Pakistan Taliban release video of Polish hostage's beheading

sailwind,

ON PURPOSE.......Why do you insist on leaving those two little words out all the time.

Two reasons:

First, it is not true.

Second, it was not part of your original contention, quoted below.

The lie you have to tell yourself that the cause is so important that you can put your humanity aside and kill innocent civilian human beings with impugnity.

The purposes was solely to refute the statement that the US has never justified the killing of innocents.

ON PURPOSE.......Why do you insist on leaving those two little words out all the time.

wuzzademcrat,

Try to keep up with the conversation. There was no attempt to tie these events to the beheading of the Polish engineer. The purposes was solely to refute the statement that the US has never justified the killing of innocents.

You also might want to keep up with TV. Tritter's statement from "House" would have been from '00,s TV. That would be the 2000's if you're really out of touch with TV.

Sorry for the death of this person. Now let's get to business and start bombing the hell out of them.

I do love those U.S. drone attacks against Taliban and al-Qaida targets. That is one good thing the Bush administration did. I say we hit more of those so called weddings.

Now all we need are more boots on the ground in the right country and we maybe able to end this so called war on terror.

sezwho: "This is not true. Almost anyone living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden knows that. Those who know about Wounded Knee know that."

LOL. ALways with the Chomsky-wannabe angle of attempting to tie one incident, in this case the clear-cut evil act of beheading an innocent unarmed civilian, with some larger atrocity completely isolated from its historical context.

As Tritter says on "House", "Everybody lies."

Another weird anachronism. Nothing more recent than 70's TV?

We don't justify the killing of innocents on purpose. We never have.

This is not true. Almost anyone living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden knows that. Those who know about Wounded Knee know that.

Furthermore, and more currently, we rationalize the death of innocents by saying that the war is necessary, that the mistake was an honest one, that the intel was bad but the intent was good, that it's the enemies fault for quartering among innocents and so on and so on. These are justifications for what we do. It allows us to sleep better at night and allows us to continue to make war on criminals instead of apprehending them.

[You're blindly hateful of a group of people based on the acts of a few] sounds like yourself in case involving the US military in Japan. [and that if the video had not been made the government would have rest assured sided with the J-man.] And so would you have. Go back and read your own post in the archives hypocrite.

One Post Smith......JUST ONE is all I ask?

I defended killing innocents???????

Please...............

But the point is that you said you have NEVER EVER defended the killing of innocents, and you have, bucko, bottom line.

Pretty bold Smith...Cite any post or word I said to back that up.

sailwind: "We don't justify the killing of innocents on purpose. We never have. That's why they are called war crimes."

I'm pretty sure you're right if you interpret what you said as not intentionally justifying the innocents you kill, but you're wrong if you say you don't kill on purpose. I know that majority due not, and you're right that if they are caught they are often (not always, and even when they are you will jump on and defend them tooth and nail, like with Blackwater and the boys in Haditha, as examples) tried very harshly, unlike with other terrorists. But the point is that you said you have NEVER EVER defended the killing of innocents, and you have, bucko, bottom line. You can't take that back.

"There isn't a Servicemember past or present who doesn't know being ordered to kill innocent civilians on purpose isn't illegal and has every right to dis-obey it"

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your "isn't illegal" was more of a typo than a Freudian slip.

grafton: "To a degree you are right, I will go on holding Islam responsible for these crimes until the People of that religion take a degree of responsibility that I believe is right. You may not like that, they may not like that, but I am happy with that."

Hey, you want to go on being ignorant, by all means. I have given, as well as others have given, plenty of examples of Muslims standing up, pointed out that pretty much every Muslim nation is against the Taliban, and most Muslim nations also against AQ and sentence them to death in their own countries, but if you fail to see all that than nothing can knock of the blinders you've super-glued in place. This would be somewhat akin to me holding you indirectly responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, by your logic. I mean, they attacked Americans because people like you are solidified by ignorance against them, right? I didn't see you standing up against such generalizations, and so you must therefore be in part to blame.

See how your logic fails you? Of course it's an extreme example, but very much along the same lines as your thinking. There are MANY MORE countries against the Taliban and even AQ than those for. In fact, can you show me a single government that supports the Taliban? By that I mean openly, not 'being suspected of supporting'. I can show you pretty much every single nation in the world as NOT supporting them, and a good deal of those are Muslims... so tell me again how it is they need to prove themselves if they are not supporting them? I mean, clearly, if they did the opposite and openly harboured and supported them that wouldn't do much, now would it?

You're off your rocker, my friend, and it's pretty clear to me that you really aren't that different from the maniacs that carry out these actions, at least in rationale. You're blindly hateful of a group of people based on the acts of a few WHO DON'T EVEN GET ALONG WITH THEM! Also, as I said before, it's pretty clear you'll simply continue to ignore the answers to the things you demand and continue to hate 1.4 billion people of this world based on their beliefs. But then, you never really were all that credible to begin with, so it's no shocker.

bushlover: "It seems he's only apologist when it comes to the actions of the Taliban, Sea Shepherd etc. But when it comes to ... let's say an American for example in Okinawa, well then it's a done deal. Guilty. But the Taliban are only evil because the USA is so evil. We all know his way of thinking and I hope LFRA doesn't get that extreme in conspiracy thought."

Wrong-o, chap. Call up the last example of a US marine who was reported by a Japanese as committing assault, and who was fortunately caught on camera as NOT committing the assault. You'll see I not only clearly defended the US soldier, but I said it was typical behaviour in such a situation to blame the American, and that if the video had not been made the government would have rest assured sided with the J-man. That's but one example.

You're just sour that you guys have had it wrong in various places around the world from the get go, and in your case as a chickenhawk on just about anything. I don't support the Taliban whatsoever -- show me a single post where I do! -- and I most CERTAINLY do not support them here. I simply made the point, which you chose to ignore to pursue your agenda of bigotry, that it was not religious but political in nature, and those who condemn all of Islam for it are simply ignorant. You prove my point very well, again, thank you.

I invited you to think about what lies we might be using to justify our own killing of innocents.

I haven't answered because the question makes no sense.

We don't justify the killing of innocents on purpose. We never have. That's why they are called war crimes.

If you never justified it in the first place, how could one lie to himself that all of the sudden it is okay now?

It doesn't make any sense of what your asking me to consider. When I was an Active Duty I had to obey the orders of the President and those appointed over me, I also had to the moral obligation to not obey an illegal order.

There isn't a Servicemember past or present who doesn't know being ordered to kill innocent civilians on purpose isn't illegal and has every right to dis-obey it.

So once again your asking me to consider something I could not even fathom to consider in the first place.

It is an insult, our Soldiers our duty bound to support the Constitution of the United States they swear an oath to that document, the Supreme Law of the land. If the 'few bad apples' in the Service break the law civilian or under the Code of Military Justice they go to Leavenworth prison. Your trying to make the case that law-abiding people who just happen to in the Military are on the same par as a Terrorist.

No. You are taking an insult where none was given--and you are working overtime to do so. Furthermore, there is absolutely no attempt to define law-abiding American military people as terrorists. I really can't be much more clear. I have said that I am not comparing our individual military personnel to individual terrorists collectively. And I have said that selectively you will find American military personnel who are just as frightening as the terrorists, especially if given half the chance. This does not insult law-abiding personnel.

Second, What Law does the Terrorist obey?

This strikes me as irrelevant to your primary contention. And what's with the capital "T"? However, I would say that terrorists selectively obey the laws of the country they reside in. It is to their advantage to do so. They certainly don't want to be picked up for jay-walking when they have heads to chop off, now, do they? With respect to any person who breaks the law, capital "T" terrorist or "bad apple", we can ask what law they obey. I really think you are confusing individual terrorists with organizations that use terrorism.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a 'progressive' rant agaisn't U.S foreign policy since the dawn of the Republic. And a Bush bash thrown in for good measure.

Whatever the rest of the post was, this comment does nothing to refute it. Additionally, I think it shows a great deal of resistance to any and all amount of criticism. To recap, I invited you to think about what lies we might be using to justify our own killing of innocents. You declined. I invited again. You declined and asked me to give you some examples. I gave you some examples. Now, without refutation or analysis, you dismiss them as being a rant. It seems you will do anything to avoid looking at the question. No pass.

You don't like War or the Warrior, that is totally understandable. The warrior reminds you that the world has a dark ugly side to it that you wish would just go away.

How can I say this politely? These comments are simplistic. And what's with the capital "W"s? I have a suggestion. Why don't you tell me what you like and don't like and I will tell you what I like and don't like. Yes, war is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was here, but it is sometimes. I cannot think of anytime, however, when "war" and "morality" belong in the same sentence unless it's a negative one.

So, while I recognize war as a sometime necessity, I think it is fair to say that I don't like war. Do you? As far as warriors are concerned, I think that is a somewhat glorified term. However, it seems to be much in vogue and I would invite you to think why except that I think that you would have to refuse the invitation. Nonetheless, I don't have anything against people who serve in the military. I think that they are for the most part honorable people.

This does not mean that they serve an honorable cause. That was my contention. And it's the one you don't seem to be able to look at without trying to twist what I am saying.

I don't think it would be true that saying this or that particular soldier is little different from this or that particular terrorist is an insult to our soldiers. Our own government admits to "a few bad apples".

It is an insult, our Soldiers our duty bound to support the Constitution of the United States they swear an oath to that document, the Supreme Law of the land. If the 'few bad apples' in the Service break the law civilian or under the Code of Military Justice they go to Leavenworth prison. Your trying to make the case that law-abiding people who just happen to in the Military are on the same par as a Terrorist.

Second, What Law does the Terrorist obey? None, that is why he is a terrorist, a criminal who operates outside the law of his own country. He is duty bound to nothing but his political cause and uses bloody beheaded bodies to push his agenda.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a 'progressive' rant agaisn't U.S foreign policy since the dawn of the Republic. And a Bush bash thrown in for good measure.

You don't like War or the Warrior, that is totally understandable. The warrior reminds you that the world has a dark ugly side to it that you wish would just go away. You are the sheep and the warrior is the sheepdog. The sheepdog sometimes has to become the wolf he is on the inside to keep the other wolves that roam outside of his flock from devouring the flock. The sheep tolerate the sheepdog for the job he does but he sure doesn't really like the sheepdog and is always wary of him.......The sheepdog is a constant reminder that the wolf inside is always with us.

[I'm in complete agreement with you Smith. It seems that no matter what the Muslim world does to demonstrate that it's not like these animals, it's never enough. Which makes protests and motivations of the West, or rather the simple citizens of the West, all that much more suspect.] ... My God exactly as Smith does when it came to the USA back in Bush's reign especially. Would that be like ... what's that word? Hypocrite? It seems he's only apologist when it comes to the actions of the Taliban, Sea Shepherd etc. But when it comes to ... let's say an American for example in Okinawa, well then it's a done deal. Guilty. But the Taliban are only evil because the USA is so evil. We all know his way of thinking and I hope LFRA doesn't get that extreme in conspiracy thought.

sailwind,

Notwithstanding that I asked you to consider that question for yourself, I will try to do some of the work for you. I suspect that you ask only so that you can fulminate against the answer, but I will play your game.

Let's start with one of your own statements:

To try to compare a terrorist to a soldier is an insult to those who serve our country.

While I did not do this--and I await your apology for suggesting that I did--this statement is not true. Comparing an apple to an orange does not insult citrus trees. I think it would be true that saying that our soldiers are terrorists would be an insult to our soldiers, generally. However, I don't think it would be true that saying this or that particular soldier is little different from this or that particular terrorist is an insult to our soldiers. Our own government admits to "a few bad apples". Furthermore, the point of comparisons is to draw out similarities and differences. The point of trying to stifle comparison seems to me to be that the idea that there might be similarities is discomfiting. As such, your statement is more than untrue. It is a lie you tell yourself.

But let's move on to the bigger picture. I think it only fair to do that because in your original statement you invoked the Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Osama and "the big lie". It certainly seemed to me that you were not talking about individuals as much as you were talking about organizations or institutions which subscribe to certain concepts.

Let's not talk about "Manifest Destiny", "white superiority", ,"killing the innocents to save even more innocents" or "the evil of Communism", all lies which allowed us to suspend our humanity and kill (as it turned out) with impunity. But let's go instead to the current conflict.

19 people, none of them Afghanis, Pakistanis or Iraqis committed a criminal act. It was a horrible act. I think almost every American who watched it and many around the world, even the Iranian leadership, agreed. We responded by saying that this justified a war against a country which harbored a man who is not wanted by the FBI in connection with that event, even after that country finally responded to overtures to negotiate his surrender. "Time's up," we said. An isolated criminal act does not justify a war. That is a lie--and a sign of weakness. We entered upon the war knowing that civilians would be killed and expecting impunity for our actions. "Oh, well," we told ourselves, "civilians always die in war. It can't be helped."

Now you can build on that if you want--"making the world safe for democracy", "democracies don't make war on each other", "we know he has weapons of mass destruction", "axis of evil", "protecting our way of life", "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and many, many others. All of these are used to justify unleashing the power of our military which, with impunity, kills citizens from AC-130 gunships, from white phosphorus, from cluster bombs, from remote-controlled drones piloted from Las Vegas and leaving behind depleted uranium (to say nothing of the cluster bombs and other unexploded munitions) which will for a generation or more sicken and kill the population of the countries we are "saving".

Ask yourself if we do not tell ourselves that democracy is a cause so big and true (God's gift to humanity, Bush said) that it justifies all the civilian death. Ask yourself who will dare to label that a lie and having done so will prosecute our leaders as we seek to prosecute the leaders of those we make war against. Ask yourself whether we anticipate that we can do what we do with impunity.

Impunity. We, the US, have it as long as we can supply alliances with bread and circuses. The terrorists do not have it--not from each other, not from the governments in the countries in which they reside, and certainly not from us.

The truly big lie is considering that "they" are different from "us". As Tritter says on "House", "Everybody lies."

Sez

What I have said is that it would be well for us to consider what lies we tell ourselves in order to justify killing innocent civilians with impunity.

What is the lie do we tell ourselves? be specific.

I await your 'violin' response.

sailwind,

Nowhere does the U.S sanction the killing of innocent civilians with impugnity.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Pakistan does either.

To try to compare a terrorist to a soldier is an insult to those who serve our country.

Oh, let me get my violin. But while you're waiting to hear the tune I play, consider this: I made no such comparison. You are the one who is drawing that comparison.

What I have said is that it would be well for us to consider what lies we tell ourselves in order to justify killing innocent civilians with impunity. I don't think there is much doubt that our actions resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents--maybe hundreds of thousands. And we are much more likely to enjoy impunity than the terrorists ever will.

LFRAgain,

I think what you are missing is that you wrote:

I don't agree with SezWho's assessment that the Taliban are simply misunderstood....

"Simply"? I think this is where you went wrong. To say that we simply misunderstand something is quite different from saying we misunderstand it. "Simply" was what you added, and in my estimation, it changes the meaning significantly.

Mr.Smith.

To a degree you are right, I will go on holding Islam responsible for these crimes until the People of that religion take a degree of responsibility that I believe is right. You may not like that, they may not like that, but I am happy with that.

"have a certain segment of them foaming at the mouth."

The coin hath two sides...

"What the Talaiban did in murdering the engineer had nothing to do with religion."

Wrong again. It had everything to do with religion, with Islam to be precise. On the Left where smith and LFR emote from there is a problem with the idea of religion in general and with good and evil specifically, but you insult the memory of the victims of AQ and the Taliban when you come out waving your hands insisting religion has nothing to do with it.

For the umpteenth time - Islam has a number of grave and barbaric institutional faults that need redressing (like the death penalty for apostates, treatment of infidels and of women) but there is no way to address these without weakening the religious-political polity that Islam essentially is and basically inciting war.

It's obvious. Rushdie, the Mohammed cartoons, Geert Wilders ordeal, Ayan Hirsi's ordeal, the Newsweek riots (fictional reports of "Koran abuse"), Beauty contests, etc. even teddy bears named after their so called prophet have a certain segment of them foaming at the mouth.

Islam, the religion of peace...and of snuff flicks.

I'm in complete agreement with you Smith. It seems that no matter what the Muslim world does to demonstrate that it's not like these animals, it's never enough. Which makes protests and motivations of the West, or rather the simple citizens of the West, all that much more suspect.

And I agree. What the Talaiban did in murdering the engineer had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with using terror and extortion in an attempt to get some seriously bad people released from official custody, including the engineer of the suicide vests used by Taliban zealots. This was a political statement, not religious.

The Taliban behead innocent people and put the video out.

I understand them plenty.

Sez

Nowhere does the U.S sanction the killing of innocent civilians with impugnity. To try to compare a terrorist to a soldier is an insult to those who serve our country. You don't like the warrior profession that is obvious, but to quote George Orwell

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough and ready men stand by to do violence on their behalf"

You've slept pretty peaceably all these years because of them. The only a soldier tells himself is summed up in that quote when he or she goes into battle.

And one last thing, we don't kill innocent civilians ON PURPOSE, they do.

Clear enough on the "moral' front now all.

grafton: "The Taliban murdered an innocent man in the name of Allah & we see not a single demonstrator on the streets of a single western city."

I didn't address this point directly in my comment to you because I've touched on it half a dozen times already; IT'S NOT ABOUT RELIGION!

What's more, and I'm bringing this up AGAIN, when the attacks in Mumbai occurred several posters on here were going on about the same garbage, and demanding that if Muslims are not all terrorists that they stand up against what happened. Within the day, Muslim groups world-wide did indeed say what happened was a tragedy and the people criminals, and what did the people who demanded their outrage say? "Words are just words". When the calls for condemnation were made and threw the people who didn't actually expect them off, said people simply then changed the demands.

So, I'm sorry, but even if for some reason Muslims felt obliged to stand up even MORE against a terrorist group whom they have helped oust and whom every nation greatly disagrees with, you guys would still find a way to express your general hatred for Islam, and prejudice against the Muslim world. In fact, I think if some Muslims stood up against this you'd find some weird way of twisting it to mean that Islam is indeed even more at fault for this murder (than you already believe, that is).

SezWho,

You're certainly within your right to disagree with yourself, but you should be aware that you wrote:

We can dismiss this as an act of unreasonable savagery or we can consider that from their standpoint it makes sense. I'd say that the more profitable thing to do was to consider that it makes sense. The other alternative indicates that we do not understand our enemy.

If this isn't a suggestion that we misunderstand the Taliban, then could you please explain what you mean by "do not understand our enemy"? Perhaps I'm missing something in the subtext.

SuperLib,

You said:

Hijacking a thread about jihadists killing innocents and turning it into an indictment of the West is misplaced.

What is misplaced is your contention that I have hijacked this thread and used it as an indictment against the West. What voices do you have inside your head that cry out to you in this way.

What I have done is to agree that people who kill with impunity tell lies to themselves to do so. And I have said that it is morally relativistic to do otherwise, to make cases for special dispensation. Surely you cannot read that as an indictment against the West.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander also.

LFRAgain....

If that's the case then someone who accidentally backs over a child with a car has the same guilt as someone who willingly shoots a child in the head and should be sentenced the same. But we make a distinction between actions when we apply "manslaughter" vs "murder" charges. Why? Because we know there is a difference. Pretending that there is no difference is where you step over the line, in my opinion.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

SezWho: I am more concerned with what "we" do than with what "they" do, more concerned with "our" dishonesty than with "theirs" and more concerned with "our" lack of discernment than with "theirs"

And you have ample opportunity to address those concerns on threads where we do kill innocents. Hijacking a thread about jihadists killing innocents and turning it into an indictment of the West is misplaced. You're simply trying to block all conversation about killing innocents unless we're the focus. Surely you'll allow some conversations about jihadists?

This morning, when I read that news, I imagined how it felt to endure such a monstruous act.

Seriously, I think my heart would stop beating at the very moment the blade touches my neck.

Mr.Smith.

What you avoided looking at & therefore attempting to answer was my reasoning that if the Muslims can put together mass demonstrations all over the world because of a cartoon of Allah then why have we never seen similar demonstrations when a group like the Taliban mis-use Allah’s name? The Taliban murdered an innocent man in the name of Allah & we see not a single demonstrator on the streets of a single western city. If you were a Muslim which crime would YOU see as the greater crime against Allah?

Moderator: Readers, once again, we remind you that Christianity is not relevant to this discussion.

Guess Poland should send a division to Afghanistan to get some payback. No matter what sezwho's assessment of the Taliban is they are a pack of murderous dogs and deserve a good thumping.

LFRAgain,

You said:

I don't agree with SezWho's assessment that the Taliban are simply misunderstood or being judged unfairly through Western goggles....

It may interest you to know that I don't agree with SezWho's assessment that the Taliban are simply misunderstood. Or more accurately, I don't agree with your assessment that SezWho has made that assessment.

It is SezWho's assessment that the Taliban are being judged unfairly in the West. Although not everyone judges them unfairly, those who see the Taliban as perfervid Islamic fundamentalist bent on enforcing their beliefs on the entire world are judging them innacurately. Those who conflate them with al-Qaeda are judging them innacurately.

sailwind,

Now you are loading the dice. Previously you spoke about "killing with impunity". Now you want to speak about murder. I've never asked you to justify murder. I've only asked you to address whether killing with impunity is also something that we do and to consider what we have to tell ourselves to do that.

Your suggestion that I perhaps do not know the difference between right and wrong indicates to me that your moral high horse is not as healthy as claimed. Do you imagine that you sit higher on your horse than I on mine? Why so judgmental?

Hat's off to you as well for sticking to your guns in the face of this nonsense. If wuzzademcrat has something compelling to add, I'm ready to read it, but so far, it's been the same argument without a shred of evidence to prove his point, compounded by a very shallow understanding of both Islam and Christianity as well.

Interestingly, their camp is always ready to dismiss any comparisons between violence in Christianity amd violence in Islam, but aren't nearly as eager to acknowledge that this violence perpetrated by, yes, predominantly Muslim believers, is a relatively recent phenomenon brought on by economic and political conditions far moreso than anything religious. They discount the fact that Muslim nations have been relatively peaceful neighbors for centuries, being no more or less agressive than their Imperialistic counterparts from Europe. Not that that should mean anything when you're recklessly wielding the paint brush of sweeping generalization, I suppose.

Anyway, time for bed. Catch you later.

LFRAgain: Agree with you 120%. And you add an objective tone to boot, something sailwind cannot do (and therefore will probably not comment on any more). You said the same thing I wanted to say much more clearly, so my hats off to you.

Sailwind,

No one's saying that the man beheaded by the Taliban wasn't murdered. That's not at issue here. What is at issue is how easily we define and redefine the actions of "our" side in accordance with our cultural and political goals. That this Polish engineer was murdered is without question. What others here are asking is why is that so clearly murder, and yet a planned military strike on civilian areas killing children is not? How is a Pole murdered by a Taliban guerilla any more or less innocent than the children killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza last month? What's the distinction, and how is it that so many here seem able to make it so easily?

I suspect one of the reasons we have such a hard time fathoming how and why radicals can wantonly slaughter other human beings and brazenly display their crime for all the world to see is that we (the West) dress up our acts of violence with loftier terms and better media spin. We believe the very stories we've manufactured to help us sleep better at night while our troops are participating in military actions with grand titles like "Operation Enduring Freedom." It's noble when we do it, but murder when others do it.

One thing that certainly unites us all as human beings is our universal capacity to become incensed in the face of blatant hypocrisy. No one likes being held to double-standards. I don't agree with SezWho's assessment that the Taliban are simply misunderstood or being judged unfairly through Western goggles, but I do agree that if we, as a society, are incapable of sticking to the same standards we demand everyone else adhere to, then we have no moral authority to cry foul when the "enemy" does something as horrendous as behead an innocent man.

There is NOTHING more important than for us to be better in every moral and ethical way that counts than our enemies. At the very, we must endeavor to do try our very best to be so. Otherwise the struggle against this sort of barbarism means nothing.

grafton: "In Christian countries the cointries themselves take responsibility for the nutjob “Christians” in their midst & deal with them, until Muslims genuinely do the same I will continue to condemn all Islam for what is FAILS to do."

Aside from this not making a whole lot of sense grammatically, I'll say that blaming Islam for what the Taliban has done here is just flat out stupid, particularly since most Muslims abhor what the Taliban do and how they interpret the Koran. Again, why should Muslims stand up AGAIN against the Taliban and condemn them as they have for a while now, just to appease your little rant session? Like others on here who fail to recognize, and as LFRAgain pointed out clearly, that 'Islam' does not agree with much of what is going on in its name by a few small and scattered groups, you are simply looking to blanket a murder by the Taliban as the fault of the religion of Islam. It's as stupid as you saying 'Christian countries take responsibility for their nutjobs'.

sarge: "Smith, please don't drag Israel into this, thanks."

Won't do it if I don't have to, trust me. Check out my first posts and you'll see they're all about staying on topic for a change. That lasted about five minutes... or until wuzzademcrat came on.

sailwind: "Bullshit Smith. I call beheading an innocent Pole murder, what say you?"

Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all up in a tiff like that. I definitely call it murder, as I call many of the things you have defended also murder. The problem is, as I said, you call what you don't like murder, and oft times call what others do 'self defense' or 'justified retaliation' or 'things happen in war we cannot control'... whatever you choose to call it, you simply do not call it murder then. Or, prove me wrong, sailwind... tell me flat out the boys of Haditha, for example, were simply cold-blooded murderers. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all comparing what they did to what happened here, aside from both being murder and the slaughter of individuals; I just want to point out that you said you 'can't and will I never justify murder for my cause...', and see if you can actually prove it.

Go ahead and ask me for the same in return. I'll tell you now, the people who did this are muderous sickos.

sailwind: "I can't and will I never justify murder for my cause...... I refuse to defend that, it is the difference between me and this 'beheader'."

I'm sorry bud, but while your statement is very admirable, it's also full of crap. I've seen you defend atrocities committed by Israel and saying it was perfectly justified, etc., even after footage of outright slaughter was released on the web (not sure if you saw it, but you still stood up for Israel after people on here posted links).

That's but one example of you defending murder... the problem is you sometimes call it something else.

wuzzademcrat: "See my post of 7:52? Paternalistic refers not to LFR or his post but to the basically condescending attitudes of Lefties like you."

Thanks, bubba, for using one completely unrelated word to define another. I don't know what your dad did to you, but being 'condescending' is not at all the same as being 'paternalistic'. What kind of home did you grow up in? Is 'paternity leave' at a company therefore akin to a condescending kick in the head? If you have a child and feel a paternalistic urge to protect them, is it because you really hate them and want to feel superior (through your condescension)? Are all men therefore democratic (I mean, since all Lefties are now 'paternalistic'), and Republicans 'maternal'?

Seriously, dude, you need to brush up a bit on the definitions of words.

"In your attempts to try and equate the extraordinary amounts of violence in modern Islam with what went on in Judeo-Christian civilization hundreds of years ago you seem to me to regard violent Mohammedans as something like children who can't be held responsible for their actions."

Actually, bubba, what I equate all this to is the inability of people like yourself to distinguish between the acts of some insane people and an entire religion, and that inability of yours making you tantamount to a child... fortunately, you can and SHOULD be held responsible for your actions. Damn... guess I'm being 'paternalistic' again.

What I asked you to do was to defend your statement that in order to kill civilians you have to tell yourself lies about the cause for which you do so. And I asked you to defend it without making cases. You could not.

I can't and will I never justify murder for my cause...... I refuse to defend that, it is the difference between me and this 'beheader'.

I Know right from wrong...... Do you? Or is your politics so damn important to you that you just have the level the playing field?

SuperLib,

You said:

...and I'm sure on threads where we do kill innocent civilians you're there typing away to make sure we don't forget about the innocents that the jihadists kill, too.

You and I both know you have no such certainty. Once more you prefer sarcasm to anything that attends the point of discussion.

However, since you want to talk about what you want to talk about and not what was being talked about when you woke up, I will say that I don't at all serve up constant reminders that "jihadists" kill "innocents". (Never let it be said that you load the language.) Nor do I see why I should. Do you think by my not doing so that I'm leaving someone in the dark about these beheadings and suicide bombs and rockets and what have you?

I am more concerned with what "we" do than with what "they" do, more concerned with "our" dishonesty than with "theirs" and more concerned with "our" lack of discernment than with "theirs". I think what I was addressing here was a lack of discernment. Personally, I feel infinitely more qualified to hold forth on what Americans discern than on what "jihadists" discern. I'll let you deconstruct the mindset of the "jihadists".

sailwind,

You said:

My high horse is fine, yours I'm afraid could use some major adjusting. The attempt the equate the difference between killing innocent people on purpose those who's job is to prevent that ever happening in the first place is mindboggling.

Two observations:

First, I'm happy to hear about your horse.

Second, I'm afraid you are hearing things that were not said and reading things that were not written. There was no attempt to equate what "we" do with what "they" do.

What I asked you to do was to defend your statement that in order to kill civilians you have to tell yourself lies about the cause for which you do so. And I asked you to defend it without making cases. You could not.

What we do is different than what they do--in some respects. In other respects it is the same. One of our lies is that they are totally different. I think you are being the moral relativist here.

Interesting....Since this happened in Pakistan. I fail to see how going into Afghanistan is going to help. I hope your not suggesting that we invade Pakistan now.

Geography lesson for sailwind: Afghanistan borders Pakistan. We have (not enough) troops in Afghanistan; use Afghanistan as the staging area for actions against OBL.

See how easy that was?

The Islamic nutjobs (not all Muslims) will always get the better of the West, because so many Western leaders do as is being done here, analyse & excuse the issue. The Taliban are not real Muslims & must not be equated with all Muslims. We must be understanding, we must be careful to see all the differences & not cast our net of responsibility so wide that innocent Muslims might in ANY way be harmed.

Tolerance is a truly wonderful thing & you are all to be commended for it, sadly no such understanding was shown to a Polish engineer who was not in any way responsible for any misdeed against the people that murdered him.

Tolerance & understanding in the face of such sick killings is the weakness that will over time destroy the west.

What many of us want to see are Muslim demonstrations in the streets of Western cities condemning the Taliban in the same way that they condemn their host countries over something as trivial as cartoons. The actions of Iraqis in Iraq, Muslim against Muslim have nothing to do with aiding the West, they have nothing to do with purging the lunatics from Islam, they are simple self interest.Bali Club bombers were also self interest, they were bad for business.

Muslims the world over need to show they condemn this savagery. Until they do Muslims will at best be seen as excusing the savagery.

In Christian countries the cointries themselves take responsibility for the nutjob “Christians” in their midst & deal with them, until Muslims genuinely do the same I will continue to condemn all Islam for what is FAILS to do.

"In your attempts to try and equate the extraordinary amounts of violence in modern Islam with what went on in Judeo-Christian civilization hundreds of years ago "

Heh, I wonder how things would be different had the ancient one's had access to C4, RPG's and tha ubiquitous AK 47....

But good point bubba. Dhimmitude is nigh.

You think the Taliban executing an abductee is about Islam." No, its not, but I believe they, the Taliban, think it is.

No, of course I wouldn't go out and kill all policemen in Miami, but I'd tell you think, I'd pelt the hell out of their cars when driving by. Of course, that was in my younger years. I am only trying to point out that people usually have a habit of grouping people. Today its Muslims, yesterday it was Japanese/Germans, and who will it be tomorrow? We see this type of behavior time and time again. The US started a war with Iraq but many other countries stayed clear, but yet some of those country's people found themselves being taken prison and being blown up.....

Do you think the Taliban would think twice about hurting you if they found you playing hop scotch in their back yard? Do you think any of them would give you the time to explain yourself? I like you enough where I wouldn't put you to the test, so please don't try it.

smithinjapan:"wuzzademcrat: You're really reaching if you're describing LFRAgain as being 'paternalistic' for pointing out the inanities and hypocrisy of your posts. Does that mean that you are being 'maternal' then?"

No, smith, it is you who is reaching, and grasping, but once again being haplessly pulled back into that pit of vapidity and irrelevance in which you so often flail about.

See my post of 7:52? Paternalistic refers not to LFR or his post but to the basically condescending attitudes of Lefties like you. In your attempts to try and equate the extraordinary amounts of violence in modern Islam with what went on in Judeo-Christian civilization hundreds of years ago you seem to me to regard violent Mohammedans as something like children who can't be held responsible for their actions. Why do you refuse to take them at their word? There is all kinds of testimony from them - and in nearly each case they cite the Koran and their prophet as their guiding source. You can bring up all the examples from Xtianity you want, but I can't think of one instance where someone was chopping some guy's head off shrieking "Christ is King".

SezWho: We are killing innocent civilians, too.

...and I'm sure on threads where we do kill innocent civilians you're there typing away to make sure we don't forget about the innocents that the jihadists kill, too.

wuzzademcrat: You're really reaching if you're describing LFRAgain as being 'paternalistic' for pointing out the inanities and hypocrisy of your posts. Does that mean that you are being 'maternal' then?

You've officially lost it, amigo, and I recommend you log off.

"Once upon a time it was made clear to most elementary school children simply by teaching and comparing the lives of Jesus and Mohammed."

Just to clarify, whom was it who taught you this? My guess is that they weren't Muslim, and probably gave you a little spanking on the bottom if you ever raised any doubts about what they said (and hence you grew up associating everything you dislike is somehow connected to Islam).

Why didn't you address LFRAgain's comments on just how much Muslims are against the acts of the Taliban (and their radical interpretations of the Koran), as well as how the majority of Muslims are against AQ? Forgot about that little flaw in your argument to eliminate all of Islam, eh?

Wuzzademcrat: Clearly a number of your posts have been deleted, which is not at all surprising, given how you cannot stay on a topic for the life of you. You think the Israel/Gaza threads are all about Islam. You think the Taliban executing an abductee is about Islam. You think closing Gitmo is about Islam. Hell, you probably think the Grammy Awards are all about Islam! Do you have some kind of Islam Derangement Disorder? :)

Seriously, though, aside from pointing out yet again that this thread is not about Islam but about acts of cowardice by the Taliban, I think LFRAgain did a more than adequate job of putting you in your bigoted place. Try to post on the topic and you might actually be taken seriously; and when and if the topic is actually about Islam, try reading up a little on its history, as well as the violent and even more savage acts of other religions before you try to go head-to-head with people above your level.

Weak analogy, smith.

And no one here is "persecuting" Muslims simply by pointing out that the overwhelming - as in well over 90 percent - of the terrorism the world faces is being done quite specifically in the name of one religion.

(No worries. I’ll do it, Smith. I haven’t stretched my legs with this silliness in a while. Kinda’ surprised they still keep clinging to the same, stale, unsubstantiated arguments, but alas. . .)

Wuzzademocrat,

You and many of those who share your views about Islam being some sort of ultimate nemesis to Western Civilization as we know it constantly lament that contemporary Muslims say nothing in the face of these sorts of crimes, but that’s because you apparently aren’t paying better attention.

Apparently, you’ve missed that Al-Qaida in Iraq is systematically being run out of the country by – dare I say it? – Iraqi Muslims. Rather, all that you want to see is that “The Surge” is working, without admitting that it’s working primarily due to cooperation from Iraqi tribal leaders who are – dare I say it again? – Muslim. Meanwhile, the Muslim world has roundly rejected the scorched-earth approach of Al-Qaida and the dictatorial madness of the Taliban, capturing, trying, and imprisoning (or executing) perpetrators of violent terrorist acts (the Bali Club bombers are just one example that comes to mind). Islam is speaking out. You just aren’t listening.

They follow the example of the founder of their religion. He beheaded, he took captives, he waged wars, he arranged for the execution of his rivals and his final message to his followers was to wage war on those who will not submit to the religion he founded.

Yeah, and European Christians sent legions of 13-year olds to their deaths in the battlefields of Central Asia during the Crusades. The source of their inspiration? He nuked a city and laid waste to the entire planet with forty days of flooding – or so it is told. Mohammad’s got nothin’ on Yahweh, when it comes to putting unbelievers in their place.

Such selective rationalizing strikes me as obscenely paternalistic…

I have no idea what this means. “Paternalistic?” “Fatherly?” I think you’re looking for a different word here.

Speaking of “selective,” you’re engaging in some VERY selective interpretation of religious history yourself. Granted, this is a point that’s been made ad nauseum ever since Johnny Come Lately religion “experts” popped up overnight after 9-11, all from relative obscurity and proffering their “expert” opinion on All Things Islam. But I’m going to say it again, since the lesson has so obviously been lost on you, even to this day: All Muslims are not radical, head-lopping, heathen killing, suicide bombers. Not even half. Not even a quarter. Not even a hundredth of them. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find a single Muslim nation in existence today that adheres to a foreign or domestic policy advocating the “smiting of unbelievers” – with the exception of the currently deposed Taliban, and even then, they largely kept to tormenting only Afghanis.

Even Saudi Arabia for its infamous zero-tolerance policy toward non-Islam religions has yet to “smite the neck” of a single one of its some 800,000 migrant Christian workers. In fact, the Catholic Church is currently in negotiations with Saudi to establish the first Catholic Church in the country, following on the heels of the establishment of the first Catholic Church in Qatar in March 2008. Not as intractable as you would have us all believe, are these Muslims?

To put your selective acrobatics into better perspective, take a look at your own Judeo-Christian roots for a moment: Exodus 22:20 – “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Hmm…

And if you have the time, take a stroll through the Old Testament for a while, Leviticus in particular. Lots of warm fuzzies to be found there. Does the Old Testament, the root of modern Christianity, therefore make all of Christianity a collection of bloodthirsty maniacs by default? No. Do the actions of the Taliban with their bass-ackwards view of how the world should work mean that ALL Muslims are bloodthirsty maniacs? No.

It really doesn’t take that sophisticated a way of looking at things to realize this simple truth. Not that that’ll stop you from continuing to wander off on your fanciful musings, of course, but someone has to try to talk some sense into you with your no-so-subtle suggestions that a religious war to eradicate Islam is the best course of action for dealing with nuts like the Taliban.

You’re trying really hard to sound clever here, as if you alone are privy to some deeper and unique understanding of the complexities of Islam and its relationship to the Taliban, but all you’re managing to do is look foolish with your half-cooked leaps of logic and shameless brandishing of clearly Christian-centric bigotry. The Taliban are no more representative of Islam as a whole than those nutcases that make up the Westboro Baptist Church are representative of Christianity.

As you so succinctly pointed out above, some people don't want to hear this, but that still doesn’t make it any less true.

Let me spell it out a little more in case you didn't catch my drift; you wouldn't go after all police if one killed a 'Cubano'. If you did, that would be wrong, regardless of the 'human tendency to group people together', as you call it. Or let's look at the opposite side of that coin; say a 'Cubano' goes off and beheads someone in your neck of the woods, so to speak. The police realize it's a Cubano and start persecuting the whole lot of you as a result. Now, this may well happen (in some cases I know they tend to 'group' minorities/ethic groups together), but do you think it's right and allowable? Do you not think that's wrong?

That's the point I'm making, skip. Taking 'things into your own hands' is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about persecuting groups as a whole (religions), and how wrong it is.

skip: "If a policeman killed a Cubano, we, including myself would take matters into our own hands."

And so you'd kill all police officers?

"When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests ... (of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy." -- 'Umdat al-Salik, o9.14.

Show me where ANY of that happened in this case. Did they kill in the name of Allah?" smitty, didn't they just recently kill an artist?

If some nutjob(s) kill in the name of 'god', I don't go on a witchhunt (nudge nudge) for all Christians; I go after the person(s) responsible." Ok thats you, but most of humanity has a bad habit of grouping people. If a policeman killed a Cubano, we, including myself would take matters into our own hands. A KKK dude kills a black guy and every white guy is a target and vice versa. Its a sad reality, but that is how the world seems to work. And in some cases it be relevent as if the Taliban would kill someone at random, why should you feel safe around one even if he is not the guy who did the killing in the first place?

Helter_Skelter: "When the Koran commands they "smite the neck" of the unbeliever and they shout "Allahu Akbar!" while doing it, attempting to dismiss the religion of Islam in the discussion demonstrates nothing but ignorance."

Again, this is about the Taliban, not Islam. If some nutjob(s) kill in the name of 'god', I don't go on a witchhunt (nudge nudge) for all Christians; I go after the person(s) responsible. Feel free to touch on Islam if you like, but don't turn this into one of your usual 'We have to destroy Islam' rants... it really does make you sound like 'the enemy' you wish to smite (by the neck or otherwise).

Moderator: Readers, we have already ruled that Christianity is not relevant to this discussion.

So, to make my meaning clear, it's time to come down off our moral high horse.

Examine what Sez? The difference between killing innocent civilians on purpose or the tragedy of innocent lives lost due to war?

They kill innocents on purpose. They video tape beheadings and send it to the world. They are PROUD of it, and you want to debate the morality of that?

My high horse is fine, yours I'm afraid could use some major adjusting. The attempt the equate the difference between killing innocent people on purpose those who's job is to prevent that ever happening in the first place is mindboggling.

So, to make my meaning clear, it's time to come down off our moral high horse.

The people that are "bound by law" don't have to worry about prosecution as they follow it.

I'm not sure which people you are talking about. But, generally speaking, people who follow the law may be free from worry about prosecution but that does not mean they will not be prosecuted and convicted. But you were talking about people who are bound by law and what happens if they break it. And I observed that they are often not prosecuted.

I have made no attempts at moral relativism nor have I tried to cloud the issue. It is interesting that you accuse me of that. It seems to me that this "moral relativism" argument must be getting fairly tired by now.

I invited you (and everyone else) to consider your own statement:

The lie you have to tell yourself that the cause is so important that you can put your humanity aside and kill innocent civilian human beings with impugnity.

I said:

Something for everyone to remember. Of course, we can always make cases about how we kill them.

But it seems to me that you don't want to examine it. You want to make cases. Fine.

We are killing innocent civilians, too. What we tell ourselves is that we are right in our cause and that the law is on our side--whether it is or not. And even if we are neither right nor legal, who is going to stop us? Who is going to prosecute? We act with impunity and without ever examining what lies we are telling ourselves.

Additionally, the people who are "bound by law" and "the beheader" are both subject to prosecution. In fact, they are both subject to the law, albeit possibly laws of different countries. There is now clouding of the issue there at all.

The people that are "bound by law" don't have to worry about prosecution as they follow it.

The "beheader" does have to worry because he willfully breaks it and isn't bound by anything that concerns those of us who are..........The Clouds is your attempt to 'level the playing field' between those that are bound by the law and those who are just criminals who just disregard it because of the "cause".

VOR: "You see many muslems protest in the street and make threats when they feel Mohammed or their religion is offended but they don't seem to get all that upset when muslem terrorist kill in the name of allah. rational people do find this to be an odd contradiction and an indicator that ordinary muslem condone the killing of infidels."

Show me where ANY of that happened in this case. Did they kill in the name of Allah? or in the name of the Taliban's cause? Likewise, I know plenty of people (or groups of people) that protest slaughters or offenses caused to people like themselves, be it religious or otherwise, and some who don't put up too much of a fuss if, say, Muslims are killed, which could be construed as condoning the killings of Muslims (for example). My point is it easily goes both ways -- it's just how openly you choose to see what's really going on. For example, this is a thread about the Taliban, and sure enough, as I said, some on here insist it's about Islam. Again, though, show me where in this case the things you said have occured.

wuzzademcrat: "Slaughter of those outside Islam is basically a sacrament in their religion."

BINGO! I KNEW you were going to try and turn this into another rant against Islam. You're so simple to predict, my friend. As I said, I'm not going to go into your petty little off-topic arguments today. The others are doing a fine job of bashing you and pointing out examples of other religions' extremists. Have a nice day. Try not to shake your fists too much harder.

...or rather, ...no clouding...

Nice try at moral relativism....

Exactly the opposite.

...and a try at clouding the issue between those who are bound by the law and if they break it are subject to prosecution and a beheader who's only law is the cause and no matter how many heads you cut off all is forgiven.

You'll have to make up your mind whether you want to talk about morality or the law. They are two very different things. Additionally, the people who are "bound by law" and "the beheader" are both subject to prosecution. In fact, they are both subject to the law, albeit possibly laws of different countries. There is now clouding of the issue there at all. We know that both groups of people escape prosecution from time to time.

Of course, we can always make cases about how we kill them.

We do make cases about those that kill them all the time outside the rules of combat....They are called war crimes, might of heard that the "I was only following orders" excuse doesn't work.

Nice try at moral relativism and a try at clouding the issue between those who are bound by the law and if they break it are subject to prosecution and a beheader who's only law is the cause and no matter how many heads you cut off all is forgiven.

turning this into an anti-Muslim/Islam rant that will show off nothing but a bunch of ignorance

When the Koran commands they "smite the neck" of the unbeliever and they shout "Allahu Akbar!" while doing it, attempting to dismiss the religion of Islam in the discussion demonstrates nothing but ignorance.

The lie you have to tell yourself that the cause is so important that you can put your humanity aside and kill innocent civilian human beings with impugnity.

Something for everyone to remember. Of course, we can always make cases about how we kill them.

That's it. I'm canceling my vacation plans to Peshawar.

Don't you love how they pretty this up. They call this a beheading, or a death, rather then what it actually is. A murder, by a group of cowardly thugs. No other way to say it. Taliban = cowards, thieves, and thugs.

Sarge jokingly writes that "Allah would be rolling in his grave" and likeitis actually replies!

You are ignorant of literally the first thing about Islam. Allah, the story goes, spoke to his "prophet" Muhammed through the angel Gabriel. "Allah, the creator of this world" never walked this earth; it stands to reason therefore that he wasn't buried.

And as I have noted before, if you think suicide bombs and such are so ingrained in Islam, then where were the donkey carts laden with gun powder that could have been made since at least the 1500s?

Is this your trump card? Is this supposed to be proof that suicide is new to Islam? The Koran forbids taking one's life for no (religious) purpose. But to die in battle guarantees the true believer a place in paradise. This is pretty basic stuff. How is it so many who come to comment on atrocities like this sound like they scratch their heads as they compose their posts?

Here we go again, al-Qaida stopped doing this because it had such a negative impact across the islamic world. Now we got the taliban starting up again. Hunt them down, bring them to justice, exact justice on anyone who abets them too.

How do think the Nazi's rationalized industrial slaughter of human beings?

You mentioned them first. I would just like to point at that they claimed to be Christian, much like these Taliban clowns claim to be Muslim.

Allah would be rolling in his grave.

Exactly. That is what these Taliban freaks either don't understand or just don't care about.

I think it is fair to say that the fact that this kind of medieval worldview can exist nowadays says something about the religion it flowered from.

Yes and no. You have to be very careful with such statements. For example, you cannot let the Branch Davidians represent Christianity, or claim Christianity is responsible for creating them.

I have some problems with Islam. More than that though, I have some problems with Islamic culture. Mostly, it is not the religion, but the culture making the interpretations that are responsible for such barbarity. The Spanish Inquisition is a prime example. So are the Salem witch hunts.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is in vogue in Islamic culture right now. And as I have noted before, if you think suicide bombs and such are so ingrained in Islam, then where were the donkey carts laden with gun powder that could have been made since at least the 1500s? You think a man could not strap a barrel of gunpowder on his back and blow himself up in the marketplace?

It used to be that Islamic cultures were better models of civilization when Christian countries were awful. They used to treat captives well. Islam has not changed. Islamic culture and interpretations have.

LFR Again:"Hanging and drawing-and-quartering had a long history in Christian nations."

The Taliban drive Toyotas;they carry AK 47s;they use the internet and make snuff videos on the same computers they use to publish Koran verses they believe confirm the virtues of their cause.

Pakistan is full of British nationals of Pakistani descent.

The Polish man made a brief statement in English in response to questions posed by his captors...

How is it they get to be in the modern world but not of it? Such selective rationalizing strikes me as obscenely paternalistic, in a very trendy multi-culti way. Dare I say it seems downright "racist" the way you expect so little of them.

Taliban - ruled Afghanistan was governed from Kabul by a six-man committe that did not include a single native Afghani. Where are the righteous denunciations of "imperialism"?

Allah would be rolling in his grave.

What goes through the mind of a person who beheads another human being?

That the cause is more important than anything else. It's so important that I have to lie to myself that beheading another human being is now justified because of the cause.

How do think the Nazi's rationalized industrial slaughter of human beings?

Pol Pot?

Stalin?

Osama?

The lie you have to tell yourself that the cause is so important that you can put your humanity aside and kill innocent civilian human beings with impugnity.

That's what goes through their minds the big lie, the cause allows me to murder now.

the best is to invade pakistan or better still invade all countries that harbour terorist if their govts dont act.where is my good old friend ,Mr G W Bush.pls dont forget invading zimbabwe too,cos mugabe is one

You see many muslems protest in the street and make threats when they feel Mohammed or their religion is offended but they don't seem to get all that upset when muslem terrorist kill in the name of allah" I remember when some painting was made with Jesus pissing into a pool. Sure, some yelled, but I don't recall anyone being killed for it. Can you imagine what would have happened if it has been Mohammad?

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. This discussion is not about Christianity.

Hanging and drawing-and-quartering had a long history in Christian nations. What's your point? Your flamebait's a little weak today, wuzzademcrat

What goes through the mind of a person who beheads another human being?

It's hard to say, isn't it. But here are some guesses:

"This will send a message."

"Collaborators will pay a price."

"We have nothing more to lose."

"This is what your policies are doing to us."

"When you can pursue us as you do, there are no more innocents."

"If people think hard enough about why we do this, perhaps they will understand."

Unlike Kerry, these fellows didn't forget about Poland. I'm sure a lethal injection might have been more humane than say, burning at the stake or boiling (or as some say, frying) in a goemonburo, but there aren't many good ways to die before your time. Despite its gore, this might even have been relatively quick, say, compared with electrocution.

We can dismiss this as an act of unreasonable savagery or we can consider that from their standpoint it makes sense. I'd say that the more profitable thing to do was to consider that it makes sense. The other alternative indicates that we do not understand our enemy.

"Taliban are complete a*****es. They are brainwashed by their religious beliefs and believe that they are doing their prophet's bidding."

They follow the example of the founder of their religion. He beheaded, he took captives, he waged wars, he arranged for the execution of his rivals and his final message to his followers was to wage war on those who will not submit to the religion he founded.

These types of extremists will be with us as long as Islam is with us.

People don't want to hear it, but that won't make it go away.

Taliban are complete a*****es. They are brainwashed by their religious beliefs and believe that they are doing their prophet's bidding. What a load of poop. The western world should should leave the middle east and build a wall around it and let those clowns all kill themselves. Why don't they join the current world and get out of the 7 century??

like the Christians, they would lead the world in nuclear ICBM, stealth bomber, and attack UAV technologies" What Christians, half the engineers who design these are from either the mid east or east. Also, I don't think anyone has made those in the "name" of Christianity. How many non-Christian countries have such weapons? There are a few I can count right now.

Anyway, all this does is pit Christians and Muslims against each other. I'd prefer to get religion out of man's mind.

As does the fact that for convicts who like to convert in prison, the most popular choice is Islam." If you are talking about the US, I'd agree but that also has a lot of due with NOI, so your point is moot.

likeitis

like the Christians, they would lead the world in nuclear ICBM, stealth bomber, and attack UAV technologies

The Christians did not develop or utilize these technologies as a conscious expression of their belief in Jesus. These self-detonators and beheaders are following this course as an interpretation of Islam. However fringe this interpretation may be, I think it is fair to say that the fact that this kind of medieval worldview can exist nowadays says something about the religion it flowered from. As does the fact that for convicts who like to convert in prison, the most popular choice is Islam.

Being pretty much agnostic i'm not positive certain how Christians would react. I do get a sense though that terrorism in the name of Jesus Christ would be denounced strongly as was the case when abortion clinics got bombed a decade or so ago.

You see many muslems protest in the street and make threats when they feel Mohammed or their religion is offended but they don't seem to get all that upset when muslem terrorist kill in the name of allah. rational people do find this to be an odd contradiction and an indicator that ordinary muslem condone the killing of infidels.

Slaughter of those outside Islam is basically a sacrament in their religion.

Beheading has a long history in Islam - going back to Moahammed himself.

But some are so brainwashed their only reply is the feeble "all religions have extremists."

US out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, for the good of the world.

Interesting....Since this happened in Pakistan. I fail to see how going into Afghanistan is going to help. I hope your not suggesting that we invade Pakistan now.

VOR: Agreed with the first part. As for the second, I don't really know what you expect. As I said, this is a matter of the Taliban, not Muslims in general, so why should a religion (or members of) stand up on behalf of that religion and denounce these acts? I don't see Christianity, for example, standing up and saying it's a non-Christian act, etc. Instead, I think this is more a personal issue, and you may well be seeing posts from Christians, Muslims, and Hindus for that matter who personally see this act as the heinous crime it is.

And to think that some idiots in America actually want us to stay in Iraq, where we're not needed, while innocents like Stanczak are murdered by Taliban trash.

US out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, for the good of the world.

These actions may not represent Islam but they sure do a good job dragging Allahs name through the mud. Very little outrage by so-called ordinary muslems.

wuzzademcrat: I said I don't wish to turn this into a discussion on general religion and the atrocities each has committed (save, perhaps, Buddhism), so I'm not going to entertain you query. If you want to discuss the thread for a change, I'd be happy to do that.

"Care to furnish an example?"

Again, I could give you plenty, but I'm not going down that road today. I'll just post something from another poster on here:

'Gotta take the lead and play their game.'

Perhaps not driven by any particular religion aside from the belief in none, but still as spite filled and hateful as the 'enemy', perhaps.

"And as Likeitis pointed out, if you want to turn it into something on religion, you need only got back a short time ago to point out atrocities, similar and even viler, by other religions."

Even more vile, you say? Care to furnish an example?

RIP Mr. Stanczak. I hope these freaks get carpet bombed. Then they can say it's because someone was beheaded. Gotta take the lead and play their game.

What goes through the mind of a person who beheads another human being?

Not much, I should think. Their minds are already filled with so much hate and perversion, there can't be much room in there for normal human thoughts.

What a horrible way to die. The man must have been terrified.

Simply disgusting.

"A religion of peace, tolerance and enlightenment?"

I know a bunch of you are just champing at the bit to jump on Islam for all of this, but let's avoid as much as possible turning this into an anti-Muslim/Islam rant that will show off nothing but a bunch of ignorance from both sides.

This is not about religion, it's about the Taliban. Are they Muslims? Yes! but they don't even follow their own supposed beliefs as it is, let alone most sects of Islam believing they interpret the Koran incorrectly for their own ends, etc. And as Likeitis pointed out, if you want to turn it into something on religion, you need only got back a short time ago to point out atrocities, similar and even viler, by other religions.

Again, this is about a bunch of freaks called the Taliban. I think we're all pretty united on that, at least.

A pathology endemic in Islam: beheadings and suicide belts. A religion of peace, tolerance and enlightenment?

If they were more peaceful, tolerant, and enlightened, like the Christians, they would lead the world in nuclear ICBM, stealth bomber, and attack UAV technologies.

Actually, these Taliban scum don't seem to know much about Islam or Islamic culture. They are not supposed to treat captives this way. Beheading with a knife? Sorry, these are monsters, and monsters do not actually have religion, they only claim to.

A pathology endemic in Islam: beheadings and suicide belts. A religion of peace, tolerance and enlightenment?

Unthinkable savagery. What goes through the mind of a person who beheads another human being?

The Taliban are a bunch of killers and murderers who won't be controlled or stopped unilaterally within the confines of borders. The leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other neighboring countries have to get together and fight the Taliban/Al-Quaeda on a unified course.

The United States needs to find a leader there in the middle east that will take the lead. Someone that has the leverage, likeability and clout to bring a unification to stand together. It can happen. < :-)