well at this rate of a beheading a week.. US public sentiment is bound to stay under control and FOR the occupation.. “Al-qayda” or whoever never tires of helping the Administration’s cause.. :k:
Iraqi Militants Behead Korean Hostage
this sets the example of Islam from millitants point of view. :disgust:
Yep, I think we might have an Al-Qaeda special documentary on 20/20 or 60 minutes for exactly that purpose 
RIP poor fellow, heart goes out to his family and friends.
That logic doesn’t hold PA, after initial anger it is more likely that U.S. citizens will want the U.S. to leave even more so and just let the dogs at each other.
utd i doubt it.. it ferments the administration's stance on how 'evil' the 'enemy' is and how the resistance in Iraq isn't a popular one but led by terrorists.
All these beheading instances have tremendously helped the administration; when Berg lost his life.. Rumsfeld avoided a demand to resign. when Johnson died.. they kept the news low till Reagomania died down and then started playing it up.. and now this.
perhaps they should utd.
clearly this violence and the inability to control it speaks against the cause to go to war. there is now talk (in yesterday's LA times) that installing a strong arm govt (the current premier is a strong arm guy who talked about imposing martial law and emergency) and exiting might be the way to go.
To what end what this then? Installing one dictator for another? Perhaps one temporarily friendlier to 'strategic' aims. So long as he keeps walking the straight and narrow (which doesnt mean 'good', merely means convenient). Then launch another war, displace him, install the third.
Did anyone notice the chairs, jump suit or dialect spoken in the video or are the conspiricy theorist junkies letting their imaginations run wild?
the idea is to let your imagination run a bit atleast seminole, not constrain it to pigeonholes of convenience a government designs for you.
clearly nobody here is questioning the veracity of the tape because we werent given reason to (yet). And even though you may forgive the 'oops' worth thousands of cluster bombs based on reasons cooked up later on, even if you can find the new pigeonhole to your convenience, fact remains that this fiasco is principally because you didnt use your imagination when you could've.
Semi some people at least think and question what they see rather than give conditioned responses and then go file their taxes obediently.
PA wrong again, since the beating up and dancing upon dead Americans took place in Iraq support for the war has gone south (those agents hired to do such acts must have egg on their faces now).
Ravage if installing one dictator for another can make the country terror free or at the very least make it a country that isn't comfortable for them to operate then perhaps its not a such a bad idea? And if that dictator submits to organizations that threaten the U.S. then yes, take it down, attempt to give the country freedom and a chance to govern itself and if that fails put up another stooge, maybe your right, that could be the way to go.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
PA wrong again, since the beating up and dancing upon dead Americans took place in Iraq support for the war has gone south (those agents hired to do such acts must have egg on their faces now).
Ravage if installing one dictator for another can make the country terror free or at the very least make it a country that isn't comfortable for them to operate then perhaps its not a such a bad idea? And if that dictator submits to organizations that threaten the U.S. then yes, take it down, attempt to give the country freedom and a chance to govern itself and if that fails put up another stooge, maybe your right, that could be the way to go.
[/QUOTE]
in the case of saddam, which organisation did saddam submit to? the 911 panel specifically found that saddam did not respond to AQ's request for support. Now again, before you respond, think beyond the inane, repetetive rant of 'contacts'. Which organisation threatening the US managed to have saddam submit to it?
And when did you EVER give the country a chance to govern itself? First you installed a collection of handpicked individuals as your mouthpiece, then installed a selection of people as interim government. Elections have consistently been delayed against the will of the population. The iraqi DEMANDS of freedom and self governance and democracy have been obstructed, ducked under. Instead your prime prerogative seems to have been installing a government of your choice that is now issuing statements about martial law.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
And when did you EVER give the country a chance to govern itself? First you installed a collection of handpicked individuals as your mouthpiece, then installed a selection of people as interim government. Elections have consistently been delayed against the will of the population. The iraqi DEMANDS of freedom and self governance and democracy have been obstructed, ducked under. Instead your prime prerogative seems to have been installing a government of your choice that is now issuing statements about martial law.
[/QUOTE]
What capacity for security, free and fair elections and ultimately self-governance have the Iraqis had in the 1 year + since the removal of Sadaam? Without lecturing about the current security crisis (perpetuated by insurgents), by what process would you have created a lasting and successful model of self-government in Iraq?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
What capacity for security, free and fair elections and ultimately self-governance have the Iraqis had in the 1 year + since the removal of Sadaam? Without lecturing about the current security crisis (perpetuated by insurgents), by what process would you have created a lasting and successful model of self-government in Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
there is no reason to suppose that the interim government would perform martial law any better than a democratically elected one. The US is determined to transfer power next month in any case, right? So it would've been to a democratic one, and not a dictatorship.
As for how the elections would've been conducted, the current level of violence is heightened as a direct result of americans being percieved as perpetuating their occuptation. Direct elections would've been welcomed vastly by the iraqis, as was evidenced by the biggest protest rally even in the country's history, on the call for elections. The bombings have targeted those working for the govt, like government departments, police stations etc etc. There is no reason to suppose they would target pollsters, especially when you have a MAJOR figure like Seestani backing it. As for other infrastructure, they had Saddam's issued meal rations for identification. Hell ink could've been used, as is used in Pakistan for example.
Now I ask you this. Cite a single effort taken by the US govt since invading iraq that supports the notion that they actually want to have 'freedom' and 'self government' in the country? What is your basis for saying that beyond the fact that it sounds nice?
Also.. when are elections going to be held in afghanistan? Any word on that at all?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Did anyone notice the chairs, jump suit or dialect spoken in the video or are the conspiricy theorist junkies letting their imaginations run wild?
[/QUOTE]
The two beheadings subsequent to Berg's have certainly reduced to rubble the conspiracy theory that the US did the first beheading. Then you add the news of beheadings in Afghanistan to the mix (see other thread) and it's pretty hard for the apologists to argue that terrorists wouldn't behead anybody because it is a sin.
In fact, this appears to be a pretty commonly accepted thing. "Oh boy. I am evil. I can cut off people's heads. Let me show you this one. Boo. Are you sufficiently scared of me yet to change your foreign policy and let me have what I want."
What the beheadings are doing is numbing me a little bit to other less ... uh .... terminal practices that are occuring over there. Naked pyramids and dog collars are starting to resemble Friday night fun and games at some Guppy's homes rather than anything to be bothered about. I rank those pyramids as a sin akin to coveting my neighbor's ass while beheading is obviously much closer to polytheism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Semi some people at least think and question what they see rather than give conditioned responses and then go file their taxes obediently.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that there is a Pied Piper syndrome in the US and blind allegiance by some. I, however am not a rat and refuse to be led to the river. That being said, the flute is not always being played but some people's heads are filled with the music and it clouds their judgment.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
in the case of saddam, which organisation did saddam submit to? the 911 panel specifically found that saddam did not respond to AQ's request for support. Now again, before you respond, think beyond the inane, repetetive rant of 'contacts'. Which organisation threatening the US managed to have saddam submit to it?
And when did you EVER give the country a chance to govern itself? First you installed a collection of handpicked individuals as your mouthpiece, then installed a selection of people as interim government. Elections have consistently been delayed against the will of the population. Th
e iraqi DEMANDS of freedom and self governance and democracy have been obstructed, ducked under. Instead your prime prerogative seems to have been installing a government of your choice that is now issuing statements about martial law.
[/QUOTE]
Saddam submitted to his own fantasy of wanting to be seen as the 'leader of the Arab world', this meant continuing confrontations against public enemy #1, the ‘evil’ U.S. at it was to be done at the expense of the Iraqi people which in turn made the U.S. look bad and was used to flame Arab/Muslim resentment towards the United States.
A chance to Govern itself...as I said a while back you need to * secure security* before freedom can truly come about. That means training Iraqis to police their country, it means letting the everyday Iraqi know that they can speak up against the militants and turn in information about them without worrying about his or her family being brutally murdered. The Iraqis have to secure Iraq not Americans, they can only help, and those attacking the U.S. and beheading foreign workers don't give a damn about Iraqs security.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Saddam submitted to his own fantasy of wanting to be seen as the 'leader of the Arab world', this meant continuing confrontations against public enemy #1, the ‘evil’ U.S. at it was to be done at the expense of the Iraqi people which in turn made the U.S. look bad and was used to flame Arab/Muslim resentment towards the United States.
A chance to Govern itself...as I said a while back you need to * secure security* before freedom can truly come about. That means training Iraqis to police their country, it means letting the everyday Iraqi know that they can speak up against the militants and turn in information about them without worrying about his or her family being brutally murdered. The Iraqis have to secure Iraq not Americans, they can only help, and those attacking the U.S. and beheading foreign workers don't give a damn about Iraqs security.
[/QUOTE]
so you were wrong in saying that he submitted to an organisation? perhaps you should be more careful in obfuscating already contentious issues.
as for what saddam did, what confrontations do you speak of? he was a neutered delapidated dictator and did not pose a security threat in the least.
As for your answer about governance, you only address the question of security. Insecure places are not necessarily undemocratic. India's gujraat was the most insecure place on the planet for Muslims at one time, six months later elections were held, and much of those responsible for the insecurity got kicked out.
This talk of first this than that seems a convenient way of installing this, and letting that die away.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Saddam submitted to his own fantasy of wanting to be seen as the 'leader of the Arab world', this meant continuing confrontations against public enemy #1, the ‘evil’ U.S. *at it was to be done at the expense of the Iraqi people which in turn made the U.S. look bad and was used to flame Arab/Muslim resentment towards the United States. *
[/QUOTE]
so you mean all this was a PR campaign? still winning hearts and minds are you?
anyhow utd, storch. later, im off to work.
Saddams games with the inspectors was a confrontation, his firing at jets in the no fly zones were confrontations, his giving of money to families of suicide bombings was a confrontation. Were these just causes to go to war? There are dozens of threads that debate that.
As far as security is concerned if you want a fair elections it has to take place without threats hanging over the heads of the voters, its that simple.