know I've rebutted the use of this quote before, but I think it applies here:

_He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche_ 

Who we are, the monster or the fighter, is irrelevant.  The important factor is that we are gazing into an abyss, aspects of the other culture which are so foreign to us, and we must remember who we are, whether it is monster or fighter.

Moreover, I believe that cultural conceptions of war determine our social outlook on "styles" of fighting.  Look at the way suicide bombers are treated in the society from which the came from; they are celebrated as heros.  The cultural mechanism that supports this is the enormously strong undertow of Islam; of which many of its interpretations define suicide bombing as martyrdom and entry to heaven.  They are looked upon as true "warriors" of their society.

This isn't unique to Islamic cultures and sub-cultures either; just look at the Japanese Kamikaze of WWII and the ceremonial significance of their sacrifice.

Now take the laser-guided bomber.  Look at the social and historical aspects of this form of fighting.  Highly technological and sometimes indiscriminate.  Bravery, skills to return alive, "Knights of the Air" dogfighting, Memphis Belle, the dashing aviator.  These are all cultural mechanisms surrounding the form of Air War we've developed.  As such, vaporizing a Hezbollah leader with a laser-guided bomb or firebombing a city may seem "cowardly" to an enemy with a culture that does not have the mechanisms to process that type of violence.  Just as you won't see Western societies have icons such as manuals on suicide bombings, pictures of babies with explosive belts, and rewards for the families of martyrs; you won't see Islamic societies developing icons like Douhet, the Enola Gay, and Top Gun.

You could apply this throughout history.  I bet you the Aztec's thought the Spanish cowardly for fighting from horses, engaging in ranged combat with rifles, and trying to kill instead of capture for sacrifice. 

Is it relative?  Sure.  There is no spectrum of "effective", "just", or "better" ways of fighting.  The violence we chose to wreck upon ourselves as humans is totally dependent on factors in the time and space we occupy.  We simply fight the way we know best.  The fact that it is what we know best doesn't make it more superior or moral then other forms.  However, simply trying to graft on aspects of how others fight into our unique paradigm of warfighting may have unintended consequences.  Consider it akin to introducing some new, violent species into a closed ecosystem; the consequences are often dramatic.

With regards to the carpet bombings of WWII:  In the situation of Total War, which in our conception has evolved out of our Industrial-era society and politics of citizenship and nationalism, the entire populace of a society is mobilized for war.  They become weapons, in a sense, and thus become legitimate targets.  I have no qualms about attacks such as the Firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden in the Second World War; although their effectiveness is debatable in purely military terms, I think their are alot of other factors involved which are unique to the idea of "total war".  This is why no one really complains about the bombings of cities (some revisionists like to) or the dropping of the Atomic bombs; these were justified in a total war.

However, my opinion is that we are not involved in a total war situation with Iraq or with the terrorists.  Although I may lament the somewhat lackluster and intermittent support of the general population, we are in essentially a expeditionary major regional contingency.  Since we are not in total war, I don't believe the flattening of Fallujah with arc-light strikes is justified (I know I've brought this up a few times before, I admit upon reflection that I was wrong) under the nature of the conflict we are in.  Hammering Hiroshima and Nagasaki with total destruction saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives of our soldiers (including Canadians, who were scheduled to join) in the invasion of an island in which, culturally, the notion of driving peasants to the beaches with pitchforks was not completely unheard of.  Clearly, we don't face that sort of dilemma at this point in time.

Proportionality is an important factor in our way of war.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2004)

When civilians enter into a war zone, they do so of their own volition. They have to accept that they are in the same danger as the uniformed soldier. Most, not all, of the NGO's feel that human nature would dictate that they be treated fairly. This is not the case. If their organization cannot provide them with private security, they shouldn't be there. If they are, and get snapped, it's of their own doing. I feel genuinely sorry for any that have died as a result, but if the dollar is your motivation, then be prepared to take your chances. They should not be prepared to go quietly into the night.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

Its not so black and white for those that go over because they have no employment in their own country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2004)

No matter what the case, you always have a choice.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

The choice for you and your family to starve vs going to a distant land in which you can earn the money to feed them isn't much of a choice.


----------



## dutchie (9 Oct 2004)

Not all civies working in war zones are forced to go due to financial hardship in their own countries. Some do it for the huge $US salaries, some for the excitment (I assume). 

I know of one former CF soldier who went over to do security work. He made HUGE dough. He was not destitute, but was drawn by the money and the excitment. 

But I agree - if you go to Iraq as a civie contractor or as an aid worker for an NGO, you better: a)- have competant, well armed secirity or b)-run the risk of being abducted and possibly executed. Not to say that one deserves that fate, but you should know and understand the risks before you go.


----------



## pappy (9 Oct 2004)

In what country are people "forced" to join the service or starve?  I'm sure your not talking about the US, if you think that is the reason people join the service here you have a incrediblly burred vision of US socitiety.  The Unemployment rates in the US are lower then most if not all other western nations.  I doubt people in Canada or Britian also have to choose between starving or joining the service. If the economy in Canada was that bad I'm sure there would be scores of people crossing the border looking for work as there is with Mexico.

The "conric" unemployed here, high school drop outs, drugies, etc.  hardly will pass todays miliitary requirerments.  

One can make more money on welfare, food stamps or seiling drugs on the street then in the Service. I venture minimum wage in the US pays higher then the military considering the hours one has to work.  And only a few McDonalds are people shooting at you there.

Considering the durg culture growing in BC Canada, this option I'm sure is chosen more then starvation.


Considering the US, and I assume Canada and Britian too, are still countries that people from all over the world are willing to die trying to get into.  As proven by the waves of imigrants flooding out across our borders, some even walking across 100's of miles of desert in the middle of summer.

It does seem that Canada and Britian do keep tighter reins on thier imigration.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

If your talking to me I was refering to civilians going oversea's because providing for their families in their own home land doesn't provide that.  Not military members or body guards but more so the truck drivers and such and from any country.


----------



## pappy (10 Oct 2004)

thanks for the cleaification.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2004)

Great post (and insight) Infanteer. I often find myself re-evaluating my opinion or stance on things after reading your work.


I agree beheading someone is a horrific thing to do.  
I also think it's horrific that the same people up in arms over the beheading of a citizen can seemingly shrug their shoulders at the news of one of our bombs wiping out a wedding party or building with men women and children inside. That's if they noticed at all. 


I'm an asshole. I caught myself doing that this morning. Flipping through the channels I caught something about the most recent beheading. I thought 'man I wish we could catch some of those guys and tie them up to 4 cars then pull them apart'. A little bit later i caught some footage about an american bomb hitting a building full of citizens in iraq where they were pulling out twisted bodies of children. First thing that came to my mind was 'wow theres probably not many buildings left in that city'. 

Having a sense of humor is mandatory for survival in the military. All soldiers know that.  I think theres still a point of good taste or being grounded in reality (I can't think of the proper term to use here).  Having a sense of humor is one thing. Laughing about a picture of a guy about to have his brains blown out by a sniper or comments like ya we should nuke the whole country isn't very funny in my opinion. 
I think I posted this example here before. I was at the movies in kingston watching the opening scene of 'The hunted' and it was a bunch of civilians being murdered by serbians during the kosovo airstrikes. The assholes in front of me, students from RMC, started laughing  and making jokes until I had a few words with them. That whole 'hoorah gung hoe ya kill them all haha that guy just got shot' attitude isn't for me.  I think a big problem is that people don't know how to react or their too afraid to see something and say 'wow holy shit' and let people see that they have a heart. 

I think the whole US vs THEM mentality is a very bad one to have. I'm trying to get away from it myself. I'm certain thats the mentality shared by suicide bombers and kidnappers and what lets them justify doing the horrible things they do.


----------



## Acorn (12 Oct 2004)

pappy said:
			
		

> These are the same people that killed 244 of my fellow Marines in Beirut in 1983, that slaughter Innocent athletes at the 72 Munich Olympics, push an old Jewish American man off a curse ship in the Mediterranean, blew up embassies in Africa, blew up the USS Cole, trained and fought with the Militias in Somalia, hijacked planes since the 1970s, the list is almost endless.   Some might even say this can be traced back hundreds of years, when Muslim tribes kidnapped westerners along the coasts of Algeria and Tripoli for ransom.   The causes for the problems of todays middle east can be spread widely over all nations equally, western and Muslim.



Actually, they aren't the "same people" though the tactics of terrorism are the same. By that argument, they are the same people who kidnapped and murdered British soldiers in 1946-47, blew up the King David Hotel and the British Embassy in the same period, among other things.

Here's some food for thought:
Is it terrorism to kill military personnel on active duty? 
Is suicide automatically terrorism if it intends to kill military personnel?

Most of us would recognise that "terrorism" includes deliberate attacks against non-combatants. If we include attacks, even by stealth, guile or deception, against soldiers and military installations we have to include the following in the pantheon of terrorists:
The OSS/SIS/Jedburgh teams of WWII
Most WWII Partisan/resistance organisations
The SAS
US SF/Recon/LRRP teams
Haganah
Irgun/Stern Gang (actually, some of the acts of this lot are clearly terrorist)

I could go on, but I think that's sufficient for my point.

The above is why we get the cliché "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." IMO, that is a cliché we must avoid. We need to define what a terrorist is and what a freedom fighter is. Clearly, many (all) Iraqi insurgents believe themselves in the latter category, and equally as clearly they do not all fit into that category, but some may. There is a funadmental difference between the individual that risks life and limb (or commits suicide) to attack an armed enemy (i.e. US Marines) and one that targets a bus-load of kids/shoppers/tourists. The latter fits the terrorist lable. 

I think Infanteer touched on the root of the problem by identifying the cultural differences (or alluding to them). Arabs are still, more or less, a tribal, nomadic, culture. Such cultures revere the individual warrior much more than we do. We also admire sacrifice in war, though we don't encourage it in the same way. We are the products of an industrial society, and we fight in an industrial manner. 

Anyway, my train of thought is about to derail due to fatigue, so I'll shut up before I go any further.

Acorn


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

The SAS and US SF/Recon/LRRP teams are military organizations subject to their governments will.  So I wouldn't classify them as terrorists and I (although at the moment I have no evidence) would wager that their "targets" had strategic tactical merit.


----------



## Acorn (12 Oct 2004)

OSS et.al. targets had strategic merit as well.

The question I ask is should terrorism be defined by the act or the actor? Does the wearing of a uniform and action with government sanction absolve one of terrorism charges? If so, where do those who have no government or autonomy fit (i.e. Kurds under Saddam, Jews under Colonial Britain, any country occupied by the Nazis)?

Acorn


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

Well here is the dictionary version: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.


----------



## Goober (12 Oct 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The question I ask is should terrorism be defined by the act or the actor? ...



I would say act. Ex. If you have one man who hunts down, and beheads convicted rapists, and he is not apart of any govt org, he is called a vigilante. If you have the same man use a bomb to blow up a building housing civilians, and a daycare center, he is a terrorist. Same man, no affiliation to any organization, but it was his actions that defined him.

If you have some civilians get together to attack military targets and personnel, I don't think you can call them terrorists, unless they attack civilians or other non military targets for the purpose of destruction.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2004)

But..... if you have person A, who attacks only military targets and person B, who attacks innocent civilians, both in the same organization. What is said organization, terrorist or resistance, and is person A guilty by association?


----------



## winchable (13 Oct 2004)

> the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.



Pretty vague and subjective I suppose.
Hundreds of different situations could fit that sentence I think,
The word Terrorism in general is in great danger of becoming the new centuries "communism"
Which detracts from its value and from those who were victims of it.

But this argument could go in circles really if you think about it.
Does a plane dropping napalm on a village cause as much terror in the hearts of civilians as a damn fool driving a car into an embassy?
Both are means of coercion that cause terror, but I doubt there is a majority of people who would refer to the former as terrorism.

In that sense the word becomes quite subjective and makes it nearly impossible to give a inambiguous definition.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)

Watch the documentary "The Fog Of War"
Robert McNamara said that had they lost the war he would have been tried as a war criminal for his actions in the fire bombing of Japan during WW2.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Oct 2004)

That is an excellent documentary.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)

Very insightful.  Esp the blurb about the Cubans already having nukes and Castro was more then willing to use them.  The extra's are also illuminating.


----------

