« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Grant Price
Joined: Jul 3, 2001
Posts: 6
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 26
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Sydney
|
beheading video
May 12, 2004 - 08:27 AM
|
|
should i download the video or not?
I am fully aware of how disturbing it may be, but given that I maintain a pro-war stance, should I force myself to see just how ugly it can be?
should i download the video or not?
I dont think I should support something without being as informed as possible.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
beheading video
May 12, 2004 - 08:57 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Grant_Price
should i download the video or not?
I am fully aware of how disturbing it may be, but given that I maintain a pro-war stance, should I force myself to see just how ugly it can be?
should i download the video or not?
All what you would see is the ugliness of hatred !
peace,
Udara
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Corinne
Joined: May 8, 2004
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Other, 24
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Austin
|
Re: beheading video
May 13, 2004 - 05:53 AM
|
|
...if you were informed, then you would not be pro-war...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cicero
Joined: Feb 1, 2004
Posts: 26
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: beheading video
May 14, 2004 - 01:23 AM
|
|
I thought about viewing video, but not. I am against violence and i dunn want to see it at all.
Those which did it will have to see it to the rest of their lives - continously.
Ave Futuria
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 9
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Re: beheading video
May 14, 2004 - 12:33 PM
|
|
Originally posted by Oleacae
...if you were informed, then you would not be pro-war...
Oleacae:
I don't think that anyone (or more than the tiniest of a minority) is actually "pro - war". Just as I don't think that anyone is "pro - abortion". However, just as those who are "pro choice" fight to defend the right of women to do something difficult, so do many who "support" the war fight to defend the use of military power to prevent even further horrors. I am not "pro killing"...but if my children were being held at gunpoint by someone who disagreed with the political views of their father and I had the chance...I probably would become pro "using lethal force to prevent the killing of my children".
Know what I mean?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 9
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
beheading video
May 14, 2004 - 12:48 PM
|
|
Originally posted by Grant_Price
should i download the video or not?
I am fully aware of how disturbing it may be, but given that I maintain a pro-war stance, should I force myself to see just how ugly it can be?
should i download the video or not?
I dont think I should support something without being as informed as possible.
I would not. I have viewed the video and wish that I had not. Unlike what Udara said, you will not simply observe the "ugliness of hatred". What you will see sinks below any level of political action. Even the typical suicide bomber (or even those who flew the 9/11 planes) feel that the act of killing of innocents (by any means) is adequate. What is on that video is an act of such evil and is so far from what is expected even of mass - murderers that I suspect that it would send chills up the spine of people who kill for a living (i.e. - assasins, soldiers, etc.)
The worst recourse that any member of a civilized society should ever take against the men who commited this horrid act would be to provide them with a fair trial and, if found guilty, execute them in the most humane manner possible. Because this is the ultimate punishment that we should ever consider, there is nothing to be gained by witnessing something worse. It certainly would not (should not) justify any changed opinions regarding lowering now of our standards. Therefore, unless you are a student of the darkest depths of what a human is capable of, there is nothing in the video for you but pain and despair.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
olanteen
Joined: Mar 5, 2004
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 36
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Lagos
City: Ikeja
|
too bad
May 15, 2004 - 01:16 AM
|
|
That video shows precisely what we have been talking about. It shows that this terrorists under any guise of fighting for freedom for palestine or Islam are just a bunch of animals. They are just out to kill, maim and destroy. Even the palestinians that they say they fight for have not something thid stupid. Beheading that poor man is an animal act and it's only cold blooded animals that can do that and sleep again. That is why they hide their faces and lie to become matyrs. What has beheading that man solved? It has only brought shame on the name of Islam which we all see as a peaceful religion. They even did it in the name of Allah, what rubbish and insane behaviour. The Iraqi people did not send them that job. They are just animals and they must be stopped at all cost.
God bless us.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: beheading video
May 15, 2004 - 03:54 AM
|
|
personally I don't feel like I need to see it - it is pretty clear to me what happened so watching it happen in graphic detail will just be upsetting.
Its really the same with the Prison abuse photos - I don't feel the need to see more of them - uness I was a jurer in the trial.
I have seen enough to get the idea of what was happening - I don't feel the need to wallow in the degradation of my fellow man.
In fact on an tangentially related track - this is why I never saw "The Passion" - I just didn't feel the need to see some guy get tortured for and hour and a half - personally.
a quick note - I agree with the Saudi Ambassador when he said that this beheading video will nopt have the desired effect for the terrorists - this will not help them recruit - this will not make them rightous in the eyes of the Arab street.
Because this is just sick - the average muslim is going to look at something like this and recognise that the perpetraitors are just animals - like Olanteen said.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 9
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
too bad
May 15, 2004 - 07:30 AM
|
|
Originally posted by olanteen
That video shows precisely what we have been talking about. It shows that this terrorists under any guise of fighting for freedom for palestine or Islam are just a bunch of animals. They are just out to kill, maim and destroy. Even the palestinians that they say they fight for have not something thid stupid. Beheading that poor man is an animal act and it's only cold blooded animals that can do that and sleep again. That is why they hide their faces and lie to become matyrs. What has beheading that man solved? It has only brought shame on the name of Islam which we all see as a peaceful religion. They even did it in the name of Allah, what rubbish and insane behaviour. The Iraqi people did not send them that job. They are just animals and they must be stopped at all cost.
God bless us.
Olanteen, I think that you are correct. What this did was to clearly show how different these people are from real Muslims. If it was not so absolutely horrid, it would have been laughably ironic when, during the act itself, these men were chanting "Praise God". God certainly was nowhere near that place on that day, except perhaps with the poor soul who suffered the most horrible of deaths imaginable.
Peace.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Michael Newton-McLaughlin
Joined: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Berkeley
|
Re: beheading video
May 16, 2004 - 01:52 AM
|
|
I was pretty high when i first read this so i had to wait until now to respond, heh:
<<I think that my point related to the irony of it all. I think that you would agree that a nation or a government is a human entity whereas most "believers" view the almighty as perfect. So, a loving God supporting the idea of brutal murder of an innocent is more of a sharp contrast than is a nation of "fallible" men supporting the act of killing in the name of the "country". Simply put: we expect (unfortunately) nations at war to kill, we don't expect an all - loving God to. Most people of faith don't even believe that God supports the killing of the "guilty" or sinners. Most people would say that God would teach us to show love and compassion to the men who killed Nick Berg. It's also about *intent*. When most armies (US or otherwise) drop bombs, they at least *intend* to avoid innocents. How hard they actually try and the weight that they place on the value of the target relative to the potential suffering of innocent people is certainly open for debate, but they are not *trying* to brutally torture and murder an innocent man and then film it (as if to brag about their own brutality) and suggest that they would do it again and again. I see your point, but the two are quite different.>>
Alright.. well.. you also make very good points. You explain your thoughts well...
I am not so sure about the 'most people' believing that the death penalty should be done away with.. most of the christians i know certainly do... and yeah.. you'd think that people might actually follow the teachings of their religions, you know, most of which are that of peaceful means to dealing with things - but of course - you are right, people are fallable... and hey, 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' (Karl Marx)... it has been used time and time again for justifications of doing some pretty horrible things, or keeping people down instead of rising up against oppression. Look, you are right - i think i made a false parralel based on intent, i dont think that most american soldiers intend to kill innocent people - at least not in this war, though it was very much accepted in Viet Nam and other wars.
However, I do think that there is still a fundamental comparison: people are both killing for their respective ideologies, dogmas, that often go unquestioned.
<> umm... well what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? No, im not going to argue that Al'Qaeda are freedom fighters, i think they are indeed terrorists... but what about the iraqi resistance? Can we really use the blanket statement of terrorism? Certainly some are, but hey, did not Americans have to undertake guirrela warfare, ignore many of the 'rules' established by society, to gain its independence? Granted, there was a sort of quasi government, but there are other resistance struggles where that was not so - like that of the Bolivarian revolution.
<<For>> What code of honor? LOL, it is funny that you mention this, i have written about 4 articles on the Haitian coup and US involvement, and spoken on a panel about it.. it is something I'm fairly familiar with. If you'd like, i can send you a couple of my articles.
<<So>> I will agree to this with a caviat: in law we hold them to a higher standard, and in public opinion perhaps.. but we foten use the laws, use actual... means of exerting that standard. Congress abrogated thir responsibilities - yet some how im willing to bet people will vote most of them back in... the President lied, leading to thousands of lives lost, yet unless he bangs some woman with a cigar, hes not going to have to worry being impeached.
<<This>>
Yeah, but as long as we white-wash the things that we see, or rather, allow the media and the government to do so - do you think we will actualy get a picture, an understanding of the loss of human life? The costs involved, so that we can make judgments about those costs? It pisses me off when i hear the words 'Americans cant stomach the carnage of war' so that is why we do not see it... hey.. obviously if we cannot stand the carnage, if seeing pictures of our dead soldiers makes us apprehension about war fare.. if seeing dead children makes us queasy and wanting to maybe change our direction - is that not a good thing?
<<Lastly>>
I can agree with that.. I suppose that what i mean by defense is defending innocent people - so that does not mean we should not intervene to help others - but i think we need to do it for the sake of actually wanting to help others, not for our own interests, which is the predominant case. Look at the Rwanda genocide - the world turned its back because it wasn't 'important' enough to serve the interests to report on it... until it was at an opportune time to do so. Also, i dont think the Kosovo involvement was a good example of US intervention.. I think it could have been.. but it was largely boched, as was responsibiliies after the fighting.
<<Anyhow>>
thanks, you too.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Michael Newton-McLaughlin
Joined: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Berkeley
|
Re: beheading video
May 16, 2004 - 02:05 AM
|
|
I have a hard time seeing the difference between chanting God's name when beheading someone and screaming war anthems when bombing someone, or keeping track of kills marks. I think both are horrible acts. We are all animals in the biological sense of the world, and we often act much more destructively than the 'animals' we refer to.
I spent enough time in and around the military to see a clear parallel: people killing each other for ideological reasons without seriously thinking about the consequences of it... often results in needless death and killing.
Just because the 'terrorists' did something that was horrible, and of course it was, does not mean that we should not hold our leaders and our soldiers to the same scrutiny and regard.
I understand that innocent people die in warfare, and I will gladly accept that most Americans and others do not like or intend to kill innocent people - whereas that was the direct intention of the people responsible for Nick Berg's murder. However, I think that the context of 'why the killed innocent people' - namely 'because we are in a war' needs to be challenged. The two are not seperate questions, but rather, intimately related.
We are probably always going to have to deal with 'sick' individuals... but we can chose to educate people and not pursue warfare and violence as a practice. I believe that is is a mucher harder thing to do to refuse to fight when you are challenged to do so. I also believe, so long as it is not an actual... action of defense... that it also leads to a perpetuation of violence, creates a cycle.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 9
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Re: beheading video
May 16, 2004 - 03:18 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Jedimike
I have a hard time seeing the difference between chanting God's name when beheading someone and screaming war anthems when bombing someone, or keeping track of kills marks. I think both are horrible acts. We are all animals in the biological sense of the world, and we often act much more destructively than the 'animals' we refer to.
I spent enough time in and around the military to see a clear parallel: people killing each other for ideological reasons without seriously thinking about the consequences of it... often results in needless death and killing.
Just because the 'terrorists' did something that was horrible, and of course it was, does not mean that we should not hold our leaders and our soldiers to the same scrutiny and regard.
I understand that innocent people die in warfare, and I will gladly accept that most Americans and others do not like or intend to kill innocent people - whereas that was the direct intention of the people responsible for Nick Berg's murder. However, I think that the context of 'why the killed innocent people' - namely 'because we are in a war' needs to be challenged. The two are not seperate questions, but rather, intimately related.
We are probably always going to have to deal with 'sick' individuals... but we can chose to educate people and not pursue warfare and violence as a practice. I believe that is is a mucher harder thing to do to refuse to fight when you are challenged to do so. I also believe, so long as it is not an actual... action of defense... that it also leads to a perpetuation of violence, creates a cycle.
Mike:
I think that my point related to the irony of it all. I think that you would agree that a nation or a government is a human entity whereas most "believers" view the almighty as perfect. So, a loving God supporting the idea of brutal murder of an innocent is more of a sharp contrast than is a nation of "fallible" men supporting the act of killing in the name of the "country". Simply put: we expect (unfortunately) nations at war to kill, we don't expect an all - loving God to. Most people of faith don't even believe that God supports the killing of the "guilty" or sinners. Most people would say that God would teach us to show love and compassion to the men who killed Nick Berg. It's also about *intent*. When most armies (US or otherwise) drop bombs, they at least *intend* to avoid innocents. How hard they actually try and the weight that they place on the value of the target relative to the potential suffering of innocent people is certainly open for debate, but they are not *trying* to brutally torture and murder an innocent man and then film it (as if to brag about their own brutality) and suggest that they would do it again and again. I see your point, but the two are quite different.
I do think that we hold our leaders to a much, much, much higher standard. Should the terrorists who killed Nick Berg move into a mode where: they only targeted military infrastructure and personnel of strategic importance, they (for the *most* part) followed the Geneva convention (and prosecuted their members who did not), they opened for public scrutiny and investigation errors such as the accidential targeting of civilians, they stopped using hospitals (and schools and religious buildings) as sanctuaries, they stopped using innocent civilians as shields, they stopped trying to acquire and use banned weapons (chemical, radiological, biological), etc. THEN I suspect that they would be treated by the US and the rest of the world as a "Military" type of enemy as opposed to using the label "terrorist". For example, when the recent Haitian group (not a "state" military) created a Coup the US military treated them as a "military" group and not "terrorists" even though there was no real state sponsorship. This was because of the (another ironic term, here) code of honor that these men followed when trying to overtake the Haitian government.
So, I think that we do hold our military and leaders not only to the same standard but to a much higher standard.
This is not to say that I disagree with your contention that we should somehow be "satisfied" with the current attitude of "acceptable collateral damage" during warfare. All people of civilized nations should not accept anything but an absolute goal of not only zero civilian impact but also zero warfare. The reality of our world, however, makes this impossible today.
Lastly, I don't know where I personally stand on the issue of "proactive" military action. I understand your point that such action should only be reserved for clear acts of defense. However, as we have learned, even this is a slippery slope. Does one only take *immediate* defensive action? In this case, going after Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks would have been wrong as the damage had already been done and we would have only been "defending" against a "possibility" of future attack. However, as is the case with Iraq (I think), if you start to create a string of logic with respect to "possible" reasons for "future" defense then you open up every nation that has some non - US interest for possible attack. Even the premise of "defense only" is one that I am not sure of (at least where I stand). After all, had the US not been involved in WW II, there was no direct evidence that we would have been in imminent danger. However, we would have just permitted the destruction of London and the killing - off of an entire race of human beings. It is just such a "case - by - case" thing that I don't know if we could ever apply a black and white rule to it.
Anyhow, it is late here and I am probably (while very interrested in this topic) not creating clear thoughts at this point so I will have to end my long comment on this subject.
Very thought - provoking comments, though, Mike.
God bless!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 37
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Re: beheading video
May 18, 2004 - 10:29 AM
|
|
It didn't take very long for me to decide not to download the video. We all see too much death and it makes us feel like death is just something else to watch on TV. Watching something like that only serves to lower the consciousness.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
Liamjod
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
|
|
Home
Community
