Why hasnt Al Jazeera been disbanded...

[Hobbit]

Well, I have mixed opinions about Al Jazeera.

But the idea that they can hand over those who give them the tapes is pretty darn silly. Think about it! If I were a terrorist and wanted to deliver a tape to Al Jazeera, I could do it by any number of means which would leave little or no chance of being caught.

Example:

I rent a motel room, leave the tape in the room, place the key to the room someplace, and then call a reporter and tell them where to pick up the key and what room the tape is in. I then watch both places and if authorities show up, next time I choose a different reporter, and perhaps I also kill the reporter I gave the phone call to. It's easy, and it would be handled by subordinates who have no important knowelge anyway are not a big loss if they are caught.

Al Jazeera must refuse to aid in the capture of their information sources, because this will only dry up the source of information, and won't lead to any sigificant damage to the terrorists anyway.

My problem with Al Jazeera is that they do not edit the tapes before showing them. I think they should not show the beheadings themselves. But perhaps this is a requirement of getting future info from the terrorists.

It's not about catching the terrorists. The point is that if Al Jazeera refused to air the tapes, the beheadings would lose their impact, if Al Qaeda even bothered any more. They're not just covering for the terrorists, they're helping them. It's inexcusable. Oh, and that comment about contractors being spies is bullcrap. Contractors are there to build infastructure, nothing else.

 

[insein]

Why do liberals have to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing? Are they not human? Do they not bleed the same blood as us? Apparently not. Giving credit to the terrorists for their captruing of so called spies and beheading them is about as low as calling the hijackers on 9/11 brave. Im disgusted with Liberals that speak this way, but i guess that is their true nature. Liberals arent for peace. They are for US submission. If the terrorist can achieve this outcome, then they are onboard like wade, MJ, bully, and all the other liberal douchbags on here.

I hope America wakes up before they elect the #1 liberal in the government as president. Otherwise we may have already lost then.

 

[wade]

You never cease to amaze.

Zhukov,

Many of the contractors in Iraq are armed and they conduct psuedo military operations. There are even outright mercs operating there. This is especially true of some of those executed:

Who were the "four U.S. contractors" who met their deaths in Fallujah? They were described in The Washington Post as "elite commandos … hired by the U.S. government to protect bureaucrats, soldiers and intelligence officers."

The contractors were employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, four of some 400 Blackwater employees in Iraq who are making up to $1,000 a day.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6069.htm

And armed contractors are not at all uncommon:

There are 50,000 contractor employees in Iraq and Kuwait, including 20,000 working for 60 private security firms, according to data compiled for U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers.
....
The private security companies, which employ U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third-country nationals, include London-based Armor Group; San Francisco-based Bechtel Group Inc.; Moycock, North Carolina-based Blackwater; McLean, Virginia-based Custer Battles LLC; New York-based Kroll Inc., and Houston-based Halliburton Co.'s Kellogg Brown & Root unit.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aHT5mc1ZzE5s&refer=us

Another relevant link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/contractors_4-6.html

Many of the abuses at Abu Gahrib were conducted by civilian contractors, none of whom are being individually punished (the companies are under some fire though - but will probably get off with minor fines if any penalty is levied).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/iraq_abuse_contractors/

It's all a matter of perspective. According to both us and the enemy, this is a war. According to all rules of war, civilian "contractors", especially if they are armed, fall into the classification of spies and sabotures, and have no rights at all. The insurgents are not even violating the Genevia convention when they execute contractors.

Military roles should be handled by military personel, not mercenaries.

 

[wade]

It's not about catching the terrorists. The point is that if Al Jazeera refused to air the tapes, the beheadings would lose their impact, if Al Qaeda even bothered any more. They're not just covering for the terrorists, they're helping them. It's inexcusable.

All that would happen is they would find another way to get the tapes to the public.

Oh, and that comment about contractors being spies is bullcrap. Contractors are there to build infastructure, nothing else.

You are dead wrong. See my reply to Sir Evil.

 

[Flying Duck]

Beheading, if properly done (like the Japanese),...

Anyone else notice the tacit acceptance of beheadings combined with an admiration for how the Japs committed atrocities?

Wade is one sick puppy.

 

[NightTrain]

Anyone else notice the tacit acceptance of beheadings combined with an admiration for how the Japs committed atrocities?

Wade is one sick puppy.

Yep and Yep.

 

[insein]

Anyone else notice the tacit acceptance of beheadings combined with an admiration for how the Japs committed atrocities?

Wade is one sick puppy.

Or the acceptance of beheading sif done "properly" as opposed to wearing underwear on one's head. People need to fight the propaganda war from the left as much as the terrorists or else this battle is going to be over and America will be left in ashes.

 

[Zhukov]

Wade,

Kenneth Bigley, an engineer working to rebuild Iraq

Jack Hensley, another engineer

Eugene Armstrong, a third engineer

Kim Sun-il, a translator

And quite probably Margaret Hassan, an aid worker

These are your “spies”.

Incidentally even spies deserve a trial, and if found guilty a quick and painless death. Not some disgusting display of barbarism masquerading as an “insurgency”.

 

[wade]

Anyone else notice the tacit acceptance of beheadings combined with an admiration for how the Japs committed atrocities?

Wade is one sick puppy.

Don't go putting things into my posts that aren't there Duck. I'm not applauding the actions in anyway, and I'm probably the most conversant person on this board w.r.t. Japanese atrocities.

What I'm saying is that proper beheading is one of the less brutal forms of excecution. The only non-brutal form is lethal injection, and only if that is done correctly (which our states do not do).

I do accept beheading as a legitimate form of execution, but only if it is done properly. I see no difference between beheadings and a firing squad, and it is certainly less brutal than the gas chamber or the electric chair, or even lethal injection as done in most states where that method is practiced.

However, as I've pointed out, what the Arabs are doing are not proper beheadings, they are brutal sawing off of the head. And this is disgusting and contrary to even their own culture.

Assuming someone is to be executed, what method would you suggest is most acceptable?

 

[Hobbit]

Zhukov,

Many of the contractors in Iraq are armed and they conduct psuedo military operations. There are even outright mercs operating there. This is especially true of some of those executed:



And armed contractors are not at all uncommon:



Another relevant link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/contractors_4-6.html

Many of the abuses at Abu Gahrib were conducted by civilian contractors, none of whom are being individually punished (the companies are under some fire though - but will probably get off with minor fines if any penalty is levied).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/iraq_abuse_contractors/

It's all a matter of perspective. According to both us and the enemy, this is a war. According to all rules of war, civilian "contractors", especially if they are armed, fall into the classification of spies and sabotures, and have no rights at all. The insurgents are not even violating the Genevia convention when they execute contractors.

Military roles should be handled by military personel, not mercenaries.

Irrelevant in this discussion. The contractors abducted weren't armed and were performing perfectly innocent, civilian jobs. In fact, they were probably picked because they weren't armed, thus making easier targets.

 

[wade]

Hey Wade, who is it that you know that experienced being beheaded and said it was relatively painless? :huh:

LOL - very funny Evil.

There was a series on THC about a year ago on methods of execution. In it the discussed a pretty wide variety of methods that have been used over the course of history, and made the point that the Guillotine was probably one of the least painful means of execution.

They also discussed almost every other method used, and few were considered as painless. Only lethal injection, if done right, where the victim is effectively sedated into unconsciousness first, is less painful. And those States in the USA that employ lethal injection generally do not undertake this step very well, leading to a pretty traumatic death for most who are executed.

What method of execution do you think is most humane, smart ass?

 

[wade]

Irrelevant in this discussion. The contractors abducted weren't armed and were performing perfectly innocent, civilian jobs. In fact, they were probably picked because they weren't armed, thus making easier targets.

It is not irrelevant. When we employ mercenaries within a war zone, it makes all civilians legitimate targets. The enemy does not need to prove it's case against such civilians on an individual basis, the mere fact that some, or in this case many, civilians are in fact mercenaries makes all civilians mercenaries. Just because they are not holding a gun now does not mean that they won't be holding one tomarrow. And even if they are not holding a gun, many contractors perform interrogations and other war-related tasks.

The only way to prevent this is to estabilish a policy where no civilian are utilized for war-related activities. Our military should be capable of providing all security functions, we should not be hiring mercenaries, who are not bound by the military code of justice, to perform such duties.

 

[insein]

It is not irrelevant. When we employ mercenaries within a war zone, it makes all civilians legitimate targets. The enemy does not need to prove it's case against such civilians on an individual basis, the mere fact that some, or in this case many, civilians are in fact mercenaries makes all civilians mercenaries. Just because they are not holding a gun now does not mean that they won't be holding one tomarrow. And even if they are not holding a gun, many contractors perform interrogations and other war-related tasks.

The only way to prevent this is to estabilish a policy where no civilian are utilized for war-related activities. Our military should be capable of providing all security functions, we should not be hiring mercenaries, who are not bound by the military code of justice, to perform such duties.

Your are from the same ilk as Kerry. Giving aide and comfort to the enemy. They read leftwing assholes like you and see that your kind of thinking is helping their cause so they gain the strength to keep fighting.

You dont even deserve intelligent conversation because you have proven incapable of understanding that unarmed civilians are not mercenaries.

 

[wade]

Incidentally even spies deserve a trial, and if found guilty a quick and painless death. Not some disgusting display of barbarism masquerading as an “insurgency”.

Zhukov,

It is unclear what Kenneth Bigley, Jack Hensley, and Eugene Armstrong were working on, but most reports are that it was some kind of US Army project. Other sources (family) claim it was a private project. So it is unclear if they were "legitmate" targets or not. Because there are no clear lines between military and non-military related contractor functions, all contractors are at increased risk. In my opinion, anyone working on a military related project is a somewhat legitimate target. The USA is constructing 17 (or is it 19?) perminant bases in Iraq, and I can certainly see the insurgency viewing anyone working on such a project as a legitimate target.

As for trials for spies, this is only true during peacetime. During time of war, spies and saboturs are usually shot without any kind of trial.

What I don't like is that you (and others) are trying to say that because I try to understand the other sides point of view I must support it. This is not true. I do think we have to consider the fact that we are at war with the "insurgency" (a term I find pretty absurd really), and thus they are at war with us. This means that the rules of war apply, and one rule is that civilians do not take part in military operations or activities which directly support such operations, or if they do they become legitimate targets. Because there is no clear way for the insurgents to tell who amoung the contractors are legitimate civilians and who are military operatives, all civilians in Iraq become targets. That's just the sad truth of war. Trying to put unrealistic standards of behaivor on the enemy is just hypocritical and foolish.

That being said, I still think that the method of execution being used by the Arabs, namely sawing the heads off with a knife, is particularly and intentionally brutal and consitutes a war crime.

 

[wade]

Your are from the same ilk as Kerry. Giving aide and comfort to the enemy. They read leftwing assholes like you and see that your kind of thinking is helping their cause so they gain the strength to keep fighting.

You dont even deserve intelligent conversation because you have proven incapable of understanding that unarmed civilians are not mercenaries.

You are an idiot.

They are non-military targets because you declare them as such? Bullshit.

A "civilian" who is pouring concrete for a runway on a military base is a legitimate target. A civilian who is trucking fuel and ammo to the Army is a legitimate target. A civilian who is setting up a communications array for the Army is a legitimate target. These have always been legitimate targets in every war we have ever fought. We certainly bombed and shelled such civilians in WWII.

Just because someone is unarmed and not a member of the military does not give them immunity from enemy action. If they are performing a function that supports the military, this makes them a target. That is part of war, always has been, and always will be.

Why would you think that civilians who are working to support us would not be considered legitimate targets of our enemies? That's just stupid.

You are an idiot because you want some kind of sanitary war. War is not clean and it is not fair. If you take a job working for a company which is peforming a function which is against the stated interests of the enemy, you have to expect to be a target.

And, I'm not giving aid or comfort to the enemy. I'm just pointing out the cold hard fact that in a war zone, no one other than the indiginous population can be considered "civilians". It's really preposterous to suggest otherwise.

And your contention that the Iraqi insurgents are reading positions like this one and gaining comfort from them is futher proof you don't have the IQ of a monkey. Think about it stupid. To you, it's a big deal that these people are being executed. You get all upset about it. That's what the enemy wants. To me, it's unfortunate that these people are being executed, but it's expected and that's just the way war goes, the contractors are well paid for their risk. If everyone had my attitude about it, they'd be much less inclined to spend so much effort to kill so few contractors.

My only real outrage over their behavior is the method of execution, which I consider to be a form of torture. That these people were abuducted and executed - that is the fault of our military for not protecting them better.

 

[theim]

Zhukov,

It is unclear what Kenneth Bigley, Jack Hensley, and Eugene Armstrong were working on, but most reports are that it was some kind of US Army project. Other sources (family) claim it was a private project. So it is unclear if they were "legitmate" targets or not. Because there are no clear lines between military and non-military related contractor functions, all contractors are at increased risk. In my opinion, anyone working on a military related project is a somewhat legitimate target. The USA is constructing 17 (or is it 19?) perminant bases in Iraq, and I can certainly see the insurgency viewing anyone working on such a project as a legitimate target.

As for trials for spies, this is only true during peacetime. During time of war, spies and saboturs are usually shot without any kind of trial.

What I don't like is that you (and others) are trying to say that because I try to understand the other sides point of view I must support it. This is not true. I do think we have to consider the fact that we are at war with the "insurgency" (a term I find pretty absurd really), and thus they are at war with us. This means that the rules of war apply, and one rule is that civilians do not take part in military operations or activities which directly support such operations, or if they do they become legitimate targets. Because there is no clear way for the insurgents to tell who amoung the contractors are legitimate civilians and who are military operatives, all civilians in Iraq become targets. That's just the sad truth of war. Trying to put unrealistic standards of behaivor on the enemy is just hypocritical and foolish.

That being said, I still think that the method of execution being used by the Arabs, namely sawing the heads off with a knife, is particularly and intentionally brutal and consitutes a war crime.

So if they line the kidnapped contractors up and give em a lethal injection, its OK.

 

[wade]

So if they line the kidnapped contractors up and give em a lethal injection, its OK.

Kidnapped? Grow up, it's a war. These "civilians" are functioning in a hostile war zone. Our enemy is going to try to kill them if they can. It's not a matter of it being "ok" or not, it's just an ugly fact of war. People get killed. Hostage taking has been a part of war throughout history, and hostages are usually killed or ransomed.

What's not acceptable is when captives are tortured. It's not acceptable when they do it, and it's not acceptable when we do it.

 

[Zhukov]

When we employ mercenaries within a war zone, it makes all civilians legitimate targets.

No, it most certainly does not.

The enemy does not need to prove it's case against such civilians on an individual basis

Yes, they do. I seriously doubt you'd apply such a liberal standard to U.S. forces. I'll bet I could even find a statement of yours that said the exact opposite when it came to what our soldiers 'need' to prove.

What I don't like is that you (and others) are trying to say that because I try to understand the other sides point of view I must support it. This is not true.

That's not what I'm saying.

What I don't like is that you're pissing on those men's bodies, trying to convice me those old men were a danger to anyone, that they were mercenaries, that they were spies, that there is in effect some justification for killing them.

I think that's absolutely detestable.

 

[Hobbit]

Kidnapped? Grow up, it's a war. These "civilians" are functioning in a hostile war zone. Our enemy is going to try to kill them if they can. It's not a matter of it being "ok" or not, it's just an ugly fact of war. People get killed. Hostage taking has been a part of war throughout history, and hostages are usually killed or ransomed.

What's not acceptable is when captives are tortured. It's not acceptable when they do it, and it's not acceptable when we do it.

Wrong again. Prisoners of war is a part of war, but can only be applied to soldiers.

1. These people were clearly civilians, wearing no uniforms and carrying no weapons. Mercs would be at least carrying weapons, if not wearing uniforms as well.

2. These people were rebuilding city infastructure, not military bases. If they were building military bases, surrounded by armed soldiers, the insurgents wouldn't have had a chance in hell to grab them.

3. The last person they kidnapped was a prominent charity worker who was both well known and well known as a person whose agenda was focused towards aiding refugees.

These killings, well, let's stop euphemising. These unadulterated, brutal, barbaric, murders (I wish there was a stronger word than murder) are nothing but a cowardly attempt at intimidation. They are grabbing people who are weak and unarmed and are people who the rest of the world will feel sorry for, then threatening them with a slow and painful death. Acts of barbarism such as this haven't been seen since Roman armies stopped crucifying the populous of retaken, rebellious towns. There is no possible justification for this and your continued attempts to find one are only drawing the ire of every decent human being who reads them.

On a side note, this is probably hurting them more than helping, anyway. Just thinking about what they're doing makes me want to head over to Iraq with an M-16 just for the vague chance of being able to shoot one of them in a nice, painful spot, like the liver. Also, the more they do this, the more bodyguards and police, thus the harder it is to grab a hostage.

 

[wade]

Yes, they do. I seriously doubt you'd apply such a liberal standard to U.S. forces. I'll bet I could even find a statement of yours that said the exact opposite when it came to what our soldiers 'need' to prove.

That is because we are "liberators", and as such we have to meet a higher standard than our foes.

What I don't like is that you're pissing on those men's bodies, trying to convice me those old men were a danger to anyone, that they were mercenaries, that they were spies, that there is in effect some justification for killing them.

I think that's absolutely detestable.

Wether they were a danger to anyone or not is really not the point. I'm just pointing out that such non-military personel in a battle zone are always considered fair game by the enemy. That's just the way it is. And there are private mercenaries included in the mix, that makes them even more likely targets of the enemy. That's war - especially when the enemy is in the form of a gorilla/underground.

My point about the contractors is just that, were this a delecared war operating under the Genevia convention, the contractors could be shot and it would be in compliance with the rules of war.