Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

Brutal killing of American soldiers kidnapped from their post is only the latest incident. In the past from Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia tribal militants love to kill their captives.

This is especially hideous if it done by the Islamic warriors. Oh well, I understand certain guppies will disagree with me on this. Still this is a good topic to discuss.

I’d say, hold them as POWs so that the other side is also more flexible. Make sure you feed them right, care for their injuries etc. Allow letters and pictures between the captives and their families. Hopefully one day when the current war is over, they all could go home.

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

This is nothing more than Tribal Barbarism that plagued the Middle East before the coming of Islam....

now they just use Islam as a justification to continue their barbaric practices and Pakistanis follow them hook, line and sinker

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

So do you agree with those people who think that those warriors ARE "Islamic"?

[quote]
I'd say, hold them as POWs so that the other side is also more flexible. Make sure you feed them right, care for their injuries etc. Allow letters and pictures between the captives and their families. Hopefully one day when the current war is over, they all could go home.
[/quote]
I agree with you on that, but then you already pointed out that their nature is "tribal" where their tribe is happy if "invader/intruder" is brutally murdered then that is what they will do.

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

Islam was revealed 1400 to these very same type of brutal tribal warriors, they didn't have trouble being "Islamic". Why do these people who proudly profess their Muslimness and I assume follow many or most of the tenets of the religion fall out of the fold?

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

It is a shame that the one's shouting from rooftops about freedom, high moral ground and democracy have set really good examples in Abu Gharaib and the illegal hostage center in gitmo. Apart from that they also blow innocent women and children to take revenge for their fallen comrades and than cover it up by saying that they were terrorists killed in a firefight. If the so called civilised and highly disciplined force behaves in such a barbaric manner, what can you expect from, as some would say, jahil tribals.

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

new strategy i guess. getting them killed in combat or roadside bombs was not having the desired effect. kidnappings, now thats a boost for network ratings right there.

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

American GIs who mistreated Iraqis in abugharaib were punished. Where is the similar punishment for sar-kati (beheader) zarqawi. His punishment for heinous crimes came in the shape of a 500 lb guided bomb.

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives


When they started to follow Islam they were tamed, but with time people find excuses and a couple of centuries later we have pick n choose of the tenets but still "remaining within the fold" and able to carry out what they desire, it is true not just for the extremists but also average Muslim these days hence the overall grade is not as good as it could've been.

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

This is nothing new, and not limited to the Islamic world. Even in modern times, the Khemer Rouge and Rwanda fighters used "horror" as a tactic. What we now term "terrorism" has always been a technique on the battlefield. Here is the rational.

1) By exceding the norms of combat, one side tries to instill fear into ignorant troops.

2) By harming women and children, one side stakes out it's territory as "determined, brutal and ruthless", thus trying to convince the more "civilized" opponent that they cannot prevail. This often backfires when the brutal fighters lose the confidence of the populice.

3) When one side choses unconventional targets, mosques, cruise ships, airliners, olympic atheletes, they are demonstrating that there is no front line, and that any target is a legitimate target. This forces the defense to defend more areas, and to spread their defenses thinner. If the more "civilized" side chooses not to reciprocate and attack unconventional targets, the "barbaric" side has a tactical advantage.

4) In most cases the "civilized" side has superior conventional forces, but will choose not to use them to their full effect. One exception to this is the Syrian town of Hama. Assad's father had a conflict with Islamic Extremeists centered in the town of Hama. Rather than flush out the innocents as the US did in Fallujah. The Syrian army surrounded the town and did not let anyone out. They pulverized the town in an artillery seige that lasted weeks. The town of 30,000 people was leveled. Then he did an odd thing. He invited in the world press. The story was widely broadcast, and served notice as to how Syria would deal with Islamic extremeists, and rebellious towns. It bought him decades of peace with the extremeists. Saddam also used massive State horror to control his population.

Horror should be a tactic that generally backfires, but in many cases fear is stronger that revulsion, and the world has failed to take a unified stance against those who commit these horrors, instead rationalizing their reasons for engaging in it.....

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

the problem is that there so many people committing horrors: rebels in south america, children warriord in Congo, muslim fighters in sudan, iraki terrorist, talibaan in afghanistan, north korean military power, sri lanka tamils…we would have to nuclear bomb half of the planet to get rid of thos terrorists :bummer:

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

You forgot American terrorists in Iraq…

Re: Why tribal militants kill, or behead their captives

It's clearly not the violence that bothers many Muslims Seminole but the false notion that American (and Israel) are dominating or plan to dominate over Muslims in Iraq (and Muslims throughout the world for that matter).

Voices such as Fret would much prefer a civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites (and Kurds) than a functioning and productive government made possible by the U.S. invasion because if such a government were to be successful then Muslims once again have fallen under the heal of the U.S. A false notion? Clearly debatable, but one that sells easy in the Muslim world today.