American CONTRACTOR beheaded today.....+3

It is interesting to me that the terrorists have a great deal of money, time and armaments to do their deadly deeds. I look at the arms they are using and they mostly are from either Russia or China with a few American also. With that in mind I'd like to know why the terrorists think that westerners are all bad and should be killed when the terrorists are buying the arms from those they oppose.

The terrorists capture Americans and a few other people from different countries and behead them but leave Russians and Chinese alone, so are Russians not westerners then?

Wouldn't it be better for the terorists to try to overthrow their own dictatorial leaders that supress them rather than try to overthrow the United States? If I were to be living in a country in the Mid East I'd be rather perplexed that the leaders all tell their citizens that they should all believe in the Koran while actually doing things against its teachings themselves. Why would terrorists be mor upset at the west rather than their own kind supressing their people to slavery?
 
Cosmictraveler,

You left out one other important aspect. The money they use to operate has its roots from the US and its glute for oil. It is amazing that they think we should all die. What then would they do for a living.?

I can't evision them actually working and producing any income. Instead of coffee breaks we would have prayer breaks, several times a day. tht would be good for any economy. :D
 
MacM said:
Cosmictraveler,

You left out one other important aspect. The money they use to operate has its roots from the US and its glute for oil. It is amazing that they think we should all die. What then would they do for a living.?

I can't evision them actually working and producing any income. Instead of coffee breaks we would have prayer breaks, several times a day. tht would be good for any economy. :D

What would “they” do for a living? They would control, distribute, and enjoy the moneys from all the oil they sell. It is ignorant to think that SA population (and Iraq soon) should thank America for “buying” their oil. America really isn’t “buying” anything. The trillions given to SA royalty gets injected right back into the American economy and the US is DEPENDENT on this. It is not enough to have “friends” sell you cheap oil. They must also give you back your money. 9/11 jeopardized this beautiful relationship. Everyone knows that most terrorists were from SA and the US admin feeling public pressure to antagonize SA. This is one of the main reasons Bush attacked Iraq, hoping that one day soon, Iraq could be a “friend” in addition to (or god forbid, instead of) SA.
 
MacM said:
I don't favor the Israelies. But in the overall view it is the Palestinians that use terrorisim. retalitory strikes are not terrorisim.

How do you tell the difference between retaliatory strikes and offensive strikes? How do you justify demolishing innocent Palestinians' homes without compensation to make way for Isreali settlers?

In France we were asked to leave and left. We would do the same in Germany or Japan if asked.

In exchange for the US ending the bulk of its occupation, Germany and Japan were required to sign treaties allowing the US indefinite use of military bases in those countries. The treaties were signed under duress. The US still occupies them, just on a smaller scale.

With Iraq’s $1 trillion in proven oil reserves and 90% unexplored for oil, the chance that we’ll leave there is nil. Instead, like we did with Germany and Japan, we’ll all but force them into agreeing to our continued albeit lesser occupation, which will include the US making the lion’s share of profit from the oil. We’ll call that “liberation” and most Americans will call it fair.

The fact is there is often no right postion to take and it is a matter of chosing the lesser of two evils.

Certainly the right position does not involve arming both sides in a conflict. That would guarantee the fomentation of mass hatred and create terrorism. It might lead to, say, the beheading of Americans.
 
With Iraq’s $1 trillion in proven oil reserves and 90% unexplored for oil

$4 trillion actually...only more reason to stay I guess.
 
"In exchange for the US ending the bulk of its occupation, Germany and Japan were required to sign treaties allowing the US indefinite use of military bases in those countries. The treaties were signed under duress. The US still occupies them, just on a smaller scale."

They sure didnt seem to mind those bases during the Berlin crises and the Rest of the Cold war.......
 
They might indeed prefer having those bases around. Especially as they have by now built local economies around servicing the US soldiers (pun intended). Nevertheless the Germans and Japanese do not have the ability to ask the US to leave as MacM thinks. If they did then the US would simply point to the treaty. A treaty signed under duress and which applies to all future generations. Such treaties are taught in Puppet Government 101. The US is using the same oppressive tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan and this will likely result in more terrorism.
 
zanket said:
They might indeed prefer having those bases around. Especially as they have by now built local economies around servicing the US soldiers (pun intended). Nevertheless the Germans and Japanese do not have the ability to ask the US to leave as MacM thinks. If they did then the US would simply point to the treaty. A treaty signed under duress and which applies to all future generations. Such treaties are taught in Puppet Government 101. The US is using the same oppressive tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan and this will likely result in more terrorism.

You should study law. Any contract (treaty) signed under duress would be unenforceable.

You should also note that we left Panama, which the Canal Zone was under treaty.
 
MacM said:
You should study law. Any contract (treaty) signed under duress would be unenforceable.

You don’t see any Indians (Native Americans) getting back their prime land do you?

You should also note that we left Panama, which the Canal Zone was under treaty.

That wasn’t a treaty; it was a lease, which expired.
 
That sentiment, truly believed by Americans especially, is just what is causing these beheadings. They think they can take take take and never have to pay.
 
zanket said:
That sentiment, truly believed by Americans especially, is just what is causing these beheadings. They think they can take take take and never have to pay.

Unfortunately they seem to think they can kill, kill, and kill in their "God's "name and never be killed. They are wrong and we have superior killing capacity. They will lose and it is all for naught. It is stupid.
 
I think they know it’s for naught in the long run. To them it’s a last gasp before we subjugate them completely. If you came home from your 25-cent-an-hour job and found that the US had killed your family and bulldozed down your house, you might concede that you lost but you’d still want to behead some Americans.
 
I have a strong distaste for posting or even reading here (although there are many good posts here). Here goes my irrepressible 2 piastres worth, because the higher activity in this and similar threads makes my skin crawl.

The effectiveness of the Terrorism on War is clearly showcased in the lurid fascination in headlines, conversations, topics, and threads like this one, if you can take a few steps back and see. If you want or hope for any effective counterterrorism within your Homeland, then you must try and understand that job #1 is to renounce the natural ghoulish fascination we all are susceptible to, involving individual deaths that are so crassly orchestrated in low-budget "Shock and Awe" productions.

If you sincerely want to fight terrorism, then insist that those personally close to the victims be allowed to grieve in the same privacy as would be allowed the surviving family of an everyday traffic fatality. Then, drive on- and mind your own business. Go about you own life. Stop gawking.

Terrorism is a participatory activity, requiring specific responses from the target society. America remains the juiciest terrorist target in the world, largely because we are the most contagiously indignant victims, so extremely incredulous that our careful neat packaging of Death, and our comforting assumptions about our permanence, have been rudely dissheveled.

I watched uncomprehendingly at first, as my Beiruti neighbors cleaned up with great haste and thoroughness after terrorist attacks. It seemed surreal at first, how with such great effort they would get back to living, outwardly nearly unaffected, immediately after normal urban life had been shattered by an unbelievable concussion, the evil smell, the wreckage, and by the human meat, blood, bone, goo, organs, clothing, all strung obcenely and incongruously, in broad daylight on everyday objects. The cleanup always started even before the smoke cleared. The next day, you could walk through the scene of the crime with hardly a reminder of the momentary drama and tragedy that had occured- A big pothole, a pocked wall, a new window: No shrines to the dead, no little Lebanese flags on cars, just discos, bakeries, bookstores, re-opening for another day's business. Roberta Flack's "I Will Survive" came over the radio, and echoed down the streets, and we danced to it.

Beirutis endured a horrific amount of terrorism, and eventually came to clearly understand the most effective civil counterterrorism. The orgy didn't stop right away, but the victims decided to stop playing their part in the sick game.

Just because the USA is in fact more efficient, MacM, more prolific in killing innocent civilians in ways just as gruesome, just as calculating, just as public (in theatre), and just as impersonal- as a typical, unimaginative kidnapping and videotaped speech and beheading (yawn). Although occupying armies and air strikes can retaliate in causing deaths and dismemberments , they can never win this war. ("War"- like "Jihad" it's really a word so far out of context a to be very misleading)

This "war" will be won when we learn a common-looking steadfastness never seen in an action movie. We will only beat terrorism by concertedly getting back to our normal lives after each monstrous crime, whether our careers involve making widgets, or selling detergent, or hunting international criminals, or investigating organized crime. Such a responses to hijackings, bombs, and beheadings seems less spectacular, and seems to offer no chance to vent our indignance, or to climax the movie in a spectacular action scene where the bad guys get blown away.

When Americans learn this responsibility, and also demand that their government respond with police and not military efforts, then the War on Terrorism on War on Terrorism will finally wind down- But not until. Counterterrorism is not war. War is terrorism is war. Calm down and fight.
 
Last edited:
Hypewaders,

You may be shocked but I generally agree with you on this. My posts are aimed at those idiots that think they cn take over the world or that it is all our fault because of foriegn policy. When the reality is that the terroists have only one goal. Kill all that don't believe as they do and let them rule the world. It is an absurdity. And whle killing every damn one of them is not my goal, if that is what it tkes to rid this world of such nonsense then so be it. They are bringing this on themselves. We will not become lambs and succume to their demands.
 
Glad to hear it. Now I'll move to an where I still don't think we agree. I don't mind if every damn one is killed either- but I understand why attempting to do so with armies doesn't work, and makes things worse. Terrorists have to be dealt with by responsible authorities one criminal at a time, through painstaking, time-consuming, (and often imperfect) investigation, apprehension/death, and punishment/burial (as appropriate). We should never dignify terrorists with publicity, and never, ever grant them their favorite, most sought-after publicity and glory, which is Total War.

"the reality is that the terroists have only one goal. Kill all that don't believe as they do and let them rule the world."

That's untrue. Terrorism results when a criminal NGO endeavors to conduct political killings without the mechanisms that states possess for doing so. Al-Qaeda, for one example, is not conducting some ridiculous evangelism through terrorism, and professes no ambition to rule the world.

Instead, they have clearly stated that they wish to force the United States to quit the Arabian peninsula, for the Saudi regime to be brought down, and for a theocracy to begin there that will be an Islamist's version of Reagan's "City on the Hill".

The truly dangerous part is not an Islamist ambition to create some new expansionistic and nuclear Evil Empire: The danger is irrational and hyped Western fear that Islamists pose a rising geopolitical threat over the many others we face. Our fears for some spreading Evil Islamic Superpower are ignorant, because Arabs and Muslims do not really support regional theocratic revolutions: They do support change, and will Tip their Hats to the New Revolution as in 1970s Iran- but then the thrill is gone, especially if not replaced by fears of American interventionism, inspiring more politics of fear, and nuclear proliferation.

There are many examples showing that Islamism doesn't function well at all as government in the modern context. Theocracies are a popularly-recognized step backward, not forward, do not satisfy, and so they flounder. But as during the Cold War, manipulated fears can stimulate an arms race and breed unecessary conflicts. There are those in power who feel most effective in a Cold War stance, and so are trying to shape American opinion in that direction, mobilizing the public against a menacing threat that is mostly fabricated. This deadly game is founded on half-truths, but takes on a life of its own if we let it.

The US can instead stay above the fray, promote democracy by diplomacy and example, and allow the inhabitants of the Mideast to shape their own destiny without our intrusive and resented intervention. The only thing even more inflammatory than a War on Terror in this situation, is a pre-emptive war on terrorism. From here forward, we must learn how not to be terrorized. We must disassociate ourselves at the polls from any leaders who fall into playing the flesh-eating Fear Game. Stop the war.
 
Hypewaders,

I agree with most of what you have said. I do think in the short term the war serves a purpose in our defense. Assuming that the hand over of power goes reasonably well we will have concentrated terrorist activities and effort to a local area and it improves the kill (catch) ratio for these guys and keeps the bulk of such activity out of our back yard.

It is causing the terrorists to attack their own people, which is beginning to back fire and turn popular support against them. Once they have power again and should terroist continue to attack them then the terroist plots will fail since they will be attempting to steal from them. This stuff becomes personal when it is directed against you.

When it is directed gainst somebody you don't like you tend to set back and cheer.

I agree with the news media thing. I think Al J. should be blown off the map for disbursing absolute propaganda and for sponsoring terrorists messages and enciting the arabs to support the terrorists.
 
goofyfish said:
Their goals are termination of free societies and they are fueled by outright hate

And thats why they need terminated. Would you agree Mr. Goofy ?
 
Last edited:
I get the oddest feeling that the US will go further downhill if Bush is re-elected.

Get Bush out of office. Hand over the stupid Iraq. Take hands off Iraq.

Slowly bring this dumb antiterror war to a graceful end and just resume using tight security like before. Don't go raiding random countries. Recover the international support that the US has entirely lost.

This is what the American public could possibly do as an option ...
 
The US will go further downhill even if Kerry is elected. Kerry won’t give up Iraq either. Those 14 military bases being built will stay in US hands to ensure that Bush Oil profits handsomely from Iraqi oil. So many in Congress will have their palms greased from that oil that Kerry will be powerless to give up control of Iraq. He’d know that going into office, so his strategy would be to retain control. Terrorism is bound to increase worldwide as a result.
 
Back
Top