American hostage beheaded.

[condor888000]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/index.html

I know it's an American site but still...R.I.P. Mr. Johnson.

[Earlam]

It seems to be the new al-Qaeda execution fad.
Pretty digusting, but it does get a point across.

CNN says he worked on Apache attack helicopters, so I can understand why they picked him. If things are as I picture them, he was working for their enemy in a support role. That could make him a legit target.

But beheadings...... things are way out of hand.

[Wood]

To his family as well. And to the people ontop who could not give into the demands, knowing what the consequences would be. That has to be painful.

[piper]

Bloody terrorists. I'd like to meet one of them on a dark ally, without his Ak-47 and bomb-vest, lets see how tough they are then. My condolences to his family as well.

[Lil Lightnin]

Its truly unfortunate things like this are happening, and I'm afraid he probably won't be the last.

[Juice]

Bloody terrorists. I'd like to meet one of them on a dark ally, without his Ak-47 and bomb-vest, lets see how tough they are then. My condolences to his family as well.

I don't condone the action of either side of things, American or Iraqi, all I have to say is this, to stay on the middle of the road here and not take anyone's side:

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

What I mean by that is, we think that the Iraqi's and Al Qaeda are the terrorists, but think of it from their point of view too. The US are the terrorists here (in their view). Don't forget during Desert Storm George Bush Sr. used Mecca, the holiest city in the Islamic faith as a launching point for US forces. That's why Osama Bin Laden was so upset with the US and that brought on 9/11. i'm not justifying anything that was done nor do I agree with it in any way, but it's not a whole one-sided thing here. Neither side is right.

The most you can say in this is both the US and Al Qaeda are terrorists in their own rights, or neither of them are.

[Earlam]

I don't condone the action of either side of things, American or Iraqi, all I have to say is this, to stay on the middle of the road here and not take anyone's side:

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

What I mean by that is, we think that the Iraqi's and Al Qaeda are the terrorists, but think of it from their point of view too. The US are the terrorists here (in their view). Don't forget during Desert Storm George Bush Sr. used Mecca, the holiest city in the Islamic faith as a launching point for US forces. That's why Osama Bin Laden was so upset with the US and that brought on 9/11. i'm not justifying anything that was done nor do I agree with it in any way, but it's not a whole one-sided thing here. Neither side is right.

The most you can say in this is both the US and Al Qaeda are terrorists in their own rights, or neither of them are.

I would have put it differently, but hat's off to ya.

[Juice]

I would have put it differently, but hat's off to ya.

Thank you. It's nice to see that someone agrees with me. I hate sitting back and seeing people getting all upset at Al Qaeda as though the US has no fault in it whatsoever and 9/11 was an unprovoked attack. It works both ways. Look what the US did. They invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, moving in on people there, and we don't call that terrorism at all? I mean come on. Where do we draw the line? Is terrorism only when someone attacks us? I cant agree with that. I know I am taking a big risk here by saying things like this, but I have to speak my mind. Im not on either side here and I do not agree with the US or Al Qaeda. they're both wrong and they both screwed up in the way that things have been handled in the last ten or so years. Why can't we all just get along???

[DVessey]

Thank you. It's nice to see that someone agrees with me. I hate sitting back and seeing people getting all upset at Al Qaeda as though the US has no fault in it whatsoever and 9/11 was an unprovoked attack. It works both ways. Look what the US did. They invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, moving in on people there, and we don't call that terrorism at all? I mean come on. Where do we draw the line? Is terrorism only when someone attacks us? I cant agree with that. I know I am taking a big risk here by saying things like this, but I have to speak my mind. Im not on either side here and I do not agree with the US or Al Qaeda. they're both wrong and they both screwed up in the way that things have been handled in the last ten or so years. Why can't we all just get along???
ditto, but I think it's been a bit longer than ten years. The US has always thought it could meddle in everyone elses affairs and get off scot-free. Bay of Pigs, Iran/Contra... Now they invade Afghanistan and Iraq and expect everyone to bow down to their awsome power?
Bush et. al. continue to talk about how Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, even though the US's own 9/11 commission reported that there were NO links between them.

I really think it would have been a completely different story if Bush had pushed for the ouster of Hussein through the UN based on his human rights violations, and not try to fabricate intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism that still don't exist.

[Juice]

ditto, but I think it's been a bit longer than ten years. The US has always thought it could meddle in everyone elses affairs and get off scot-free. Bay of Pigs, Iran/Contra... Now they invade Afghanistan and Iraq and expect everyone to bow down to their awsome power?
Bush et. al. continue to talk about how Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, even though the US's own 9/11 commission reported that there were NO links between them.

I really think it would have been a completely different story if Bush had pushed for the ouster of Hussein through the UN based on his human rights violations, and not try to fabricate intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism that still don't exist.

Oh yeah, for sure, I was just mentioning the most recent US intrusions. They definitely have been doing it since they separated from the US (1812, some small attempts in 1837 to take over Canada, etc. etc.)

[wb256]

These arn't just attacks against the USA either, they're attacks against the WEST. The USA being the most powerful western capitalist christian state, it's obviously going to get the most attention. However, other areas are under attack as well (see: train bombing in spain).

This battle has been going on since before the USA was even a country. The crusades come to mind (many are still bitter about the bloodbath in palestine, and the treatment of Muslims in Spain after it was conqoured by christians).

After that came the downfall of the Ottoman Empire and the colonization (mandate system, whatever, they were still colonies) of much of the Arabian peninsula.

Many Muslims view these things as injustices suffered due to western christendom in general. The attacks are being carried out against the USA primarily (for reasons I've already mentioned), but we're all the enemy.

Now, let's go through the logic used in solving such a problem. Many Arabs are mad about the way Christians and westerners have treated them and ruled over them. So obviously the logical way to go about fixing this problem is telling them how to run Iraq and then force arabic prisoners to engage in oralsex with western soldiers and then post pictures of it on the nightly news. Importing a bunch of non-arabs into the area (Israel) and then supporting them diplomatically and militarily might also be the answer. While we're at it we can't forget forcing Iran and Afghanistan (or attempting to force them) to govern themselves as the west sees fit, rather than as Afghanistan and Iran see fit. Also, calling them barbarians seems to help. {!}

Is it just me, or does this seem to be the WRONG way to fix this social problem?

[Juice]

These arn't just attacks against the USA either, they're attacks against the WEST. The USA being the most powerful western capitalist christian state, it's obviously going to get the most attention. However, other areas are under attack as well (see: train bombing in spain).

This battle has been going on since before the USA was even a country. The crusades come to mind (many are still bitter about the bloodbath in palestine, and the treatment of Muslims in Spain after it was conqoured by christians).

After that came the downfall of the Ottoman Empire and the colonization (mandate system, whatever, they were still colonies) of much of the Arabian peninsula.

Many Muslims view these things as injustices suffered due to western christendom in general. The attacks are being carried out against the USA primarily (for reasons I've already mentioned), but we're all the enemy.

Now, let's go through the logic used in solving such a problem. Many Arabs are mad about the way Christians and westerners have treated them and ruled over them. So obviously the logical way to go about fixing this problem is telling them how to run Iraq and then force arabic prisoners to engage in oralsex with western soldiers and then post pictures of it on the nightly news. Importing a bunch of non-arabs into the area (Israel) and then supporting them diplomatically and militarily might also be the answer. While we're at it we can't forget forcing Iran and Afghanistan (or attempting to force them) to govern themselves as the west sees fit, rather than as Afghanistan and Iran see fit. Also, calling them barbarians seems to help. {!}

Is it just me, or does this seem to be the WRONG way to fix this social problem?

Well, let me start by saying I agree with you. Yes, this problem has been going on for centuries, but Osama Bin Laden's rage with the United States was kindled, or at least made stronger, when GB Sr. used Mecca during Desert Storm. That was a really bad idea by the US. And to be honest, if GB Sr. hadnt dont that, in my opinion, 9/11 would probably not have happened. And also, in my opinion, if GWB wouldnt have gotten into office, I dont believe 9/11 would have happened either. I think that 9/11, while it was an attack on Western society, was more of an attack from Osama Bin Laden to the Bush government in revenge for what his father had done years earlier. Mind you this is all my opinion and I know there will be much disagreement to that, but it's how I feel and how I see the situation.

[Earlam]

Well, let me start by saying I agree with you. Yes, this problem has been going on for centuries, but Osama Bin Laden's rage with the United States was kindled, or at least made stronger, when GB Sr. used Mecca during Desert Storm. That was a really bad idea by the US. And to be honest, if GB Sr. hadnt dont that, in my opinion, 9/11 would probably not have happened. And also, in my opinion, if GWB wouldnt have gotten into office, I dont believe 9/11 would have happened either. I think that 9/11, while it was an attack on Western society, was more of an attack from Osama Bin Laden to the Bush government in revenge for what his father had done years earlier. Mind you this is all my opinion and I know there will be much disagreement to that, but it's how I feel and how I see the situation.

I disagree with that last part. I don't think OBL's reason for attacking the WTC again was GWB (ah..... that turned out to be alot of three letter abbreviations).
While he definitely isn't a fan, I think the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before Bush won the election. That sort of work doesn't plan itself (it was a precision job, pulled off with skill. Too bad they were on the other side, eh?).

[Juice]

I disagree with that last part. I don't think OBL's reason for attacking the WTC again was GWB (ah..... that turned out to be alot of three letter abbreviations).
While he definitely isn't a fan, I think the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before Bush won the election. That sort of work doesn't plan itself (it was a precision job, pulled off with skill. Too bad they were on the other side, eh?).

Naturally it wasnt just pulled together last minute. it was a plan in the process the minute that GB Sr. stepped foot into Mecca. Osama Bin Laden was created by the actions that were used during Desert Storm, or at least, his role in Al Qaeda. This was definitely not pulled together last minute, but I do think that 9/11 was more of an attack on the United States than it was on Western society. Now that I think about it, it probably would have happened regardless, because the 1993 WTC bombing came to mind, but still, none of this would have probably happened if Desert Storm was handled a bit more courteously and a bit more professionally by the Americans.

[Neo]

I disagree with that last part. I don't think OBL's reason for attacking the WTC again was GWB (ah..... that turned out to be alot of three letter abbreviations).
While he definitely isn't a fan, I think the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before Bush won the election. That sort of work doesn't plan itself (it was a precision job, pulled off with skill. Too bad they were on the other side, eh?).

There is no way to tell, but I think if Gore had become President 9/11 would not have happened. And I'm not just saying that because I don't like George Bush.

True, it was an operation years in the making, but the go order wasn't given until only a few weeks before.

But Gore and Bush differ greatly on the role of United States in the Middle East. Gore was of the Clinton Viewpoint that the US was there as a mediator. Meanwhile, Bush (and/or his administration) believed in a more involved role.

Anyways, thats how I see it.

[JGallagher]

I belive that some one had said it earlier in this thread. The US are terrorist, any one that invades another country is a terrorist. They have over stayed and killed more people then was killed in 9/11. Look at the atrocities that they have commited against them while they were detained. I am not supporting the beheading. It is a grusome way to die. I have seen the other beheading video. It is very disturbing.

[M Lambert]

no they are invaders, a terrosit is someone who brings panica dn fear to a group or country. Via violent or political means.

bloody terrorists

[piper]

As was said before, it all depends on you viewpoint. If you are pro-West, then the Al-Qaida are the terrorists, if you are anti-US or anti-West, then we are the terrorists.

[M Lambert]

didnt specify who i was calling terrorists did i?

and technically the coalition cannot be terrorists, because they did not go to break down the country by violent means, they went to remove a threat to their lives, OIL. They were not against the country, they were defending their own. whereas 9/11 was not a defensive move, it was offensive and designed to cause terror.

[Juice]

no they are invaders, a terrosit is someone who brings panica dn fear to a group or country. Via violent or political means.

bloody terrorists

I dont know about you, but if I were a citizen of Iraq, and someone from another country came in with the latest technology of weaponry on the planet, I would be pretty panic stricken and pretty fearful. Sure, the US are invaders, but I can guarantee you that they are terrorists, according ot the definition of the term. I am on no one's side in this debate, I think both sides need to start using a little more common sense and have a bit more tolerance towards one another's way of life.

[Juice]

didnt specify who i was calling terrorists did i?

and technically the coalition cannot be terrorists, because they did not go to break down the country by violent means, they went to remove a threat to their lives, OIL. They were not against the country, they were defending their own. whereas 9/11 was not a defensive move, it was offensive and designed to cause terror.

Tha viewpoint all depends on who you talk to as well.

[M Lambert]

explain how it works to make the coalition as terrorists then? give me the opposite view point, that could be true, and thta makes them out as terrorists

[Juice]

explain how it works to make the coalition as terrorists then? give me the opposite view point, that could be true, and thta makes them out as terrorists

OBL and Al Qaeda see what the US is doing in Iraq and the Middle East as an attack on their way of life and their religion and see what they are doing as an attempt at assimilation into Western culture. Like I said before, I dont know about you, but if someone from another country came in and started imposing their views on us, we would be pretty quick to call them terrorists. It's all about the impact of how things happen, not the intent in which they are done. If you look at it from a non-western perspective you will see that.

[M Lambert]

thats where you mix up the meaning of terrorist. everyone is so quick to call anything and everyone a terrorist, invaders are far from it. Fascist, racist, etc is what you are looking for

[Juice]

thats where you mix up the meaning of terrorist. everyone is so quick to call anything and everyone a terrorist, invaders are far from it. Fascist, racist, etc is what you are looking for

Meh, that depends on which point of view you see it from. It's all good. Let's both agree that both sides are wrong and they both should grow up.

[condor888000]

I opened this thread as a memorial to Mr. Johnson and his grieving family. Please, keep it that way.

[Wood]

thats where you mix up the meaning of terrorist. everyone is so quick to call anything and everyone a terrorist, invaders are far from it. Fascist, racist, etc is what you are looking for


Ya, its a definition thing, but the definition of Terrorism is something made up by big nations, like us, and something we tend to use indiscriminantly against small forces that we don't like. I'm sure Arabic has developed some words with much stronger conotations than "terrorists" to describe a large christian invader who come for their own greed, and to westernize their culture.