Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

It is horrible. And predicted. Said predictions ignored. Repeatedly.

-sigh-

Not only that, it looks like the Bush Administration (surprise, surprise!) blew an opportunity to get al-Zarqawi when they had the chance.

Quote:

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

:evil: :evil:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

It is horrible. And predicted. Said predictions ignored. Repeatedly.

-sigh-

Not only that, it looks like the Bush Administration (surprise, surprise!) blew an opportunity to get al-Zarqawi when they had the chance.

Quote:

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

:evil: :evil:

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Not only that, it looks like the Bush Administration (surprise, surprise!) blew an opportunity to get al-Zarqawi when they had the chance.

Quote:

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Didn't you know, Kiff? Getting Saddam was part of the War on Terrans! If we go killing actual terrorists, we might not be able to go ahead with the War! That just wouldn't do at all!

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Not only that, it looks like the Bush Administration (surprise, surprise!) blew an opportunity to get al-Zarqawi when they had the chance.

Quote:

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Didn't you know, Kiff? Getting Saddam was part of the War on Terrans! If we go killing actual terrorists, we might not be able to go ahead with the War! That just wouldn't do at all!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

by the way, in your last sentence are you advocating doing something :shock: to the families of those worthies?

Yes I was, I was thinking of taking photos of family members, sort of like what the mob does. And no it doesn't make me better than them.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

by the way, in your last sentence are you advocating doing something :shock: to the families of those worthies?

Yes I was, I was thinking of taking photos of family members, sort of like what the mob does. And no it doesn't make me better than them.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

by the way, in your last sentence are you advocating doing something :shock: to the families of those worthies?

Yes I was, I was thinking of taking photos of family members, sort of like what the mob does. And no it doesn't make me better than them.

...then why should anyone root for you to win? It's an important question to ponder.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

by the way, in your last sentence are you advocating doing something :shock: to the families of those worthies?

Yes I was, I was thinking of taking photos of family members, sort of like what the mob does. And no it doesn't make me better than them.

...then why should anyone root for you to win? It's an important question to ponder.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

I agree. Every time we get pissed off and reduce ourselves to the level of our enemies, they win.

This brings up something interesting. Doesn't war always force us, if not actually to the level of our enemies, at best to a level lower than we'd like to be? War always involves slaughtering large numbers of people, which is morally questionable.

Also, I don't know if it's being "pissed off" so much as being afraid that really brings on the bad behavior. The more threatened we feel, the less willing we are to restrain ourselves. Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

This holds true in nonviolent conflict as well; fear makes us treat others in ways we wouldn't if we weren't afraid of them.

W/r/t al-Qaeda and their families: are we sufficiently terrified of these guys that we're willing to sink that low? Mike aside, I doubt it. But we're all in the world together, and their evil, and our response to it, is an inescapable karmic stain.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

I agree. Every time we get pissed off and reduce ourselves to the level of our enemies, they win.

This brings up something interesting. Doesn't war always force us, if not actually to the level of our enemies, at best to a level lower than we'd like to be? War always involves slaughtering large numbers of people, which is morally questionable.

Also, I don't know if it's being "pissed off" so much as being afraid that really brings on the bad behavior. The more threatened we feel, the less willing we are to restrain ourselves. Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

This holds true in nonviolent conflict as well; fear makes us treat others in ways we wouldn't if we weren't afraid of them.

W/r/t al-Qaeda and their families: are we sufficiently terrified of these guys that we're willing to sink that low? Mike aside, I doubt it. But we're all in the world together, and their evil, and our response to it, is an inescapable karmic stain.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Croakmore:

Without daring to come between you and Mr. Love, it might work better if you find a non-creationist source to link in support of your statement.

Just a thought.

Oops, you're right about that, Brian. I suppose it is worth mentioning here von Baer's Law.

Quoting S. J. Gould from his Ontogeny and Phylogeny:

Von Baer argued that human gill slits do not reflect a change in developmental timing. They are not adult stages of ancestors pushed back into the embryos of descendants; they merely represent a stage common to the early ontogeny of all vertebrates (embryonic fish also have gill slits, after all). The confusion between von Baer and Haeckel arises from an unfortunate tradition in natural history, the emphasis of results and their classification rather than processes and their explanation.

I know Creationists will seize upon anything they think will make their case, even if they don't understand the operating principles.

--Croak

The soft version, SOFT version . . .

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Croakmore:

Without daring to come between you and Mr. Love, it might work better if you find a non-creationist source to link in support of your statement.

Just a thought.

Oops, you're right about that, Brian. I suppose it is worth mentioning here von Baer's Law.

Quoting S. J. Gould from his Ontogeny and Phylogeny:

Von Baer argued that human gill slits do not reflect a change in developmental timing. They are not adult stages of ancestors pushed back into the embryos of descendants; they merely represent a stage common to the early ontogeny of all vertebrates (embryonic fish also have gill slits, after all). The confusion between von Baer and Haeckel arises from an unfortunate tradition in natural history, the emphasis of results and their classification rather than processes and their explanation.

I know Creationists will seize upon anything they think will make their case, even if they don't understand the operating principles.

--Croak

The soft version, SOFT version . . .

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

Was Nick Berg Jewish? The name is ambigious but suggests the possibility, as does the comparison with Daniel Pearl. :shock:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

Was Nick Berg Jewish? The name is ambigious but suggests the possibility, as does the comparison with Daniel Pearl. :shock:

Well, you know what Timothy Leary says....

Well, you know what Timothy Leary says....

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

Was Nick Berg Jewish? The name is ambigious but suggests the possibility, as does the comparison with Daniel Pearl. :shock:

I hadn't thought of that. It's a good possibility that the enemy thought he was regardless of whether his name was of Jewish or non-Jewish German background. And besides, when it comes to the Jihadi's, we're all Jewish.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

Was Nick Berg Jewish? The name is ambigious but suggests the possibility, as does the comparison with Daniel Pearl. :shock:

I hadn't thought of that. It's a good possibility that the enemy thought he was regardless of whether his name was of Jewish or non-Jewish German background. And besides, when it comes to the Jihadi's, we're all Jewish.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

Was Nick Berg Jewish? The name is ambigious but suggests the possibility, as does the comparison with Daniel Pearl. :shock:

Yes he was, though local media (he hailed from one county over from me, same market) hadn't directly mentioned it that I'd seen before now.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is horrible. It's photos of the beheading by al Qaeda of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The same thing happened to Daniel Pearl, an American reporter in Pakistan, IIRC, also by an al Qaeda-linked group.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

Why are we pussyfooting around with al Qaeda anyways? This Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably has family somewhere. Bin Laden sure as hell does.

Was Nick Berg Jewish? The name is ambigious but suggests the possibility, as does the comparison with Daniel Pearl. :shock:

Yes he was, though local media (he hailed from one county over from me, same market) hadn't directly mentioned it that I'd seen before now.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This brings up something interesting. Doesn't war always force us, if not actually to the level of our enemies, at best to a level lower than we'd like to be? War always involves slaughtering large numbers of people, which is morally questionable. .... Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

Yes, the tendency to make palatable (instead of hard and painful) what is an evil thing, is problematic. If we are to fight a war, we should so with singular purpose, to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and then to return to peace. This idea of starting another "not war", as Mr. Saari calls it, with the expectation that it will last decades and claim countless lives (but not otherwise inconvenience us) is reprehensible.

This means if there is to be a war on terrorism that will involve an invasion of a sizable country (which was planned from the start), we should then raise taxes (not cut them), expand our military, and for heavens sake, not tell people to just go shopping.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This brings up something interesting. Doesn't war always force us, if not actually to the level of our enemies, at best to a level lower than we'd like to be? War always involves slaughtering large numbers of people, which is morally questionable. .... Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

Yes, the tendency to make palatable (instead of hard and painful) what is an evil thing, is problematic. If we are to fight a war, we should so with singular purpose, to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and then to return to peace. This idea of starting another "not war", as Mr. Saari calls it, with the expectation that it will last decades and claim countless lives (but not otherwise inconvenience us) is reprehensible.

This means if there is to be a war on terrorism that will involve an invasion of a sizable country (which was planned from the start), we should then raise taxes (not cut them), expand our military, and for heavens sake, not tell people to just go shopping.

I thought that might be where you were coming from, Mike. And you are bringing up the barbaric idea of reprisals against terrorists' families, tongue-in-cheek, as an antidote to irresponsible sugar-coating, correct?

One of the strangest things any general ever said, but perhaps I understand it now, was when Robert E. Lee said it was good that war was so terrible, else men would love it too much. But perhaps when the terror of war is removed from sight, people do begin to love it too much, and it becomes too easy to begin, in ignorance of the price.

I thought that might be where you were coming from, Mike. And you are bringing up the barbaric idea of reprisals against terrorists' families, tongue-in-cheek, as an antidote to irresponsible sugar-coating, correct?

One of the strangest things any general ever said, but perhaps I understand it now, was when Robert E. Lee said it was good that war was so terrible, else men would love it too much. But perhaps when the terror of war is removed from sight, people do begin to love it too much, and it becomes too easy to begin, in ignorance of the price.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I thought that might be where you were coming from, Mike. And you are bringing up the barbaric idea of reprisals against terrorists' families, tongue-in-cheek, as an antidote to irresponsible sugar-coating, correct?

Not necessarily. War is barbaric, and if when fighting barbarians, a barbarian approach will end the war sooner, I say it should be considered. Is it less barbaric to kill a random many innocents as "collateral" damage then to kill a targeted few? I would say both are barbaric. By threatening first one hopes the enemy will withdraw their relatives from danger, bogging themselves down with noncombatants.