American photojournalist James Foley possibly beheaded by ISIS
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years, 8 months ago to Video
This is disturbing in the extreme. These thugs are evil to their core. Their belief system in based in hatred, intolerance and cruelty. This is what we can expect more of because of the weak president we currently have in office.
Oh, never mind... apparently he's not very well informed about the Missouri issue either... Better to shoot from the hip and get it wrong than be a leader of ALL the people...
Evil is based on a moral code. The moral code for Islam (at least the type followed by many in the middle east) says that only those who are followers are worthy of life, and all others are lower than animals. This is not a moral code that can be reasoned with and brought to an accommodation that all humans are deserving of life. Seemingly the only way to deal with such a morality is to threaten it with extinction unless it changes its view on the acceptance of others. Unfortunately, there is little appetite to make such an ultimatum.
The real concern is that this ideology is pervasive across the western world. London is now heavily Muslim, as are the rest of the major cities of Europe. Many US cities are harboring significant Muslim populations, Detroit being most prominent. It will take very little instigation to turn these enclaves into terror forces.
They are among us, and their ideology states that we are not worthy of living.
The only way to fight and win is to use their religion against them.
I would sound the call to prayer just before I dropped whatever I could to annihilate them. Then contract with Hormel for cargo planes full of pigs blood to baptize their graves with.
You see...among Sunnis, if you are killed in battle by a woman, do can not go to heaven. So these women are sending their foes 'straight to hell'.
Jan
Jan, who had thought that she could not be any more aghast at the idiosyncrasies of religion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXmMQJMF...
Fact is I am not so sure I want to be in the business of backing anyone.
* We backed the Taliban, look where it went.
* We backed the Mexican government in the "war on drugs" now most the guys we trained are in the Mexican cartels running the drugs.
* We backed, but then pulled out before the job was done, reworking the Irac government. Isis has come out of that little (sarcasm about size) mess.
Lets stop training others to do our job and either stay out of it or do it ourselves so that we do not train more future enemies with our combat expertise.
This ISIS group, however, has vowed to take over the world.
Be aware that they reproduce at an alarming rate and if not curtailed have a good chance of accomplishing that very goal.
Better safe than sorry.
"The Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others.
There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
"Republics and princes that are really powerful do not purchase alliances by money, but by their valor and the reputation of their armies. "
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/nic...
How wonderful. More apostates for them to enjoy raping.
You want to use their religion against them
Fly over their lines and drop that pig blood on top of their troops. Spray that pig blood all around the dam and the oil field installations we regard as vital.
We developed tactics in Vietnam to clear away anti-aircraft installations so the bombers could get through unscathed. We need to reimplement them, so we can spray them with pig blood... and spray them with napalm. Coin toss as to which units get what.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yid-CW-O...
Americans or global citizens AFTER Waco?
We did nothing in response to Waco.
The Ferguson killing is all ginned up political nothing.
And we'll do nothing in response to AN AMERICAN CITIZEN being executed by ISIS.
Well, maybe some harsh language and a sanction or two.
It is very important that the journalist was killed; not important at all that he was decapitated. Decapitation is just an attempt to intimidate your foe so that he will be afraid to cross you. (If I had to fight a group of people, I would try to take out the first one in as spectacular a manner as possible - decapitation does come to mind - then, I might not have to fight any of the others...)
The problem with this strategy is that there is a subset of humanity (genetic drift at work) that reacts with anger rather than submission. Pearl Harbor, anyone?
Jan
The problem with this strategy is that there is a subset of humanity (genetic drift at work) that reacts with anger rather than submission."
Given the last part, I don't think the goal was intimidation. The militants don't have the military power to fight a major power, but they can commit ghastly crimes to get attention and to goad their enemies into rash actions. My wild guess is this either a) attention getting or b) serial-killer type bad guys using a religious / political cause as a fig leaf.
But perhaps you are too rational. Are you sure that they realize what the US knee-jerk response to this is likely to be? (I will point out that the Japanese, a bright folk, did not guess correctly re Pearl Harbor.) I would suggest that one of the factors operating here is that the terrorists do not realize how big the world is.
Let me give you an example: When I was in Basic Training in the AF, I found lots of airmen from the Midwest who really thought that 'most of the world was Christian, used forks, and spoke English'. I had them earnestly tell me this. If people with TV's and newspapers are that insular, then perhaps fanatics in the ME really think that they are tough and that we will be frightened.
Or...you could be entirely correct and they are sadistic exhibitionists.
Jan
It is a good point that Japan made this mistake. Generally honor cultures have this idea of revenge that acts as a primitive criminal justice system. Suppose a criminal can kill someone, steal from him, and go to a distant place where it would be costly to locate him. If it weren't for revenge, he could feel safe knowing the family wouldn't put large time and effort going after the thief with no hope of recovering any of the stolen wealth. But he knows he would feel the need for revenge, a need that would overpower a cost/benefit analysis. So this discourages the criminal from committing the crime. It's a poor substitute for a criminal justice system, but it's what we had before law was invented and in places where rule of law has broken down.
All that is my reason why I think the perpetrators knew there would be a desire for revenge. They either a) want to use the revenge reaction to goad us into some action, b) want to get attention and recognition as a serious enemy and not band of thugs, or c) they're sadistic exhibitionists.
I doubt they hoped to scare people into inaction, but your example of Japan is a powerful example of country with a strong honor culture trying to do just that.
50 years later, my 18 year old nephew and 16 year old niece couldn't tell you anything about "the day that will live in infamy".
How about 9/11? There's a better example for you. Oh, some of us got riled up, like we did after Pearl Harbor.Some of us wanted to fight the war.
The rest were like you, "oh, dear, the real thing we must worry about is not persecuting the poor, misunderstood Moslems".
There should have been a pogrom beginning on 9/12 purging the U.S. of all Moslems, good and bad.
When are you objectivists et al ever going to freaking learn Ryder's Law and it's application in global politics?
"People generally get out of the way of crazies" - Ryder's Law
If someone does a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 on you... as many of people who can be associated with them *must* die horribly, and soon.
We didn't do that. We went in with a big giant erection for how wonderful we are in our benevolence and our love of our fellow man, only doing so much hurt as necessary so we can come in and help them attain enlightenment. No wonder our allies and enemies alike were confused. No sane *man* acts like that.
I was watching a documentary where WWII generals said there had never been a foe the US had faced where soldiers would continue to fight rather than be captured. It was terrifying.
However, A Japanese Admiral said we will never win the US Mainland. There is a gun behind every blade of grass.
I think we should have some sort of formal well-regulated militia for this reason.
The interviewer asked him who he thought the best jungle fighters were (other than Japs).
"The Australians".
Not getting the answer he wanted, the journalist pressed, "well.. who was the second best?"
"the British"
Finally, in exasperation, the reporter asked, "Well.. what about the Americans?"
The Jap pondered a moment. "We never fought the Americans in the jungle. They would blow the jungle away and fight in the craters."
We took Jap prisoners. The Bushido code was made of porcelain.
I'm probably a bad libertarian for saying this but I'll chalk it up to that good ol' standby "nobody's perfect." A well-placed neutron bomb would do wonders to settle those Muslims down.
There is a low (no) value of life culture pervasive throughout the Middle East, full of self-rightousness usually, that is very slow to educate.
At this point the culture is completely alien to the rest of the world - and we should abandon any expectations to change it from the outside.
The Inquisition was not 'the Christian religion' any more than this is 'the Muslim religion'. Either religion is capable of being interpreted benignly or misanthropically; this is the response of a backward culture lashing out blindly at 'change'...just as Europe did between the Crusades and the Enlightenment. If there were not a religious pretext, there would be a political one (ie look at what Communism did).
Jan
IMHO, Christendom and Christian(ity) are not the same thing, although the terms are often interchanged. When the nations of Christendom move far from their Christian root you get the inquisition, closer to their Christian root you get todays Western Civilization, when the Islamic nations move closer to their root, you get ISIS.
Isn't the inquisition what we got the last time a major state was Christian? So it seems to me as you move closer to a religion-based state, you get ISIS and the inquisition. When you move toward the state not establishing a religion, you get the US and all the countries with similar govt's that appeared after.
1) One of the major tenets of true Christianity is "Peace on Earth, good will toward men".
2) When Jesus Christ was approached on a road by a Pharisee, he was asked the trick question about the legality of paying the Roman tax. His famous answer was to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.
3) Just prior to His crucifixion, Jesus went into the desert to fast and pray. He was approached by Satan and offered all the kingdoms of the Earth for a single act of fealty. Recognizing a "Brooklyn Bridge" deal, He turned it down and told Satan to get lost.
4) Now, about three centuries after the death of Christ, those professing to be Christian were essentially offered the same deal and they took it. Christendom was born. They became Caesar and to this day many who claim to be Christian are really trying to be Caesar.
That is why I say Christendom and Christianity are not the same thing. There is no way Jesus Christ would have sanctioned the inquisition. A Caesar, on the other hand, wouldn't have a problem with it if it kept him in power. It would be even easier if he could call himself Christian and get away with it. Compared to the rest of Christendom, the founding fathers of the US were much closer to being true Christians and anti-Ceasar, which is reflected in the government they created. That is why I am of the opinion Western Civilization flourished the closer it got to its Christian root.
the Inquisition was a response to the expansion and conquest of Islam.
Whose side are you on in this war?
Hardly surprising that you use a quote from a COMEDY SKETCH to punctuate your assertion.
You kind of left out A) the reformation and B) the fact that the Christians were combating the invasion of an alien and inimical, intolerant religion.
Sure, let's just pretend that Janissaries never existed. Let's just pretend that there weren't tens of thousands of Christian galley slaves freed at Lepanto, which is right in the middle of your 800 year "Moslems are cherubs" era.
Jan
Religion is simply a tool. People use it to accomplish great good, great evil or something in between.
When people use it to motivate violence towards others its the people using it that are evil not the religion itself. This is true even of the Muslim faith.
For most of human history life has not been appreciated as it is in western culture. Its a repetitively new concept and one that spread rather quickly to most of the world as it provides a better way of life to everyone. The middle east, if I am generous, is still back in the renascence period when it comes to this principle. One day, soon I hope, they will do what the rest of the world has done to varying degree and see life as precious. Not just their own or their loved ones lives but all human life.
How can we possibly believe that the looters in the Dark Center are evil destroyers of liberty and should be our highest priiority when they only want more power to deal with ISIS?
Another false flag op in the US is imminent.
Mohammad borrowed his one-god theme from the Jews and Christians. All of the so-called one-god cults have committed horrors ascribed to their imaginary friend's commands.
It exonerates no one's actions to rationalize that those actions are by a few bad apples and don't represent the true religion. The religions indoctrinate; they program the brains and emotions of their tribal adherents. Ideas, belief systems, delusions... all are the malevolent and self-preserving memes people unquestioningly become infected by.
Humans are the unwitting footsoldiers and incubators in the war of ideas, like the ant whose tiny brain has been invaded by a microorganism that makes the ant climb to the top of a blade of grass in order to be eaten by a cow, in whose innards the organism needs to be for the pursuit of its life cycle.
So who or what benefits from driving humans to destroy each other? And why are the intelligent and supposedly rational people on this thread so easily reduced to the level of brutes in the bloody actions they advocate in retaliations that will simply escalate mutual hatred? You astonish and sadden me.
Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that psych-ops experts use to force people to become a mob demanding action?
I am more disturbed by the assumption of guilt by posts here, than I am by the alledged act itself (if it even occurred.)
The government reported that the video was authentic yesterday. Having verified its authenticity, if it is a fake, then it is being used as a false flag by our Dear Leader.
Respectfully,
O.A.
The fedgov also claimed to have killed Osama but would not provide the body to prove it, and the excuse for not having it was complete utter bullshit.
O didn't examine the video himself, he depended on "experts" who depend on other experts, and unless there are independent analyses by hundreds of outside experts, I don't believe anything the fedgov says.
Lying looters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f-O-RnCP...
Brave and smart! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/check...
We seem to have some unreasonable reservation to retaliation with force to those that initiate it. I do not understand that at all.
Hugging someone that openly wants to kill you does not much any sense does it?
But it's not 'spreading' anywhere. The idea that one can and should use force to get what they want didn't originate in the middle east.
It originated a few billion years ago when the first organism ate another.
There is no doubt what ISIS is doing, the only question is what we are doing, nothing.
The only way to do that is a French Revolution style upheaval. Which will mean the end of the republic, because there are way too many scumbags out there for there to be a chance at re-establishing the Constitution as it was originally written.
Load more comments...