Terrorists kill British hostage: news reports

[Guardian]

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 ” 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

SCUM!!! :rage:

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

Falluja is now surrendering and the reports from inside it indicates that there are at least 400 Saudi, Kawuati, Syrian, Sadanis, Al-Gerians, Morocoans, Jordanians, and other Arabs who have been asked to deport immediately and a safe road has been set out to allow them to leave.

In actual fact the MN forces and the IP should not allow these thugs to escape outside but to capture them as they are a good source to spread terrorism somewhere elese and they are good sources to get more information from them about the other wild dogs.

Victory is becoming close. Samara under controls well as imminently Al-Altyfiya and other areas including Falluja.

Report from inside indicates that the people are preparing big celebration for the Iraqi Police/forces entry to the city to liberate them from the Wahabi terrorists. Celebration will take place for days in the street as far as we know.

We think that this is only achieved by the use of force and we said that before if force used people will fear the strongest. That is why they feared the Zarqawi groups because they intimidate them. So using force for the last few weeks destroyed the thugs and weakened them and the people felt more strong to ask them to leave and so they did. Saying that force only should stop by complete respect to the state's law.

22 area are now waiting to be either submit to that law or the language they understand will be used.
sam | Email | Homepage | 10.08.04 - 6:30 pm | #

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]

3 words
grain of salt

 

[pappy]

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]

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]

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]

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.