American Freelance reporter beheaded by ISIS

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by vienna

Actually, it was the idiotic, stubborn, ill-conceived, ill-executed mess created by GW Bush's insistence on executing an unnecessary invasion of Iraq that caused all of this; he bungled and bumbled his way until he termed out and, in true GWB style, left it for someone else to sort out. He even "selected" al-Maliki as Prime Minister because al-Maliki would play ball with Bush and Bush's perceptions of US "interests" in Iraq (read: oil). The day Bush committed to a two-front war, he screwed up everything in the region...


<O>

Totally agree, but that's another issue. One mistake doesn't deserve another. Bush, nor Obama listened to the experts.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Still, not doing anything is not an option

I did not say nor imply that one should do nothing.

What I said is that the West should stop giving that scum a media stage on which to perform its shock-and-awe campaign. Not reporting about their stories that are meant to shock and stun the Western public. And silently hunt them down man by man, vehicle by vehicle, with air power. No prisoners, nor forgiving. Search, find, kill - hunt them and keep them running until they die by heart attack.

Drones will start to become a blessing, ironically not in wars against supertech enemy states, but in "asymmetrical wars" because their endurance outlasts that of the human body. Imagine to have a constant force of 30, 40, 50 drones over the heads of IS contingents in Iraq 24/7 that could strike just any second. Every drone out of ammo immediately replaced with a fresh one.

That is what I would call "terror".

It would also help to prevent Western "nationals" with migration background re-entering Western countries and having IS indoctrination and war experience in their backpacks. We shall have no interest to let these murderous fanatics back into our home countries. It was murderous hate for our nations that made them leaving their hosting nations and join IS. So let IS keep them forever in both life and death.

Do I say something nasty again? No - I just state the obvious.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Totally agree, but that's another issue. One mistake doesn't deserve another. Bush, nor Obama listened to the experts.

I was responding to the claim that Obama caused this genocide: he did not. The proximate and principal cause was the initial incursion/invasion. No invasion, a high probability of no US created crisis. Bush left this mess, and many others, for whomever was to follow him. He did what he has done throughout his life: let others deal with his many shortcomings. Bush is the creator and bears sole responsibility for this mess...


<O>

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I did not say nor imply that one should do nothing.

What I said is that the West should stop giving that scum a media stage on which to perform its shock-and-awe campaign. Not reporting about their stories that are meant to shock and stun the Western public. And silently hunt them down man by man, vehicle by vehicle, with air power. No prisoners, nor forgiving. Search, find, kill - hunt them and keep them running until they die by heart attack.

Drones will start to become a blessing, ironically not in wars against supertech enemy states, but in "asymmetrical wars" because their endurance outlasts that of the human body. Imagine to have a constant force of 30, 40, 50 drones over the heads of IS contingents in Iraq 24/7 that could strike just any second. Every drone out of ammo immediately replaced with a fresh one.

That is what I would call "terror".

It would also help to prevent Western "nationals" with migration background re-entering Western countries and having IS indoctrination and war experience in their backpacks. We shall have no interest to let these murderous fanatics back into our home countries. It was murderous hate for our nations that made them leaving their hosting nations and join IS. So let IS keep them forever in both life and death.

Do I say something nasty again? No - I just state the obvious.

I didn't say that you did. I said that doing nothing militarily was not an option, not doing nothing via the media.
Fully agree on the drones, the only problem there is, really, is getting proper target ID, too many weddings have had the bride and groom receive a Hellfire as a wedding present from the USAF, but unfortunately you get these problems with many new forms of weaponry, if they're not killing the wrong people on the ground then they're killing their operators, or a mixture of both. As optic technology gets better then intel will hopefully improve, of course a little restraint before engaging sometimes helps too.

Not just a definition of terror but an effective ground vehicle denial method, one only has to look at the Falaise pocket to realise just how devastating total aerial dominance can be to the ground battle. Infantry on the other hand are a bit harder because they can hide better, but even so eventually, one of them will end up in the IR sights of a drone and then it's goodnight Irene.

Also agree on barring the return of western nationals, however that one is a lot less likely to happen, especially in Europe, we have the benefit of having a body of water between us and Iraq, and even then we still get dozens of illegal immigrants come through a month (if not more) so having a hard defined border beyond lines on a map is not particularly easy, unfortunately they will get through, we can make it harder but we cannot stop it.

[Wolferz]

I think Bush was after revenge more than he was oil after Saddam threatened to kill his father over the Kuwait thing.
In true fashion, that war was started with a nice fat lie like most every other war.

Do you think ISIS might wake up and stop grandstanding their desperate little acts of terror? Maybe after they've been blown to smithereens.
Video cameras require arms and hands to operate them properly.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I wish that stolries like this simply would not get reported in Wetsenr media. Doing it and expressing how shocked this or that brightbrained poltiicans is to learnt he news, just rewards the primtzives conducting the deed, this is the purpsoe of terror.

Islamic forces already used terror during the crusades (as a matter of fact even before that, already at Muhammad'S lifetime, to blackmail resisting factions in North Africa and convince them into surrender without needing to fight every one of them when Islam'S conquest moved westward), sometimes executing their prisoners after a battle, even those of noble families, instead of trading them for gold as was common habit in those days, and although they could afford to hold them prisoner until then, logistically. The idea was to send Europoe a message: "what,m thes epori8nces and noble knights are the best you can come up with! Look what we do with them...!" Chop, chop, chop, chop... Wetsern people and self-deceiving Muslims will deny it, but terror methods always have been part of the tool pool of Islamic conquest, and already have been ordered and demanded by Muhammad himself. It's even somewhere in the Quran, in two of the Suras originating from the Medina era (which overrule those of the Mekka era, sicne they are "newer": the socalled abbrogation principle on which all major Islamic mainstream schools of meaning and importance have reached consensus already many centuries ago: in case of contradicting verses and Suras, those who came later and thus are "newer/younger" by date, shall overrule the older ones). The suras in the Koran are NOT sorted by date, so just comparing the page numbers leads nowhere.

We westerners would NEVER use terror would we? /sarcasm

Of course the Crusaders spread goodwill, love and peace wherever they went in the name of JC. Oh look it's also in the Bible. Nice try to incite religious hatred, but nice fail also.

[vienna]

Ya mean kinda like "Kill A Commie For Christ"?...


<O>

[Aktungbby]

I

Skybird: Islamic forces already used terror during the crusades (as a matter of fact even before that, already at Muhammad'S lifetime, to blackmail resisting factions in North Africa and convince them into surrender without needing to fight every one of them when Islam'S conquest moved westward), sometimes executing their prisoners after a battle, even those of noble families, instead of trading them for gold as was common habit in those days, and although they could afford to hold them prisoner until then, logistically.

Tarjak: We westerners would NEVER use terror would we? /sarcasm

And payback was hell BBY":In the aftermath of the Fall of Acre, during the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart attempted to negotiate terms of surrender with the Saracens. Richard wanted to exchange over 3,000 captured prisoners for the True Cross, as well as a hefty ransom and imprisoned Christians. The True Cross was believed to be the actual physical cross upon which Jesus Christ was crucified.
After much delay by Saladin and the Muslims, Richard, frustrated and angered, personally marched his prisoners to a hill called Ayyadieh. There, in full view of the nearby Muslim army encampment, Richard ordered the slaughter of the over 3,000 prisoners, women and children included. They were all mercilessly beaten to death, axed and cut down by swords and lances. A Muslim force, so enraged by this act, attempted to charge the crusader lines but was repeatedly beaten back, allowing Richard and his army to retire in good order. Thus concluded one of the most unusually ruthless battles/massacres, even by Crusades’ standards." -10 little massacres of history

[eddie]

I hope the Saudi's are enjoying what is going on north of their border! And what is slowly coming their way! The Royal Family has to be crapping all over themselves right about now.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I wonder, if Saddam was still in power, what he would have done in regards to Syria...given that Al Assads Alawites are Shi'ite, and Saddams Ba'athist views were Sunni, I wonder if Iraq would have invaded Syria in an attempt to overthrow Al'Assad and install a puppet regime. Al-Assad and Saddam were no friends, that's certain.

I think he would have remembered the last time he did such a thing in Kuwait.
And with the Arab Spring I think he would've had enough things to worry about in his own country as I doubt it would've been stable like the other Middle Eastern nations that had the spring in full blow.

Originally Posted by TarJak

We westerners would NEVER use terror would we? /sarcasm

Of course the Crusaders spread goodwill, love and peace wherever they went in the name of JC. Oh look it's also in the Bible. Nice try to incite religious hatred, but nice fail also.

Certainly the cuisine was something different in them good ol' days around Ma'arra.

Ugh that I actually bothered reading that quoted bit as I've got the bigot on ignore but again he shows how little he knows about the Islam....what a suprise.

As for the reporter that got beheaded, it's tragic but no more then the hundred and maybe thousands others that faced a similar fate at the hands of this IS trash.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

I think he would have remembered the last time he did such a thing in Kuwait.
And with the Arab Spring I think he would've had enough things to worry about in his own country as I doubt it would've been stable like the other Middle Eastern nations that had the spring in full blow.

True, makes me wonder how big the uprising would have been in Iraq, all things considered. I wonder if the US would have intervened in support of Assad, Syria did side with the US in the first Gulf War after all.
I guess that's one for the alternate history section.

[Jimbuna]

Looks like the US made a rescue attempt to free the hostages recently but it was unsuccessful because the hostages had already been moved to another location.

http://news.sky.com/story/1322190/fo...ree-journalist

[vienna]

Originally Posted by eddie

I hope the Saudi's are enjoying what is going on north of their border! And what is slowly coming their way! The Royal Family has to be crapping all over themselves right about now.

I doubt they are worried. After all, the oil companies aren't about to let any thing happen to the teat they suck on; besides, the Saudi's have they're paid for defense force: the US military...


<O>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TarJak

We westerners would NEVER use terror would we? /sarcasm

Of course the Crusaders spread goodwill, love and peace wherever they went in the name of JC. Oh look it's also in the Bible. Nice try to incite religious hatred, but nice fail also.

Check the history books better. I recommend Rodney Stark's "God's Batallions. The Case for the Crusades" for starting. There is a reaosn why it has gotten such good criticism both in America and Germany. Not by historical relativisers, however- which is a compliment in itself, I would say.

Grrr. One of those many books that just drowned during the big flood we had three weeks ago...

As have been told before, in past years, when Saladin still was in service of some Syrian king, he already massacred captured noble men, although he had solid logistic paths, water, food, and no military thread in his back. In those days it was common habit both in the West and East that armies and noble when who were captured, were traded for gold instead of killing them. That Saladin did not do that, was meant as a message to Europe. Later, when he had become the "liberator" of Jerusalem (liberating? wasnt that once a Roman/Jewish city?) he acted more pragmatically again, sometimes selling prisoners as slaves, sometimes trading them for gold and releasing them, sometimes doing otherwise. This did not prevent a monumental glorification process getting started. But the mythology about the man hardly matches the historical figure, which was - as already said - more pragmatic and profance. BTW, he is known in the Weatern world not only as a great noble king, but also as a merciless suppressor of any reforming movement and alterntive thinking. That he nevertheless became subject of massive transifiguraiton esoecially in the West, was not disturbed by his merciless determination, however.

Good book also is by Francesco Gabrieli, which is available in German and English: "Arab historians of the Crusades". Not because all is correct in it. But because it sheds some revealing light on Arab views and assessments of the crusades and the way some figures, like Saladin, get interpreted and seen (and mystified). Another book of mine that went down the drain recently...

Later, when he had captured "Ordensritter" after the battle at Hattin, which were known for their unlikeliness to ever give up their faith and so could not be turned to Islam, , he not only executed them , but left them to a fanatical mob that massacred them in an especially cruel way. Bya this he wanted to break the moral backbone of the Order, and wanted to sow fear and wavering in the hearts of other knights of that order.

Later, Richard Lionheart landed in the unholy land. When fighting his way towards Jerusalem, he had a big victory somewhere, and captured many enemy soldiers. He held them captured - until he started to move to Jerusalem. He then gave the order to execute the prisoners, all of them.

You wonder what the difference is?

Different to the Muslim armies, who had open supply lines and close supply bases, the European armies had this luxury NOT. Their superior armour and tactics compensated for the numerical inferiority. Still problem of long supply lines remained, and the time delay when reinforcing. Richard could not afford the risk to suddenly have a huge hostile force in his vulnerable rear when heading for Jerusalem and leaving the prisoners and some guards behind, the risk was too high. And so he ordered what the logic of war demanded.

The book ends with the myth that all noble men went to the crusade just to become rich and powerful. Most ruined their families' finances and caused debts for their next of kin to just pay for their equipment and the voyage there. Many stranded in the forign country, not being able to manage their trip back home - having run out of money and drowning in debts so they found nobody giving them credit.

Also, there was a fundamental difference in mentality, one that is valid and often totally mignored until today: The European knights fought for saving their individual life. The Muslims often fought with an attitude of completely dispising death, and not being scared to die.

Regarding your reference to the bible - in the West most people have learned to move beyond the sadism of the old testamenbt long time ago. Fundamentlaists demaind it to be taken literally, are minorities and excetions from the rule. Most people in the West do not care for it anymore, the churches also have seen historical developments that ahve chnaged them tremedneously and "officially", compared to that, and their ideolgioc basis, especially in case of the non-orthodx and non-catholic Protestants reflect that. There have been historicla eras that pushed the old dogma and scripture back into a small cell.

Show me a comparable development in the Islamic world. Show me where they have started to alter and move beyond the Koran. Show me the reformation of the scripture like you see in the Bible by its division into old and new testament, new testament and Jesus' teachings. The division between Sunni and Shia in no way compares to the reofmraiton and the splitting of the Protestants from the Catholics. An era of enlightenment the Islamic world has never seen. A questioning fo the scripture like in the West, never has taken place. Show me where Muhammad preached the same spirit like Jesus did preach. where they have moived beyond the princiupal atttiude that they already held in the mediev al. I c annot see it. And I can compare the rural places of Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Algeria in the 90s by own experience with the population living in the bigger cities, where sometimes a bigger influence by Western culture indeed can be felt. And what I see is not a soft-washed Islam-light society anywhere, but a more or less hidden (back then) fundament of ultra hardcore conservatism and orthodox religiosity taking the Islamic teaching as literal as they were been taken a thousand years ago. By now, in case of Turkey, Algeria and Egypt, this should have become less hidden and more obviously a fact since then (its two decades ago, roughly, since I journeyed there for a long time).

[Skybird]

A brilliant German essay about the pure lust and joy to kill, torture, mutilate once you have left all civilised inhibations behind, and a reference to historical conquerors who acted by the same barbaric drive, like the Mongolian storm, and the Tartars.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleto...-13106443.html

By Leon de Winter.