A US Marine, Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, was beheaded today. He was a Muslim who worked as a translator in the Marines. This should show the hypocrisy to all those foolish enough to believe there is some logical reasoning behind the serial killer actions going on in Iraq. I know a lot of sympathizers of this shit spout off here. What do you think now? What is the excuse this time?

"I know a lot of sympathizers of this shit spout off here."

Are you sure? Please point out one "sympathizer" on this board, who has supported this and other recent conspicuous murders of Americans, that have indisputably occured in criminal response to highly unwelcome US intervention.

You are displaying an oversimplistic and flawed understanding of those who post here, and of the issues we post about. Blurring the lines between those who explore the hidden roots of this conflict, and those who most murderously participate in it, is disingenuous.

He was a Muslim who worked as a translator in the Marines. This should show the hypocrisy

I doubt there's hypocrisy here. I remember, it was brought up that many Muslims died on 9/11. The responce was that to them, the Muslims that are with Americans are enemies, too.

You may also consider, that beheading was seen for a long time as the most humane way of killing; example: guillotine (sp). So there's no horror in beheading; focus on the killing of innocent, which is against what it says in Quran (someone told me).

To add to the Brouhaha, the group who apparently have him are now saying they havnt killed him.

It looks like they are going to let him go because he's a muslim. So, would that mean there IS logical reasoning behind their actions or not?

A US Marine, Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, was beheaded today. He was a Muslim who worked as a translator in the Marines. This should show the hypocrisy to all those foolish enough to believe there is some logical reasoning behind the serial killer actions going on in Iraq. I know a lot of sympathizers of this shit spout off here. What do you think now? What is the excuse this time?

Hmm, if it is true, it just goes to show that these people would kill there own kind for their stupid pointless crusade, can't be bargained with and should be wiped out..

A US Marine, Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, was beheaded today. He was a Muslim who worked as a translator in the Marines. This should show the hypocrisy to all those foolish enough to believe there is some logical reasoning behind the serial killer actions going on in Iraq. I know a lot of sympathizers of this shit spout off here. What do you think now? What is the excuse this time?

there is some logical reasoning behind the serial killer actions going on in Iraq.

defending one's soil against an unwarranted + illeagal invasion is reason enough.

what the hell has logics got to do with it? this isn't a philosophy class.


I know a lot of sympathizers of this shit spout off here

they're in the majority believe me, and the "shit" they spout of is more valid than the "shit" you perceive.

Hmm, if it is true, it just goes to show that these people would kill there own kind for their stupid pointless crusade, can't be bargained with and should be wiped out..

these people
these people are in their country, on their soil, excersing their moral right to defend their country

their stupid pointless crusade
no, the illeagal invasion of another country by you rednecks was + is a pointless crusade.

can't be bargained with and should be wiped out..

no, the illeagal occupiers should be + are + will be wiped out, what you people think you can stroll into iraq and use the same old bullshit american strong arm tactics and take over their country??

you better pull your boys outta there...it's gonna be a bloodbath

Its true the war was started for questionable reasons, but the US has no intention of "taking their country". If the US pulled their forces out right away, it would indeed be a bloodbath. At this point its not imperialism, we have an obligation, a responsibility to the Iraqis to provide security until they can do it themselves.

Its true the war was started for questionable reasons, but the US has no intention of "taking their country". If the US pulled their forces out right away, it would indeed be a bloodbath. At this point its not imperialism, we have an obligation, a responsibility to the Iraqis to provide security until they can do it themselves.

Its true the war was started for questionable reasons

1) understatment of the century
2) note the highlighted word: WAR

but the US has no intention of "taking their country"

1) yes they did.
2) besides their intentions are irrelevant, their actions are the cause to the effect
3) they started a "war"
4) "invasion" is in the eye of those being invaded wouldn't you say goat? ;)

"So there's no horror in beheading"

Ha! Good one. Tell that to the Berg family. I would personally prefer to die with head intact.

It seems they might not have killed the muslim. Which only verifies they are radical religious nutters anyway.

No, it's barbarians, that have no rights, think they can use torture and mayhem to get their way....and look how well they looked after their 'soil'.

fadingcaptain:

Which only verifies they are radical religious nutters anyway

only verifies one thing: the complete and utter childishness + ignorance with which you view this issue, and your complete inability or refusal to grasp the dialectic factors invloved.

they behead a "muslim" they= "radical religious nutters"
but:
they behead a "redneck" they= terrorists right?


they are radical religious nutters anyway

again:

what they are, are iraqis on their soil, defending their land.

religion has nothing to do with it.

At this point, the insurgents are fighting against the establishment of a new Iraqi government, aren't they? If some simpletons can't get past their hurt pride and ego that their oppressor had to be removed by a foreign force (that is in the process of leaving), that's their loss. It's like someone who had a heart attack resisting the medics from helping him because they would have to tresspass on his land to save him.

what they are, are iraqis on their soil, defending their land.
They aren't defending their land, they are defending their right to oppress the majority, like they did under Saddam. They have the most to lose under a democracy. Bush may have been wrong, but that doesn't make them right either.

No, it's barbarians, that have no rights, think they can use torture and mayhem to get their way....and look how well they looked after their 'soil'.

that have no rights

your perceptions + baseless opinions on X dont equate to a valid dialectic argument.

just making a bullshit statment: "they have no rights" equates to nothing.

outlandish,
1st off calm down. This is an internet message board. No need to go flying off the handle.
"they behead a "muslim" they= "radical religious nutters"
but:
they behead a "redneck" they= terrorists right?"
Wrong. Either way they are terrorists. Whether you think their cause is just or not is irrelevant. Lopping off people's heads for political reasons is terrorism.
My point was that making an exception simply because a person is muslim only validates the fact that the terrorists are motivated by both politics AND radical religious idealogy.

"what they are, are iraqis on their soil, defending their land."
You make it sound like they are in the majority. They are not.

"religion has nothing to do with it."
Ok, if thats the case...why are they backtracking on the beheading claim? You are the one with the blinders on. Religious has a shitload to do with it.

Wrong. Either way they are terrorists. Whether you think their cause is just or not is irrelevant. Lopping off people's heads for political reasons is terrorism
again another example of the blatant distortion with which you + many others view the events in iraq.

let me re iterate:

your views + perceptions on this matter equate to nothing simply because of the fact that you clearly show yourself unable or unwilling to objectively analyse the issues on a dialectic level + get to the essentials.

so hence all premises + conclusions you draw are again baseless since you draw those conclusion from mere conjecture + subjective opinions.

. Either way they are terrorists
again your definiton of X does not eqaute to the actuality of X and has no baring either way on the circumstances surrounding X

the fact of one's inherent and moral right to defend ones land against invasion is unambiguous, its an ideological fact, not speculation, nor conjecture nor opinion
you don't need to be a scholar on international law, or international politcal boundries to grasp this one very fundemental and basic fact.

the fact that you choose to or unable to recognise this fact is your problem and has no consequence on this debate or the reality of the situatiuon of iraq.

hence I have clearly shown your perception to be flawed, and hence all conclusions drawn from a flawed initial perception or premise are also obviously quite clearly flawed.

. Lopping off people's heads for political reasons is terrorism

1) the reactions to an exaserbated + extreme situation caused by an initial action caused by external forces is justified with the context of the extreme environment.

2) it's war mate, the gloves are off simple as that.

3) america started the fire on iraqi soil, the iraqis are fully justified + obliged to finish it.....by any means necessary

It just seems to me that Oulander of whatever his name is wants to argue with the wrold here lol...we can go on about the whys and wherefores of America's presence in Iraq, but that's a whole can of worms for people with nothing better to do than spout off about 'Anti America', 'Stop the war'...and it's normally by people that are right-on for a fashion statement (I give you that Lesbian bird from Big Brother or any Indie pop band, who's 'anti war/bush/iraq' comments mysteriously clash with the release of their new albums)....but hey, it's easy to attack...right or wrong people are trying to do their jobs in a basically messed up country.....regardless of their race, if they are in the army, or like the chap from New Jersey who was beheaded....just a contractor...I think they don't deserve to be killed by a load of backwards individuals from an outdated country....I'm sorry that outlander feels that they do.....but a word to all the anti this and anti that people.....those who sit in the safety of their Mother's bedrooms....it's easy to just attack and be right on for the sake of being 'hip'....but kids, try making a differnce...anyone can sit here tapping away at the keyboard....I should know.

the fact of one's inherent and moral right to defend ones land against invasion is unambiguous, its an ideological fact, not speculation, nor conjecture nor opinion

I'm sorry, but it IS your opinion that invaders must always be repelled. Did the French have an obligation to defend their country against the US on D-day, when thousands of Americans landed on their shores? No? Then it really depends on circumstances, doesn't it? Doesn't it depend on what the invaders objectives are? Americans are not attacking Iraqi civilians, they are not trying to destroy the country, kill or imprison all the people, take their land and resources, and establish an American colony, are they? They are not bombing mosques, hospitals, roads and infrastructure, are they? In fact, the insurgents are trying to sabatoge the infrastructure that the Americans are rebuilding, why are they destroying their own country and countrymen? Granted, the US should be giving more of these jobs to Iraqis instead of Halliburton, but still, true Iraqi patriots should be preparing for a peaceful handover.

If the British told the early Americans that they were preparing to hand the colonies over to the American people for self-rule, do you think they should have continued fighting?

outlandish,
They are terrorists by definition. Not my definition, but standard definition. If you don't like the standard definition, thats not my problem. You may agree and sympathize with their intent. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they use violent terror tactics with political intent.

"so hence all premises + conclusions you draw are again baseless since you draw those conclusion from mere conjecture + subjective opinions"

What is your objective in trying to immediately discount any viewpoint that is contrary to your own? Do you have objective opinions? :)

"again your definiton of X does not eqaute to the actuality of X and has no baring either way on the circumstances surrounding X"

Likewise.

"the fact of one's inherent and moral right to defend ones land against invasion is unambiguous, its an ideological fact, not speculation, nor conjecture nor opinion"

An ideological fact? Are you sure that isn't simply your opinion?

"the fact that you choose to or unable to recognise this fact is your problem and has no consequence on this debate or the reality of the situatiuon of iraq."

My opinion has no consequence with this debate? Who are you arguing with? Yourself?

"1) the reactions to an exaserbated + extreme situation caused by an initial action caused by external forces is justified with the context of the extreme environment."

You feel kidnapping and beheading non-military personnel is justified. I disagree.

"2) it's war mate, the gloves are off simple as that."

Gloves are off so it would be ok for US troops to rape all the women and burn the country to the ground? I don't think so. There are still basic humanitarian rules that should be adhered to. Thus, kidnapping folks that are trying to rebuild the country and chopping off their heads is bad. It is quite different than targeting military.

"3) america started the fire on iraqi soil, the iraqis are fully justified + obliged to finish it.....by any means necessary "

Here is something you cannot seem to comprehend: Iraqis ARE finishing it. Not by killing bystanders but by beginning to implement a civilized government and society. The ones you refer to are the minority and are viewed as dangerous by most Iraqis. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a faulty presupposition.

Guess what? I do not think the US should have invaded Iraq. But that doesn't mean I support murderous fanatics. If they are truly defending their "land" (read: political idealogy), there are more humane, not to mention more successful, ways of doing it.

What's the Koran phrase they use for this "freedomfighting" bloody crap?

Man beheaded to tame raging river (http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/mon/jul26w25.htm) (AFP/Borneo Bulletin)

According to my contacts in Calcutta, the river has begun withdrawing beyond the borders of Mahanandatola, while the Bush administration has voiced its displeasure that nature should give over to such heinous acts of terror.

So what ended up happening to this muslim? Did he get released or was he beheaded? Anyone know?

"such heinous acts of terror."
It sounds more like a heinous act of superstition.

So what ended up happening to this muslim? Did he get released or was he beheaded?

Cpl. Hassoun? He's back in the United States, last I heard, being debriefed and pleading his case that he did not desert.

Whitewolf opined:
I doubt there's hypocrisy here.
Don't.

Risk reality.

Just a "question'... How many "virgins" do these Butchers get according to their radical 'E D U C A T I O N' (http://www.geocities.com/arabracismplusjihad/PalestinianEducation) when actually killing a Muslim?

sos but at the end of the day, all those who get killed in Iraq are occupiers and AMerican law says you can kill intruders if they go into your home.

if Iraq attacked America on stupid grounds then America would have a right to fight back what way it could and they would not be terrorists.