Paul Johnson executed
June 18, 2004 1:26 PM Subscribe
Body of Paul Johnson found in Riyadh. Johnson, a New Jersey native, was a contractor working in Saudi Arabia.
It appears that he was beheaded, and his execution was photographed and posted on a web site.
and no pictures! good work there marko
posted by bob sarabia at 1:40 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by bob sarabia at 1:40 PM on June 18, 2004
If his death was anything like Nick Berg's, "beheaded" is too gentle a description. I feel terribly sorry for his family. I heard his son on the radio this morning pleading to save his father's life -- it was gut wrenching. This is just very, very sad. But then again, Paul Johnson was a "contractor," and he worked on Apache helicopters, or something. I'm sure I'll be informed that the blame for this falls squarely at the feet of the U.S., not those who sawed off his head.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:57 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by pardonyou? at 1:57 PM on June 18, 2004
The really appaling part was watching the MSN tag that read "time running out for American hostage" change to "Terrorists claim to have beheaded hostage", and then for it to become the banner story, all in a period of 20 minutes flat. I'm just not comfortable with being an online voyeur to a murder. Mental horror and dismay, in the goodness of scripted real time.
And yeah, this is a pretty sucky post.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:01 PM on June 18, 2004
And yeah, this is a pretty sucky post.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:01 PM on June 18, 2004
I'm sure I'll be informed that the blame for this falls squarely at the feet of the U.S., not those who sawed off his head.
I'm sure you won't. But don't let your sadness get in the way of making a cheap point.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:01 PM on June 18, 2004
I'm sure you won't. But don't let your sadness get in the way of making a cheap point.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:01 PM on June 18, 2004
Even though this is headline news on every major news source, I'm glad it was posted here, so we all say whether we are pro or anti beheading.
I'm against it, by the way.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:11 PM on June 18, 2004
I'm against it, by the way.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:11 PM on June 18, 2004
My hope was that this post could provoke discussion. After all, this is the second time a U.S. civilian has been killed in such a manner within a month. What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
posted by MarkO at 2:13 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by MarkO at 2:13 PM on June 18, 2004
I think the civilized world should put an end to this outrage.
Let's go invade Terroristlandia and show those bums what civilization is all about!
posted by Outlawyr at 2:17 PM on June 18, 2004
Let's go invade Terroristlandia and show those bums what civilization is all about!
posted by Outlawyr at 2:17 PM on June 18, 2004
What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
A third post the next time someone's decapitated in the Middle East.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2004
A third post the next time someone's decapitated in the Middle East.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2004
What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
Other than investigation, apprehension, trial and incarceration?
posted by loquax at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2004
Other than investigation, apprehension, trial and incarceration?
posted by loquax at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2004
What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
Clearly, discussing it here in our comfortable blue salon.
posted by Nelson at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2004
Clearly, discussing it here in our comfortable blue salon.
posted by Nelson at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2004
What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
Find out who did it and hunt them down. But don't try to pin it on the guys above them.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:21 PM on June 18, 2004
Find out who did it and hunt them down. But don't try to pin it on the guys above them.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:21 PM on June 18, 2004
I think we should give the terrorists an account so we can all hash this out over on MetaTalk.
posted by keswick at 2:24 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by keswick at 2:24 PM on June 18, 2004
things we can probably all agree on:
- kidnapping and killing people is beyond horrible
- beheading them is so primitive and horrible that the sheer idea is unthinkable for any remotely decent person. it's a step back about 2,000 or 2500 years in human history
- Iraq's full of people who really really really really hate the West, especially America (are there more of them now than 2 years ago? who knows)
- Iraq is a terribly dangerous place for Western soldiers. and for Western civilians who venture outside of the Green Zone, it's a thousand times more dangerous than that.
- the Iraqis don't want us there. not only the terrorists (many of whom are probably non-Iraq mujaheddin who want to kick some Westerner ass, and maybe avenge those Abu Ghraib prisoners)
- MeFi discussion of beheadings in Iraq is seldom conductive to interesting, civlized discussion
_______________________________________
What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
as others pointed out, capturing the killers, detain them like civilized nations usually do -- ie without raping them or beating them to death or torturing them. put them on trial, show the Arab world, for a change, what democracy is -- ie, neither Saddam's torture chambers nor Rumsfeld's Room 101.
have a jury convict them (T. Jefferson said that trial by jury is the cornerstone of American Democracy, it's not a commie's idea, btw).
execute them if convicted.
it's not that hard, really. a bunch of guys with funny hair and suits dreamed that shit up in the late 1700's, you should check that out. it probably still works today. the Rumsfeld/Ashcroft $ 200 bn upgrade to the old Constitution does appear to have bugs, after all.
only then you'll be able to brag about exporting democracy. only then
posted by matteo at 2:27 PM on June 18, 2004
- kidnapping and killing people is beyond horrible
- beheading them is so primitive and horrible that the sheer idea is unthinkable for any remotely decent person. it's a step back about 2,000 or 2500 years in human history
- Iraq's full of people who really really really really hate the West, especially America (are there more of them now than 2 years ago? who knows)
- Iraq is a terribly dangerous place for Western soldiers. and for Western civilians who venture outside of the Green Zone, it's a thousand times more dangerous than that.
- the Iraqis don't want us there. not only the terrorists (many of whom are probably non-Iraq mujaheddin who want to kick some Westerner ass, and maybe avenge those Abu Ghraib prisoners)
- MeFi discussion of beheadings in Iraq is seldom conductive to interesting, civlized discussion
_______________________________________
What would be the proper response by the civilized world to such brutality?
as others pointed out, capturing the killers, detain them like civilized nations usually do -- ie without raping them or beating them to death or torturing them. put them on trial, show the Arab world, for a change, what democracy is -- ie, neither Saddam's torture chambers nor Rumsfeld's Room 101.
have a jury convict them (T. Jefferson said that trial by jury is the cornerstone of American Democracy, it's not a commie's idea, btw).
execute them if convicted.
it's not that hard, really. a bunch of guys with funny hair and suits dreamed that shit up in the late 1700's, you should check that out. it probably still works today. the Rumsfeld/Ashcroft $ 200 bn upgrade to the old Constitution does appear to have bugs, after all.
only then you'll be able to brag about exporting democracy. only then
posted by matteo at 2:27 PM on June 18, 2004
Considering that this act of Terrah was commited by al Qaeda, I think the "civilized world" would go after ... al Qaeda. I thought the Preznit agreed, but I guess not. self-link, sorry.
I know, maybe we could capture all the uncivilized world and stack them up in naked pyramids. They can't be much of threat with their rectums pointed at the sky, can they? Now we just need a truly magic marker to draw that line between all the civilized world and the uncivilized world. Boy, I bet that would make this all more easy, huh? Hey, I know ... they could all be marked, like Cain, on their skin, or with towels on their heads, and we civilized folk could all wear a symbol, maybe like three sixes or something.
(Sorry, but anyone who can use the words "civilized world" and keep a straight face deserves a poke in the ribs and a little derisive laughter.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:33 PM on June 18, 2004
I know, maybe we could capture all the uncivilized world and stack them up in naked pyramids. They can't be much of threat with their rectums pointed at the sky, can they? Now we just need a truly magic marker to draw that line between all the civilized world and the uncivilized world. Boy, I bet that would make this all more easy, huh? Hey, I know ... they could all be marked, like Cain, on their skin, or with towels on their heads, and we civilized folk could all wear a symbol, maybe like three sixes or something.
(Sorry, but anyone who can use the words "civilized world" and keep a straight face deserves a poke in the ribs and a little derisive laughter.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:33 PM on June 18, 2004
Cable News Necrophilia.
posted by homunculus at 2:36 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by homunculus at 2:36 PM on June 18, 2004
It is of note that in the biblical Book of Revelation beheading is named as a method of execution of Christian martyrs during a great persecution (Rev. 20:4). There is no historical record of such an event, so most commentators believe that this verse refers to the last great persecution of the church that is expected to occur shortly before the Second Coming of Christ.
posted by birdherder at 2:46 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by birdherder at 2:46 PM on June 18, 2004
[Beheading]... it's a step back about 2,000 or 2500 years in human history.
If by 2500 you mean 0. See the normal means of execution in Saudi Arabia. For that matter, see the French Revolution, and Germany during WWII, for other countries that used beheadings as a means of execution, see Tower Hill, -- "Here is the head of a traitor! So perish all traitors! Long live the $MONARCH!"
Beheading is bad. Then again, I think simply filing it under "All killings for political gain are bad, no matter how horrible" works. Would it be any better if Mr. Johnson had been murdered by lethal injection?
posted by eriko at 2:47 PM on June 18, 2004
If by 2500 you mean 0. See the normal means of execution in Saudi Arabia. For that matter, see the French Revolution, and Germany during WWII, for other countries that used beheadings as a means of execution, see Tower Hill, -- "Here is the head of a traitor! So perish all traitors! Long live the $MONARCH!"
Beheading is bad. Then again, I think simply filing it under "All killings for political gain are bad, no matter how horrible" works. Would it be any better if Mr. Johnson had been murdered by lethal injection?
posted by eriko at 2:47 PM on June 18, 2004
Image of the severed head of Paul Johnson sitting on his back in a pool of blood.
posted by johnnydark at 2:48 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by johnnydark at 2:48 PM on June 18, 2004
and birdherder,
the ancient Babylon (the antiChrist's home base) is in Iraq
johnnydark,
thanks for the link, who knew what a severed head looks like, after all
posted by matteo at 2:51 PM on June 18, 2004
the ancient Babylon (the antiChrist's home base) is in Iraq
johnnydark,
thanks for the link, who knew what a severed head looks like, after all
posted by matteo at 2:51 PM on June 18, 2004
- Iraq's full of people who really really really really hate the West, especially America (are there more of them now than 2 years ago? who knows)
- Iraq is a terribly dangerous place for Western soldiers. and for Western civilians who venture outside of the Green Zone, it's a thousand times more dangerous than that.
- the Iraqis don't want us there. not only the terrorists (many of whom are probably non-Iraq mujaheddin who want to kick some Westerner ass, and maybe avenge those Abu Ghraib prisoners)
...
the ancient Babylon (the antiChrist's home base) is in Iraq
Matteo: this occurred in Saudi Arabia.
posted by coelecanth at 2:58 PM on June 18, 2004
- Iraq is a terribly dangerous place for Western soldiers. and for Western civilians who venture outside of the Green Zone, it's a thousand times more dangerous than that.
- the Iraqis don't want us there. not only the terrorists (many of whom are probably non-Iraq mujaheddin who want to kick some Westerner ass, and maybe avenge those Abu Ghraib prisoners)
...
the ancient Babylon (the antiChrist's home base) is in Iraq
Matteo: this occurred in Saudi Arabia.
posted by coelecanth at 2:58 PM on June 18, 2004
But Saudi Arabia is our ally! Unlike Iraq they have no links to Al Qaeda or the 9-11 attacks!
posted by hyperizer at 3:01 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by hyperizer at 3:01 PM on June 18, 2004
I seriously doubt I'm the only one who's seen the pictures of stacked heads (like cordwood) from Nanking, China, WWII. I guess them Japanese ain't no part of this here civiliziad world we lives in.
(Of course, in Japanese culture, beheading was a sign of mercy and honor to the beheader, and often offered as a quick death to the ... ahem ... beheadee. Damned Savages!!! Hand me a packet from a cluster bomb any day. That's the way to go, I tells ya. Slow and bloody-like ... Civilized.)
Folks, can we at least be clear that the manner of forced death does not increase or decrease its tragedy? It does increase our horror at the perceiving of the death ... sometimes. Quite a few non-forced deaths are excruciatingly painful for the dying, and quite a few forced deaths are quick and pain free. Basing our ideas on the manner chosen to kill is rediculous. But the death itself is still as certain and awfull regardless of beheading, or radiation, or ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:04 PM on June 18, 2004
(Of course, in Japanese culture, beheading was a sign of mercy and honor to the beheader, and often offered as a quick death to the ... ahem ... beheadee. Damned Savages!!! Hand me a packet from a cluster bomb any day. That's the way to go, I tells ya. Slow and bloody-like ... Civilized.)
Folks, can we at least be clear that the manner of forced death does not increase or decrease its tragedy? It does increase our horror at the perceiving of the death ... sometimes. Quite a few non-forced deaths are excruciatingly painful for the dying, and quite a few forced deaths are quick and pain free. Basing our ideas on the manner chosen to kill is rediculous. But the death itself is still as certain and awfull regardless of beheading, or radiation, or ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:04 PM on June 18, 2004
If by 2500 you mean 0. See the normal means of execution in Saudi Arabia.
I would like to think that there's some qualitative difference between a state execution via beheading, however brutal that may seem to us, and these beheadings. The OP mentioned "if this was anything like Berg's" ... anyone who has watched the heartwrenching abombination that is the video of his death will tell you that this was not so much an execution by beheading as the slow, awkward, brutal butchery of a kicking, screaming, obviously terrified man.
Not to say that a "formal" execution victim can't be kicking screaming and terrified. It's just usually over faster, and a hell of alot cleaner.
posted by jammer at 3:07 PM on June 18, 2004
I would like to think that there's some qualitative difference between a state execution via beheading, however brutal that may seem to us, and these beheadings. The OP mentioned "if this was anything like Berg's" ... anyone who has watched the heartwrenching abombination that is the video of his death will tell you that this was not so much an execution by beheading as the slow, awkward, brutal butchery of a kicking, screaming, obviously terrified man.
Not to say that a "formal" execution victim can't be kicking screaming and terrified. It's just usually over faster, and a hell of alot cleaner.
posted by jammer at 3:07 PM on June 18, 2004
Though all methods of execution can be botched, electrocutions go wrong frequently and dramatically, in part because the equipment is old and hard to repair. At least five have gone awry since 1983. A particularly appalling instance of this took place on the 4th of May, 1990, in the case of Jesse Joseph Tafero in Florida. According to witnesses, when the executioner flipped the switch, flames and smoke came out of Tafero's head, which was covered by a mask and cap. Twelve-inch blue and orange flames sprouted from both sides of the mask. The power was stopped, and Tafero took several deep breaths. The superintendent ordered the executioner to halt the current, then try it again. And again.
Apparently a synthetic sponge, soaked in brine, had been substituted for the natural one applied to Tafero's head. This reduced the flow of electricity to as little as one hundred volts, and ended up torturing the prisoner to death. According to the state prison medical director, Frank Kligo, who attended, it was "less than aesthetically attractive."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:10 PM on June 18, 2004
Apparently a synthetic sponge, soaked in brine, had been substituted for the natural one applied to Tafero's head. This reduced the flow of electricity to as little as one hundred volts, and ended up torturing the prisoner to death. According to the state prison medical director, Frank Kligo, who attended, it was "less than aesthetically attractive."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:10 PM on June 18, 2004
I hate those fucking muslim's even more now!
But thats ok, we'll get them back pretty soon
posted by WLW at 3:11 PM on June 18, 2004
But thats ok, we'll get them back pretty soon
posted by WLW at 3:11 PM on June 18, 2004
Was this one any less fishy than the Berg one?
Do we see the chubby pale executioners?
posted by milovoo at 3:28 PM on June 18, 2004
Do we see the chubby pale executioners?
posted by milovoo at 3:28 PM on June 18, 2004
...And here comes the moral equivalency brigade.
Oh please, by all means, do explain!!!
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:30 PM on June 18, 2004
Oh please, by all means, do explain!!!
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:30 PM on June 18, 2004
Armitage Shanks: If you're making the point that the US is morally equivalent to these people because it executes prisoners in a way that is accidentally inhumane, then perhaps you should go to the Drudge Report and examine the knife that was used. It seems impossible that there would be any way to perform a quick or humane execution with it - a fact that the murderers certainly understood. If you're making the point that, because the US performs executions in the first place, it is morally equivalent to the people who just murdered Mr. Johnson, well... we'll just agree to disagree.
posted by coelecanth at 3:34 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by coelecanth at 3:34 PM on June 18, 2004
Armitage Shanks: If you're making the point that the US is morally equivalent to these people because it executes prisoners in a way that is accidentally inhumane
Oh for goodness sake. I was providing a counterpoint to the comment immediately above it that described state executions as "cleaner".
Just so the wingnuts don't get even more bent out out shape than usual, I will state for record that I think the beheading of an innocent man is worse than the slow electrocution of a guilty man. It's barbaric, inhumane, vicious and heartless as opposed to merely barbaric and inhumane.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:38 PM on June 18, 2004
Oh for goodness sake. I was providing a counterpoint to the comment immediately above it that described state executions as "cleaner".
Just so the wingnuts don't get even more bent out out shape than usual, I will state for record that I think the beheading of an innocent man is worse than the slow electrocution of a guilty man. It's barbaric, inhumane, vicious and heartless as opposed to merely barbaric and inhumane.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:38 PM on June 18, 2004
Wulfgar!, if I have to explain, you'll never understand.
posted by keswick at 3:52 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by keswick at 3:52 PM on June 18, 2004
Cheap and cowardly, keswick. Petty, cheap and cowardly.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:02 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:02 PM on June 18, 2004
I feel such sympathy for the family of Mr Johnson.
These terrorist murders are tactics which will bring success to Al Quiada, until either they topple the House of Saud, or the House of Saud responds with overwhelming force against Islamist extremists (inc. their own, state sponsored clerics of the Wahabbist tendency).
This is the real reason that the Coalition will remain in Iraq for the next few yeaars - to secure the eastern coastal oil fields in th event of a revolution in the Kingdom.
We should rapidly develop energy policies taking us away from our addiction to oil (no news there), and leave the "Land of the Two Shrines" to the people who commit these crimes. They're welcome to it (see also 22 dead at Khobar, et al).
posted by dash_slot- at 4:04 PM on June 18, 2004
These terrorist murders are tactics which will bring success to Al Quiada, until either they topple the House of Saud, or the House of Saud responds with overwhelming force against Islamist extremists (inc. their own, state sponsored clerics of the Wahabbist tendency).
This is the real reason that the Coalition will remain in Iraq for the next few yeaars - to secure the eastern coastal oil fields in th event of a revolution in the Kingdom.
We should rapidly develop energy policies taking us away from our addiction to oil (no news there), and leave the "Land of the Two Shrines" to the people who commit these crimes. They're welcome to it (see also 22 dead at Khobar, et al).
posted by dash_slot- at 4:04 PM on June 18, 2004
jammer - in this thread there are many links to and people in it, wondering why Nick Berg didn't move and was so eerily immobile.
posted by dabitch at 4:21 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by dabitch at 4:21 PM on June 18, 2004
I will state for record that I think the beheading of an innocent man is worse than the slow electrocution of a guilty man. It's barbaric, inhumane, vicious and heartless as opposed to merely barbaric and inhumane.
Guilty? Innocent? Tried by what court, under what law? In an absolute world, this is correct. But I would point out that Paul Johnson worked on the weapons that kill the enemy, and hence, to the enemy, he was guilty. A casualty of war, if you prefer. But innocent? Only in my eyes, and I would hope yours. Those who claim that "moral equivalence" is being brought to bear here are taking the cowards way out; they refuse to admit the obvious responsibility of all parties involved.
I write this as a man who has a very close friend who works on communication equiptment, unfortunately stationed in Iraq. If he dies, both myself and the governement will consider him a casualty of war. The difference is that I will know he was there under immoral orders, and they will call him a hero, and then hide his casket on the journey home. Moral equivalence? Please. This is a matter of moral corruption, twisting right and wrong to be US (the civilized) against the lesser them (the barbarians). That's not equivalence, that's a pathetic ploy to justify murder as an affront to rightiousness, as opposed to what it is ... murder, just plain murder.
The people who killed Johnson? They are simply in the wrong. The people who allow others to die (horribly) so that they may feel superior? Just as wrong. That's equivalent. Wrong = wrong. Where is the flaw in the logic here?
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:23 PM on June 18, 2004
Guilty? Innocent? Tried by what court, under what law? In an absolute world, this is correct. But I would point out that Paul Johnson worked on the weapons that kill the enemy, and hence, to the enemy, he was guilty. A casualty of war, if you prefer. But innocent? Only in my eyes, and I would hope yours. Those who claim that "moral equivalence" is being brought to bear here are taking the cowards way out; they refuse to admit the obvious responsibility of all parties involved.
I write this as a man who has a very close friend who works on communication equiptment, unfortunately stationed in Iraq. If he dies, both myself and the governement will consider him a casualty of war. The difference is that I will know he was there under immoral orders, and they will call him a hero, and then hide his casket on the journey home. Moral equivalence? Please. This is a matter of moral corruption, twisting right and wrong to be US (the civilized) against the lesser them (the barbarians). That's not equivalence, that's a pathetic ploy to justify murder as an affront to rightiousness, as opposed to what it is ... murder, just plain murder.
The people who killed Johnson? They are simply in the wrong. The people who allow others to die (horribly) so that they may feel superior? Just as wrong. That's equivalent. Wrong = wrong. Where is the flaw in the logic here?
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:23 PM on June 18, 2004
I'm wondering if the Saudis really did catch and kill the guy that did it...they don't have a good track record of actually doing anything about the radicals among them, except for funding them, of course.
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on June 18, 2004
in this thread there are many links to and people in it, wondering why Nick Berg didn't move and was so eerily immobile.
It couldn't possibly be because he was bound and being held down by large men.
That would rule out all the fun conspiracy theories.
posted by jammer at 4:30 PM on June 18, 2004
It couldn't possibly be because he was bound and being held down by large men.
That would rule out all the fun conspiracy theories.
posted by jammer at 4:30 PM on June 18, 2004
You will never get a positive discussion out of this thread. The very nature of this kind of murder is to make people unable to have a rational debate. There is a lot to talk about the issues that swirl around this horrible crime, but when the crime is the basis point for the discussion, you will never be able to have a good discussion, because you can always go back to the crime itself which is so awful as to proclude any rational debate.
It's like discussing the major issues of World War II and starting with the death of Anne Frank at Auschwitz. Anything you try to say about the German economy or Versailles is going to be drowned out by the undeniable fact that a young child was cut down for no other reason then her religion. I advise anyone with anything to say other then "this is fucked up" to back away now. Otherwise you're just going to get angry.
posted by chaz at 4:36 PM on June 18, 2004
It's like discussing the major issues of World War II and starting with the death of Anne Frank at Auschwitz. Anything you try to say about the German economy or Versailles is going to be drowned out by the undeniable fact that a young child was cut down for no other reason then her religion. I advise anyone with anything to say other then "this is fucked up" to back away now. Otherwise you're just going to get angry.
posted by chaz at 4:36 PM on June 18, 2004
I think it is time for America and Americans to just do what the terrorists ask. I mean at least we would be safe then. We should announce our surrender and just tell them that they have won, and ask for their direction. Then whatever they ask us to do, we should do. Otherwise, they are going to behead us all, and it is better to live on my knees than die on my feet without a head. These terrorist are just too powerful for us.
posted by David Dark at 4:41 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by David Dark at 4:41 PM on June 18, 2004
i'm sorry you're such a defeatist David...the rest of us want our country to fight smart, and to fight the people responsible.
Why did the guy who did it and his buddies have such a safe haven in the country of our "allies and friends"?
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on June 18, 2004
Why did the guy who did it and his buddies have such a safe haven in the country of our "allies and friends"?
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on June 18, 2004
That's equivalent. Wrong = wrong. Where is the flaw in the logic here?
Not that I totally disagree, but when an American court sentences a prisoner to death, or an American president orders a war, they are held responsible for their actions, to the law and to the electorate. People killing others no matter what justification, has to be "wronger" if there is no accountability for their actions and no code of law on which their killing is based. If you want to say religious law, fine, but who has the power to enforce it or punish the violators of it?
Your argument would equate mafia or gang killings to, however much you might not like it, democratically and legally sanctioned actions by states.
posted by loquax at 4:47 PM on June 18, 2004
Not that I totally disagree, but when an American court sentences a prisoner to death, or an American president orders a war, they are held responsible for their actions, to the law and to the electorate. People killing others no matter what justification, has to be "wronger" if there is no accountability for their actions and no code of law on which their killing is based. If you want to say religious law, fine, but who has the power to enforce it or punish the violators of it?
Your argument would equate mafia or gang killings to, however much you might not like it, democratically and legally sanctioned actions by states.
posted by loquax at 4:47 PM on June 18, 2004
Clearly, our only course of action is to remove all American citizens from the Middle East, and then nuke the entire area from orbit until it's a vast, shining sea of glass. It's the only way to be sure.
Then we can hold the Winter Olympics there, and our figure skaters will carve beautiful patterns upon the glass with their bright and sparkly Freedom Skates®.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:52 PM on June 18, 2004
Then we can hold the Winter Olympics there, and our figure skaters will carve beautiful patterns upon the glass with their bright and sparkly Freedom Skates®.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:52 PM on June 18, 2004
Obviously crash has never tried skating on glass. It doesn't work, trust me.
posted by jmd82 at 4:54 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by jmd82 at 4:54 PM on June 18, 2004
starting with the death of Anne Frank at Auschwitz
Anne died at Bergen-Belsen. </nitpick>
posted by Asparagirl at 4:54 PM on June 18, 2004
Anne died at Bergen-Belsen. </nitpick>
posted by Asparagirl at 4:54 PM on June 18, 2004
Otherwise, they are going to behead us all, and it is better to live on my knees than die on my feet without a head.
Even if you were beheaded, look at the bright side, David. As long as your body is still twitching spasmodically, it won't have any effect on the quality of your posts.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:56 PM on June 18, 2004
Even if you were beheaded, look at the bright side, David. As long as your body is still twitching spasmodically, it won't have any effect on the quality of your posts.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:56 PM on June 18, 2004
loquax, I perceive that we are not in disagreement here. Because sometimes mafia killings are not much different (if at all) to democratically and legally sanctioned actions by the state. And more to the point, terrorists are not always that much more in the wrong in a time of war. Several here are willing to state, at great length, the dictums and axioms that equate to "war is hell". I simply wish to punch home the point that "yes, it really is, and simply labeling the enemy as a barbarian is ... quaintly idiotic".
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:03 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:03 PM on June 18, 2004
And at least if we're all dead there'll be no more Ad Hominem attacks from either side.
posted by jmd82 at 5:04 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by jmd82 at 5:04 PM on June 18, 2004
Send in the Crips...
posted by Fupped Duck at 5:07 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by Fupped Duck at 5:07 PM on June 18, 2004
Let's go invade Terroristlandia and show those bums what civilization is all about!
Get it right. It's "Terroristan".
posted by laz-e-boy at 5:08 PM on June 18, 2004
Get it right. It's "Terroristan".
posted by laz-e-boy at 5:08 PM on June 18, 2004
As long as your body is still twitching spasmodically it won't have any effect on the quality of your posts.
yuk, yuk, yuk. you're hilarious At least he seemed to get a good reaction out of you.
posted by WLW at 5:14 PM on June 18, 2004
yuk, yuk, yuk. you're hilarious At least he seemed to get a good reaction out of you.
posted by WLW at 5:14 PM on June 18, 2004
It's nice this post brought out the funny in all of us.
posted by yerfatma at 5:31 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by yerfatma at 5:31 PM on June 18, 2004
You will never get a positive discussion out of this thread. The very nature of this kind of murder is to make people unable to have a rational debate.
Amazingly, this is one of the most civil metafilter debates I've seen in days...
posted by Kwantsar at 5:48 PM on June 18, 2004
Amazingly, this is one of the most civil metafilter debates I've seen in days...
posted by Kwantsar at 5:48 PM on June 18, 2004
Sauids kill suspect
This showed up on the wire hours ago.. slackin here.. man its like watching a TV crime show in real time.
posted by stbalbach at 5:55 PM on June 18, 2004
This showed up on the wire hours ago.. slackin here.. man its like watching a TV crime show in real time.
posted by stbalbach at 5:55 PM on June 18, 2004
According to CNN, Al Arabiya and Reuters, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin (the alleged leader of the terrorists who killed Paul Johnson) has been killed in a shootout with security forces in Riyadh, as he tried to dispose of the body.
Maybe they are growing spines as well as intelligence in the forces there now, compared to the escape of most of the assailants in Khobar.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:01 PM on June 18, 2004
Maybe they are growing spines as well as intelligence in the forces there now, compared to the escape of most of the assailants in Khobar.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:01 PM on June 18, 2004
Sorry mate - you beat me to it.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:02 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by dash_slot- at 6:02 PM on June 18, 2004
Not to discount Johnsons death, but if it led to the finding and killing of Muqrin .. this is a major victory.
posted by stbalbach at 7:14 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by stbalbach at 7:14 PM on June 18, 2004
I think it is time for America and Americans to just do what the terrorists ask.
We already have. We're being baited. And hell if things like this don't make just about anybody want to go take the bait.
amberglow's comment about fighting smart rings true. The real disagreement that exists is what constitutes smart fighting.
posted by weston at 7:25 PM on June 18, 2004
We already have. We're being baited. And hell if things like this don't make just about anybody want to go take the bait.
amberglow's comment about fighting smart rings true. The real disagreement that exists is what constitutes smart fighting.
posted by weston at 7:25 PM on June 18, 2004
We already have. We're being baited.
How so? And to what end? Apparently, al-Moqrin hooked a bigger fish than he could handle with his bait, wouldn't you agree? I'm interested in hearing what you and amberglow think smart fighting means.
posted by David Dark at 7:45 PM on June 18, 2004
How so? And to what end? Apparently, al-Moqrin hooked a bigger fish than he could handle with his bait, wouldn't you agree? I'm interested in hearing what you and amberglow think smart fighting means.
posted by David Dark at 7:45 PM on June 18, 2004
Caught disposing of the body, eh? That's a good thing. It also proves that they don't read AskMe, which is also a good thing.
posted by ewagoner at 7:51 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by ewagoner at 7:51 PM on June 18, 2004
I'm interested in hearing what you and amberglow think smart fighting means.
Quite obviously, it means offering up American contract worker's heads that we may catch and kill "the bad guys". Isn't that plain by now? If the bait is juicy enough, you can catch anything ...
David, and stbalbach, I'd really like to watch the video of you boys explaining to Johnson's kin of how his death lead to the killin' of a great American enemy, and goddam ain't Paul a hero, and ain't all us patriots proud. I'm serious; This I'd love to see. In case you were wondering ... THAT'S moral equivalence, of the most loathsome sort. (If one good guy dies than it leads to one bad guy dying, therefore its good that a good guy dies. Disgusting!)
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:35 PM on June 18, 2004
Quite obviously, it means offering up American contract worker's heads that we may catch and kill "the bad guys". Isn't that plain by now? If the bait is juicy enough, you can catch anything ...
David, and stbalbach, I'd really like to watch the video of you boys explaining to Johnson's kin of how his death lead to the killin' of a great American enemy, and goddam ain't Paul a hero, and ain't all us patriots proud. I'm serious; This I'd love to see. In case you were wondering ... THAT'S moral equivalence, of the most loathsome sort. (If one good guy dies than it leads to one bad guy dying, therefore its good that a good guy dies. Disgusting!)
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:35 PM on June 18, 2004
Wulfgar, Muqrin was on a killing spree over the past few months murdering scores of innocent people. He would have continued to kill innocents if he was not caught and he was caught disposing of Johnsons body. Johnsons death lead to the end of Muqrins killing spree, future innocents would be saved. It is sad Johnson had to die at all, but his death saved others.
It's no different than Nancy Reagan using her husbands death to fight for stem cell research so others in the future won't die of Alzheimer. One can find a positive light in all this. Your the one who has turned it around into an ugly morally equivalency / political thing.
posted by stbalbach at 10:29 PM on June 18, 2004
It's no different than Nancy Reagan using her husbands death to fight for stem cell research so others in the future won't die of Alzheimer. One can find a positive light in all this. Your the one who has turned it around into an ugly morally equivalency / political thing.
posted by stbalbach at 10:29 PM on June 18, 2004
San Jose company unwillingly hosts video footage of kidnapped American
posted by homunculus at 11:04 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by homunculus at 11:04 PM on June 18, 2004
this is a major victory.
???????????????
Your {You're} the one who has turned it around into an ugly morally equivalency / political thing.
Uhhmmm, no, I'm not. Yup, we done kilt a bad guy, 'cause we (our supposed friends, the Saudis) got lucky when he was disposing of the body of a victim he done kilt. I'm not the one who paints that a victory. Muqrin's death a good thing? Yeah. Worth it? You said yes, I didn't. I'm more than happy to see Muqrin's death as a positive, but claiming that Johnson's "death saved others" is just bullshit. Muqrin's mistake and good (and lucky) policing saved others. Johnson's death is just a simple tragedy of circumstance in what you celebrate as a "victory".
And for the record, its also bullshit to claim that Nancy Reagan is using her husband's death to argue for stem cell research. She is, and has, used his illness for such, but his death is simply that, a necessary consequence of life. Simply put, finding the positive in hope for a better future is vastly different than finding the positive in a negative happenstance. I would hope that you see the simple and logical difference. It was no more necessary for Johnson to die that a terrorist be caught/killed than it was for Ronald Reagan to die for Nancy to see the benefit of stem cell research.
(And please, for the love of God, can we get the spell check working again?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:12 PM on June 18, 2004
???????????????
Your {You're} the one who has turned it around into an ugly morally equivalency / political thing.
Uhhmmm, no, I'm not. Yup, we done kilt a bad guy, 'cause we (our supposed friends, the Saudis) got lucky when he was disposing of the body of a victim he done kilt. I'm not the one who paints that a victory. Muqrin's death a good thing? Yeah. Worth it? You said yes, I didn't. I'm more than happy to see Muqrin's death as a positive, but claiming that Johnson's "death saved others" is just bullshit. Muqrin's mistake and good (and lucky) policing saved others. Johnson's death is just a simple tragedy of circumstance in what you celebrate as a "victory".
And for the record, its also bullshit to claim that Nancy Reagan is using her husband's death to argue for stem cell research. She is, and has, used his illness for such, but his death is simply that, a necessary consequence of life. Simply put, finding the positive in hope for a better future is vastly different than finding the positive in a negative happenstance. I would hope that you see the simple and logical difference. It was no more necessary for Johnson to die that a terrorist be caught/killed than it was for Ronald Reagan to die for Nancy to see the benefit of stem cell research.
(And please, for the love of God, can we get the spell check working again?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:12 PM on June 18, 2004
heads are going to roll over this.
You did not just say that.
posted by dhoyt at 12:18 AM on June 19, 2004
You did not just say that.
posted by dhoyt at 12:18 AM on June 19, 2004
How so? And to what end?
I think it should be obvious. Some of these thugs just get warm fuzzy feelings when they kill Americans in ways that alarm and horrify others, but I think some of them have a larger agenda: a showdown between the Muslim world and the West. Thugs in this class actually hope to agitate and unite Muslims/Arabs against a common enemy. They hope to do this by (1) showing themselves as strong enough to inflict pain on us, thus earning respect (2) increasing points of engagement/entanglement, which can be used as sources of grievance. Put simply, they want to fight.
Apparently, al-Moqrin hooked a bigger fish than he could handle with his bait, wouldn't you agree?
I hope so.
I'm interested in hearing what you and amberglow think smart fighting means.
I don't know if I agree with amberglow because I don't know exactly what he thinks, to be honest. What I was mostly saying is: I think everyone understands the menace that these kinds of people represent and embody needs to be fought, forcefully, and decisively, until they are no longer a threat. Your earlier comment about how we all need to lay down seems to be a parody on an attitude that , if it exists, seems pretty rare to me. What's really disagreed on is not that we need to fight, but what the smartest way to fight is.
It's beyond the scope of the thread, and it's not relevant to the points I've made above, but I'll state for the record that I happen to be with the group that thinks a number of our moves with regard to Iraq haven't been particularly bright, and that overall it's been a rather reckless gamble, regardless of whatever good intentions may have been behind it. A year and a half ago, Iraq was one of the most closely watched and thoroughly checked of the "rogue states." Was this the wisest way to spend our resources? I don't think so. Maybe it will turn out well -- I hope so, though the downside of that would be that the next time something like this comes up, whoever our leadership at the time is might think they can safely take the same gamble.
But here's the thing: I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is necessarily stupid or evil. I would say that anyone who doesn't have some strong questions or concerns about what we've done and hope to do in Iraq seems obtuse to me, but it's possible to come to different conclusions about it -- and other aspect about what constitutes "smart warfare" against a murderous ideology -- legitimately.
posted by weston at 12:24 AM on June 19, 2004
I think it should be obvious. Some of these thugs just get warm fuzzy feelings when they kill Americans in ways that alarm and horrify others, but I think some of them have a larger agenda: a showdown between the Muslim world and the West. Thugs in this class actually hope to agitate and unite Muslims/Arabs against a common enemy. They hope to do this by (1) showing themselves as strong enough to inflict pain on us, thus earning respect (2) increasing points of engagement/entanglement, which can be used as sources of grievance. Put simply, they want to fight.
Apparently, al-Moqrin hooked a bigger fish than he could handle with his bait, wouldn't you agree?
I hope so.
I'm interested in hearing what you and amberglow think smart fighting means.
I don't know if I agree with amberglow because I don't know exactly what he thinks, to be honest. What I was mostly saying is: I think everyone understands the menace that these kinds of people represent and embody needs to be fought, forcefully, and decisively, until they are no longer a threat. Your earlier comment about how we all need to lay down seems to be a parody on an attitude that , if it exists, seems pretty rare to me. What's really disagreed on is not that we need to fight, but what the smartest way to fight is.
It's beyond the scope of the thread, and it's not relevant to the points I've made above, but I'll state for the record that I happen to be with the group that thinks a number of our moves with regard to Iraq haven't been particularly bright, and that overall it's been a rather reckless gamble, regardless of whatever good intentions may have been behind it. A year and a half ago, Iraq was one of the most closely watched and thoroughly checked of the "rogue states." Was this the wisest way to spend our resources? I don't think so. Maybe it will turn out well -- I hope so, though the downside of that would be that the next time something like this comes up, whoever our leadership at the time is might think they can safely take the same gamble.
But here's the thing: I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is necessarily stupid or evil. I would say that anyone who doesn't have some strong questions or concerns about what we've done and hope to do in Iraq seems obtuse to me, but it's possible to come to different conclusions about it -- and other aspect about what constitutes "smart warfare" against a murderous ideology -- legitimately.
posted by weston at 12:24 AM on June 19, 2004
We all know the first beheading was a hoax.
Not to be grim, but there was no blood, for christ's sake.
Our heads are connected to gallons of pressurized fluids. They tend to erupt in a spray if severed.
Is no one else troubled by the obvious special effects glitch from our governments propaganda machine?
Come on kids, details are important!
Lie to us correctly. We have cable and internet, after all.
posted by Peter H at 1:11 AM on June 19, 2004
Not to be grim, but there was no blood, for christ's sake.
Our heads are connected to gallons of pressurized fluids. They tend to erupt in a spray if severed.
Is no one else troubled by the obvious special effects glitch from our governments propaganda machine?
Come on kids, details are important!
Lie to us correctly. We have cable and internet, after all.
posted by Peter H at 1:11 AM on June 19, 2004
Wulfgar, I feel like I'm talking to a kid here, your saying his death is a tragic happenstance with no meaning other then a mans tragic murder. Who can argue that, you're right. Reading your previous posts I gather you have a friend there and so take this very personally. If your friend dies, you may look for meaning in his life and how he died could be a big part of that. It is the natural course it's part of being human to find meaning it provides comfort. Now, you may not see it as patriotic. Theres an old saying, "we die as we live". We all deal with death and find our own meanings and ways to deal. Ok? Don't take it so personally and let others do the same.
posted by stbalbach at 3:38 AM on June 19, 2004
posted by stbalbach at 3:38 AM on June 19, 2004
I think beheading is... just a way to die. Humiliations and tortures are really something else, as they aim to humiliate a whole group of people, their country, and their culture.
Now I'd rather discuss what happens inside a prison which will be soon renamed Camp Redemption (WTF, honestly?), prison linked to an ideology as dangerous as the ones supported by 'terrorist' groups.
Thank you all.
(I also would like to add that sometimes, sometimes I wish the world didn't have images and tv so don't media manipulation wouldn't have such a great impact on the 'civilized' world. I want the radio back).
posted by Sijeka at 7:31 AM on June 19, 2004
Now I'd rather discuss what happens inside a prison which will be soon renamed Camp Redemption (WTF, honestly?), prison linked to an ideology as dangerous as the ones supported by 'terrorist' groups.
Thank you all.
(I also would like to add that sometimes, sometimes I wish the world didn't have images and tv so don't media manipulation wouldn't have such a great impact on the 'civilized' world. I want the radio back).
posted by Sijeka at 7:31 AM on June 19, 2004
or an American president orders a war, they are held responsible for their actions, to the law and to the electorate
Because maybe kicking out Bush and forcing him to return to his life of work-free luxury will teach him a lesson good and proper.
posted by biffa at 9:35 AM on June 19, 2004
Because maybe kicking out Bush and forcing him to return to his life of work-free luxury will teach him a lesson good and proper.
posted by biffa at 9:35 AM on June 19, 2004
a showdown between the Muslim world and the West.
That's a highly improbable outcome of all this, but it's something that we can't control. We are fighting only the radical fringe elements of the Muslim world, and as you say, we have to fight. But this is still an improbable prediction based on nothing but fear of the unknown. We can't control how the Muslim world thinks or acts. These are the same fears that were being voiced before the invasion of Afghanistan. Almost three years later, these fears are still unfounded. Remember a few weeks ago, there was a report that estimated Al-Qaeda to have 20,000 members. That's an incredibly low number, given that there are 1,000,000,000 Muslims in the world. That's only .002% of the population. You believe that this grand strategy of bin Laden's is going to draw in the other 99.998%? Or, consider that since the beginning of the war on terror, a greater percentage of Al-Qaeda terrorists have been arrested and detained in Guantanamo Bay than there are Muslims who are terrorists in the world today, even after we invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taleban, invaded Iraq, captured Saddam Hussein and killed his princes, and arrested hundreds and hundreds of terrorists worldwide. If bin Laden is counting on the Muslim world to rush to his aid and defense, what are they waiting for? What line is it that they are waiting for us to cross?
They hope to do this by (1) showing themselves as strong enough to inflict pain on us, thus earning respect
This is exactly what they have been doing for decades, while we did nothing in return. bin Laden called the West a paper tiger, and he had plenty of evidence to make that claim. Our lack of response prior to invading Afghanistan and routing their stronghold was a major problem in this conflict, for exactly that reason.
(2) increasing points of engagement/entanglement, which can be used as sources of grievance.
This doesn't make sense. Real or imagined, they were citing sources of grievance aplenty before 9/11, before any war on terror, before the invasion of Iraq. We didn't become the Great Satan after we invaded Iraq -- we were labeled as such years before, as young Arab children were being taught to hate the West as the cause of all their troubles from the time they're old enough to listen. They didn't need any more sources of grievance to justify 9/11 itself, did they? Increasing points of engagement means they lose bodies, including to airstrikes, to artillery, to gunfire. Consider that 9/11 was their most successful engagement, one in which they killed thousands in a single stroke and the operation only cost their ranks 18 persons, a very good ratio for them. How does this stack up against the battles they are fighting today? How does bin Laden benefit from the disruption of his already placed cells across the United States and Europe? What does he gain from the imprisonment of his foot soldiers in Camp X-Ray in Cuba? It seems to me that if they had their way, they would continue to only engage us on their terms, launching terrorist attacks for which we are unprepared and can not prevent. If you compare today's global situation with that of three years ago, do you honestly believe bin Laden is thinking, "I've got them right where I want them?!" Yet we've been hearing this same argument from the Left almost since day one. "It's a trap!" Does this really make sense to you? If true, it has to be one of the most poorly planned and orchestrated traps in the history of warfare.
I happen to be with the group that thinks a number of our moves with regard to Iraq haven't been particularly bright, and that overall it's been a rather reckless gamble, regardless of whatever good intentions may have been behind it. A year and a half ago, Iraq was one of the most closely watched and thoroughly checked of the "rogue states." Was this the wisest way to spend our resources?
You do realize that the UN's Oil-for-food program had given Saddam Hussein a secret stash of over $10 billion that he could use at his unchecked discretion, right? Iraq was hardly "in check" by anyone or anything, as a matter of fact, he had a lot of freedom, money, and resources. I agree that some of our moves haven't seemed particularly bright since we invaded Iraq. True enough. But no war is flawless, mistake-free. It's just not a realistic expectation. Battle after battle after battle, something is bound to go wrong. And things have gone wrong, every dead coalition soldier is a testament to that reality. But I disagree with you that overall it's been a reckless gamble. Overall, it's a vital necessity to the war on terror, ironically, to address your primary fear: a possible showdown between the Muslim world and the West. That could very well come about if we focused solely on hunting, capturing, arresting, killing terrorists while letting the corrupt dictators of the Arab world continue to oppress their populations and blame the West. We need to fight the root causes of terror just as much as we need to fight the symptoms of terror. Our Liberal friends will try to tell you that the root cause of terror is the United States. Don't believe it. The root cause of terror is the oppression of Muslim people by their corrupt leaders, the greatest example of which was the government of Saddam Hussein. Bringing democracy to the Middle East was exactly what bin Laden wasn't expecting us to do. And it's why he suddenly finds himself fighting a war he can't win.
Furthermore, you didn't answer my question. If everything that the US is doing is wrong, then what would be the right course of action? We agree that we have to fight. We have no choice in the matter. Good. I'm not interested in what you can point to as wrong in hindsight; I asked what you can outline as constituting "smart fighting", in the future tense. What should our course of action be?
posted by David Dark at 5:29 AM on June 20, 2004
That's a highly improbable outcome of all this, but it's something that we can't control. We are fighting only the radical fringe elements of the Muslim world, and as you say, we have to fight. But this is still an improbable prediction based on nothing but fear of the unknown. We can't control how the Muslim world thinks or acts. These are the same fears that were being voiced before the invasion of Afghanistan. Almost three years later, these fears are still unfounded. Remember a few weeks ago, there was a report that estimated Al-Qaeda to have 20,000 members. That's an incredibly low number, given that there are 1,000,000,000 Muslims in the world. That's only .002% of the population. You believe that this grand strategy of bin Laden's is going to draw in the other 99.998%? Or, consider that since the beginning of the war on terror, a greater percentage of Al-Qaeda terrorists have been arrested and detained in Guantanamo Bay than there are Muslims who are terrorists in the world today, even after we invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taleban, invaded Iraq, captured Saddam Hussein and killed his princes, and arrested hundreds and hundreds of terrorists worldwide. If bin Laden is counting on the Muslim world to rush to his aid and defense, what are they waiting for? What line is it that they are waiting for us to cross?
They hope to do this by (1) showing themselves as strong enough to inflict pain on us, thus earning respect
This is exactly what they have been doing for decades, while we did nothing in return. bin Laden called the West a paper tiger, and he had plenty of evidence to make that claim. Our lack of response prior to invading Afghanistan and routing their stronghold was a major problem in this conflict, for exactly that reason.
(2) increasing points of engagement/entanglement, which can be used as sources of grievance.
This doesn't make sense. Real or imagined, they were citing sources of grievance aplenty before 9/11, before any war on terror, before the invasion of Iraq. We didn't become the Great Satan after we invaded Iraq -- we were labeled as such years before, as young Arab children were being taught to hate the West as the cause of all their troubles from the time they're old enough to listen. They didn't need any more sources of grievance to justify 9/11 itself, did they? Increasing points of engagement means they lose bodies, including to airstrikes, to artillery, to gunfire. Consider that 9/11 was their most successful engagement, one in which they killed thousands in a single stroke and the operation only cost their ranks 18 persons, a very good ratio for them. How does this stack up against the battles they are fighting today? How does bin Laden benefit from the disruption of his already placed cells across the United States and Europe? What does he gain from the imprisonment of his foot soldiers in Camp X-Ray in Cuba? It seems to me that if they had their way, they would continue to only engage us on their terms, launching terrorist attacks for which we are unprepared and can not prevent. If you compare today's global situation with that of three years ago, do you honestly believe bin Laden is thinking, "I've got them right where I want them?!" Yet we've been hearing this same argument from the Left almost since day one. "It's a trap!" Does this really make sense to you? If true, it has to be one of the most poorly planned and orchestrated traps in the history of warfare.
I happen to be with the group that thinks a number of our moves with regard to Iraq haven't been particularly bright, and that overall it's been a rather reckless gamble, regardless of whatever good intentions may have been behind it. A year and a half ago, Iraq was one of the most closely watched and thoroughly checked of the "rogue states." Was this the wisest way to spend our resources?
You do realize that the UN's Oil-for-food program had given Saddam Hussein a secret stash of over $10 billion that he could use at his unchecked discretion, right? Iraq was hardly "in check" by anyone or anything, as a matter of fact, he had a lot of freedom, money, and resources. I agree that some of our moves haven't seemed particularly bright since we invaded Iraq. True enough. But no war is flawless, mistake-free. It's just not a realistic expectation. Battle after battle after battle, something is bound to go wrong. And things have gone wrong, every dead coalition soldier is a testament to that reality. But I disagree with you that overall it's been a reckless gamble. Overall, it's a vital necessity to the war on terror, ironically, to address your primary fear: a possible showdown between the Muslim world and the West. That could very well come about if we focused solely on hunting, capturing, arresting, killing terrorists while letting the corrupt dictators of the Arab world continue to oppress their populations and blame the West. We need to fight the root causes of terror just as much as we need to fight the symptoms of terror. Our Liberal friends will try to tell you that the root cause of terror is the United States. Don't believe it. The root cause of terror is the oppression of Muslim people by their corrupt leaders, the greatest example of which was the government of Saddam Hussein. Bringing democracy to the Middle East was exactly what bin Laden wasn't expecting us to do. And it's why he suddenly finds himself fighting a war he can't win.
Furthermore, you didn't answer my question. If everything that the US is doing is wrong, then what would be the right course of action? We agree that we have to fight. We have no choice in the matter. Good. I'm not interested in what you can point to as wrong in hindsight; I asked what you can outline as constituting "smart fighting", in the future tense. What should our course of action be?
posted by David Dark at 5:29 AM on June 20, 2004
Iraq under Saddam Hussein represented a triple threat: First, Saddam Hussein supported Terrorism. He paid money to terrorist organizations and to the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis. He stockpiled thousands of explosive vests in military warehouses, where US forces discovered them. He established and supplied terrorist training camps in Iraq, such as Salman Pak. He hosted and sheltered terrorist leaders such as Abu Abbas , Abu Nidal , and Carlos “The Jackal”. Saddam’s Baath Party officials had direct meetings with leaders from Al-Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and other international terrorist groups. Second, Iraq tried to invade Iran, and followed up with an invasion of Kuwait. He mobilized his army twice during Clinton’s terms as US President, forcing Clinton to deploy troops each time. Third, He used WMD against Iran , and against the Kurds , as well as using prisoners to develop bioweapons , including two previously unknown weaponized strains (Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF)) discovered by David Kay’s inspectors. Saddam broke the terms of his cease-fire by hiding his WMD from inspectors for 12 years, committed an act of war by attempting to kill former President George HW Bush , and used the UN’s own Oil-for-Food program to buy prohibited weapons . Saddam Hussein represented a grave threat to the region, a man with a track record of aggressive violence, a pathological hatred of many enemies, and an utter ruthlessness to use any means at hand to advance his aim.
via the fourth rail
posted by David Dark at 12:53 PM on June 20, 2004
via the fourth rail
posted by David Dark at 12:53 PM on June 20, 2004
One thing that virtually all of those terrorist organizations mentioned that have either met with or been indirectly funded by Saddam Hussein's government have in common is that their goals have nothing to do with attacking Americans. Same for the WMD, it was never used on Americans.
However there is no doubt that the reasons you give are excellent justification for an invasion by an Israeli/Iranian/Kurdish joint operation. :)
posted by cell divide at 4:31 PM on June 20, 2004
However there is no doubt that the reasons you give are excellent justification for an invasion by an Israeli/Iranian/Kurdish joint operation. :)
posted by cell divide at 4:31 PM on June 20, 2004
DoubleD:
It is widely suspected that Saddam Hussein had Abu Nidal killed. Not exactly the nicest kind of aid and support, is it?
And apparently he didn't support Carlos "the Jackal" well enough to keep him from being arrested in Sudan.
But one out of three ain't bad - hell, it's Hall-of-Fame level, in baseball.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:00 AM on June 21, 2004
It is widely suspected that Saddam Hussein had Abu Nidal killed. Not exactly the nicest kind of aid and support, is it?
And apparently he didn't support Carlos "the Jackal" well enough to keep him from being arrested in Sudan.
But one out of three ain't bad - hell, it's Hall-of-Fame level, in baseball.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:00 AM on June 21, 2004
If either of those things were relevant, you might have a point.
posted by David Dark at 10:06 AM on June 21, 2004
posted by David Dark at 10:06 AM on June 21, 2004
« Older Where's my flying car? I want my flying car!!! | Dubya's Dilemma: Daddy Doesn't Support the Iraq... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:30 PM on June 18, 2004