With this whole "US civilian beheaded and video posted on net" thing

[meglamaniac]

I am starting to get fed up, BOTH sides are just being totally hypocritical now.

The US and us Brits wade in going on about how we'll bring peace and freedom and democracy blah blah blah, then we go and torture and humiliate prisoners.
The usurped Iraqi army/militants go on about how we western dogs have no morals and are against god blah blah blah, then they burn corpses of our soldiers and string them from bridges. And this latest thing.

Why can't both sides just admit they're both as bad as each other, and that in each case it's a minority of thier representatives doing these things which then get attributed to every person who's under the same flag?

[/rant]

[edit]
For those who've been living in a hole for a while:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3706081.stm

[Hicks]

Url to the actual choppy choppy ?

[Zar]

as for burning soliders - i dont see how they should have a problem with them doing that. The soliders are invading their country - they see it as their right to burn them.

as for them killing civilians - that is a different matter - although to them, even the people rebuilding their country are working for a foreign government, foreign companies who all profit from rebuilding (and aid the american cause).

The Western governments have more to blame, because they are the people claiming the moral high-ground, and at the same time they are failing on every count.

[Stew]

Those that were burnt and hung from the bridge were constuction workers wernt they?

[ChubbyChecker]

Blair and the White House have already apologised for the whole torture business, it's not like they're saying what was done was right, or endorsed by the majority.

As for the Iraqis, well, they're all ignorant savages anyway

[Hicks]

No they were "security contractors" read mercenaries.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Blair and the White House have already apologised for the whole torture business, it's not like they're saying what was done was right, or endorsed by the majority.

As for the Iraqis, well, they're all ignorant savages anyway

apologies are just to please the public. Bush took his sweet time to apologize. As for blair, he is such a spin monkey that anything coming out of his mouth is just pure and utter bullshit.

i am fairly sure that neither of them care about the atrocities, and if they didnt know better - they probably endorsed them

[Rumad]

anyone got a url for the vid?

[meglamaniac]

Are you really that sick that you want to see an unarmed man having his head cut off?

[Hicks]

Just seen the video Very nasty, especially as he's screaming as they do it PM Rumad.

[Zar]

i just got it from kazaa... type in "nick berg" in search field

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Are you really that sick that you want to see an unarmed man having his head cut off?

people look at that kind of stuff everyday - its not sick as so much morbid curiousity. Like slowing down when going past a disaster f some sort (trian wreck, car crash etc)

I would say its human nature

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Just seen the video Very nasty, especially as he's screaming as they do it PM Rumad.

Thanks hicks - will have a look now

[ChubbyChecker]

PM me too!

[Rumad]

omg thats worse than i expected

Wasnt even a clean strike he suffered bad

[Zar]

just get it from kazaa you oafs

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Why can't both sides just admit they're both as bad as each other

I dont really think that the americans are 'just as bad' as al quaeda, but I suppose we have to keep the moral equivalence flag flying high.

[1-X]

the newspaper report saying they "sawed" his head off as he screamed was enough detail for me

wasn't the knifeman supposed to be some high-ranking "henchman" of Bin Laden? (meaning omg, the war in Iraq could be part of the war on terrorism after all?)

[Dante Hicks]

Well, it's genius really. The fighting in Iraq is about the "war on terror"; basically the invasion has caused a 1000% increase in terrorism in the area...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont really think that the americans are 'just as bad' as al quaeda, but I suppose we have to keep the moral equivalence flag flying high.

Yeah, I don't quite get the whole "they're both as bad as each other". It sounds like something you'd say to very young children in a patronising tone.

In any conflict, it seems highly unlikely you'd get two sides both exactly the same level of evil or whatever.

[Nodrog]

Its more about the long term though. A short term increase in local terrorism would obviously be a small price to pay if the strategical benefits were high enough on a more global scale.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, I don't quite get the whole "they're both as bad as each other". It sounds like something you'd say to very young children in a patronising tone.

In any conflict, it seems highly unlikely you'd get two sides both exactly the same level of evil or whatever.

agreed..

the americans and brits are more evil

[Snurx]

The difference, however, and this is pure spectulation from my side, since nothing has been proven, is that the American goverment officials (CIA agenst, high ranking staff, and so on) are doing those horrible things, while the others does not in any way represent the iraq people in any offical way at least.

[Sandsnake]

if you meant "pure speculation" as in "completely moronic drivel", then I completely agree with you.

I havent seen the video, don't care to. I've already seen a man get his head sawed off and it was quite enough the first time. It takes an rabid animal to do that shit, whatever your intent. Men like that on any side deserve no mercy.

[Mushroom]

Originally Posted by 1-X

the newspaper report saying they "sawed" his head off as he screamed was enough detail for me

Me too :/

[Marilyn Manson]

They said they did it with a knife! How is that even possible?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its more about the long term though. A short term increase in local terrorism would obviously be a small price to pay if the strategical benefits were high enough on a more global scale.

We haven't exactly seen a huge decrease in the amount of international terrorism. I suppose if, for a veritable multitude of reasons, terrorism does decrease in the future it'll be due to the war on terror though.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

They said they did it with a knife! How is that even possible?

I don't really want to know, to be honest.

[queball]

Is snuff even legal? Not that it matters, but it'd be nice to know.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We haven't exactly seen a huge decrease in the amount of international terrorism. I suppose if, for a veritable multitude of reasons, terrorism does decrease in the future it'll be due to the war on terror though.

International terrorism is at a 20 year low, which suggests that the Bush administration has done something right in the last couple of years regarding the war on terror.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Is snuff even legal? Not that it matters, but it'd be nice to know.

This isn't a snuff movie. But if you mean is it legal to show someone be executed, then yeah probably.

More graphic stuff is probably against some sort of restriction or other.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

International terrorism is at a 20 year low, which suggests that the Bush administration has done something right in the last couple of years regarding the war on terror.

How is that defined and/or measured? Why is the word "international" in there? Does it matter if it's international? And does that include terrorism undertaken by states?

Also, source?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

International terrorism is at a 20 year low, which suggests that the Bush administration has done something right in the last couple of years regarding the war on terror.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

How is that defined and/or measured? Why is the word "international" in there? Does it matter if it's international? And does that include terrorism undertaken by states?

Also, source?

And i think you'd have to do a little bit of work establishing a valid causal line of reasoning other than using the "this rock keeps tigers away" option.

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

And i think you'd have to do a little bit of work establishing a valid causal line of reasoning other than using the "this rock keeps tigers away" option.

Where can I buy one of these rocks?

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

How is that defined and/or measured? Why is the word "international" in there? Does it matter if it's international? And does that include terrorism undertaken by states?

Also, source?

The source is a paper recently published by the White House. There are summaries all over the internet. The BBC's summary of it is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3672035.stm

By international I just meant incidents worldwide.

And yes, I do realise that most of the attacks in Iraq are not classed as terrorism under this report.

It's all about the definition baby!

And what do you mean terrorism undertaken by states? If by that you mean for example the Israeli army entering Palestine and blowing up a few buildings then it probably doesn't count as terrorism.

[Stew]

If they're not ****ing Iraq, of course they've gone down, all the terrorists are preoccupied by bein in Iraq!!!

[Structural Integrity]

I guess this is the terrorist version of "shock and awe"... right on your TV and computer...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

And what do you mean terrorism undertaken by states? If by that you mean for example the Israeli army entering Palestine and blowing up a few buildings then it probably doesn't count as terrorism.

Well, I'm counting terrorism as the use of terror against a civlian populace as a political tactic (in order to further particular goals). I'm sure I've argued about this before, but I can't remember what my line was.

Either way, governments can behave in a terroristic fashion; the Colombian government for instance, the Soviet regime, etc...

If we're saying "Our definition of terrorism is when people we don't like blow up our installations" then sure, it might be reduced by massively increasing state violence.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Stew

If they're not ****ing Iraq, of course they've gone down, all the terrorists are preoccupied by bein in Iraq!!!

heh, yeah, I suppose you could draw that conclusion. Although they do count Iraq it's just that when a terrorist attacks a soldier it doesn't count as a terrorist attack, only when he attacks a civilian.

Besides, I'd be more inclined to believe the report's explanation for the decrease:

"He said that last year there had been unprecedented cooperation between the United States and foreign countries to defeat terrorism."

ie third world countries didn't particulary care about terrorism before the US started telling them to care.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Stew

If they're not ****ing Iraq, of course they've gone down, all the terrorists are preoccupied by bein in Iraq!!!

That's arguably a good thing though. All else being equal, I'd rather the terrorists went toe-to-toe with the US military in Iraq than with US civilians in manhatten.*






*Not to be interpreted as an endorsement of New Yorkers.

[Stew]

But what about US/Iraqi civillians in Iraq?

Are you not bein a bit selfish Tact?

[pablissimo]

From a numbers point of view, active terrorism in Iraq is costing less human lives than if it were happening in Manhatten. I don't know that it's selfish so much as coldly logical.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

From a numbers point of view, active terrorism in Iraq is costing less human lives than if it were happening in Manhatten. I don't know that it's selfish so much as coldly logical.

Evidence...?

Sure, if you put the US Army + whomever they're fighting in New York a lot more people would die. But that's not even vaguely like the situation that would occur if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, so I'm not sure why it's being discussed.

[pablissimo]

Set a carbomb off in a lazy Iraqi village, then set one off in downtown Manhatten. Just from population density the Manhatten bomb's more likely to do more damage.

I was only defending Tact =((

[Dante Hicks]

Everyone loves Tact, but that's still not a valid comparison. In the three years since 9/11, how many lives have been lost via terrorism in New York?

How many lives have been lost via terrorism in Iraq in the last few months? How many more if it drags on for another two or so years?

[pablissimo]

We need a kill index.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Everyone loves Tact, but that's still not a valid comparison. In the three years since 9/11, how many lives have been lost via terrorism in New York?

How many lives have been lost via terrorism in Iraq in the last few months? How many more if it drags on for another two or so years?

Those people would have died eventually anyway.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

How many more if it drags on for another two or so years?

Thats kind of optimistic.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Those people would have died eventually anyway.

Technology would develop and make us immortal so you're wrong. Denying the progression of technology makes you a big communist.











I didn't think it was possible to troll yourself on the internet

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I didn't think it was possible to troll yourself on the internet

Sunday8Pwho?