Iraqi Insurgents behead Korean Hostage

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-22 01:16pm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040622/D83C6AO00.html

the religion of peace peacefully cuts of a mans head so that he may rest in peace. fuckers.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-22 01:19pm

Colour me unsurprised. Weren't we there to help these people? Why, then, do they insist on fucking us so?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-06-22 01:20pm

"FUCK" another one killed by the great heros of Islam

Just remove every Non-Muslim persons out of the Middle East and nuke the damn place

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-06-22 01:31pm

RIP.

To look at it objectively, the Korean was a contractor supplying the US military.. he should've known he would have been a target. My blood REALLY boiled when they took those Japanese aid workers, thank God the clerics had enough sense to know that would have REALLY caused a shitstorm and argued for their release.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-06-22 01:35pm

-------much as I hate to admit it....

I'm seriously reconsidering cedeing (sp?) the moral high ground.

[guy from the fifth element boiling with caged fury] I am......Disappointed.....and if there is one thing I do not like....it is....to...be..........disappointed.....[/guy from fifth element boiling with caged fury]

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-06-22 01:39pm

Chardok wrote:-------much as I hate to admit it....

I'm seriously reconsidering cedeing (sp?) the moral high ground.

[guy from the fifth element boiling with caged fury] I am......Disappointed.....and if there is one thing I do not like....it is....to...be..........disappointed.....[/guy from fifth element boiling with caged fury]

Unfortunately we can't do that, that's the ONLY weapon we really have against preventing terrorism, and it's already been diminished thanks to Abu Gharib.

That's what makes this war frustrating, knowing you have to fight sitting down with one arm behind your back.. otherwise you'll lose more than you gain in the long run.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-06-22 01:39pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Colour me unsurprised. Weren't we there to help these people? Why, then, do they insist on fucking us so?

Maybe because they see the foreigners as part of an invasion force and not as relief workers. Could be because they are carrying weapons, killing people and are trying to install a new government.

I am not saying that what these people do is right, I am saying that the people that are crying the loudest now would be the first to do the same if their country was occupied.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-22 02:03pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote: Maybe because they see the foreigners as part of an invasion force and not as relief workers. Could be because they are carrying weapons, killing people and are trying to install a new government.

I am not saying that what these people do is right, I am saying that the people that are crying the loudest now would be the first to do the same if their country was occupied.

Still, it is no excuse for such a blatant human rights violation. come on now!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-22 02:17pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Colour me unsurprised. Weren't we there to help these people? Why, then, do they insist on fucking us so?
Maybe because they see the foreigners as part of an invasion force and not as relief workers. Could be because they are carrying weapons, killing people and are trying to install a new government.

I am not saying that what these people do is right, I am saying that the people that are crying the loudest now would be the first to do the same if their country was occupied.

Shooting at an occupying army is one thing. I don't support the insurgency, but I can admit many of us would do the same were the situation reversed. But kidnapping foreign civilians, showing them pleading for their lives, and then cutting their heads off is pure barbarianism. They're not fighting the occupation, they're trying to prevent their own country from being rebuilt so they can install yet another Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in the Middle East.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-06-22 02:33pm

RedImperator wrote:
Shooting at an occupying army is one thing. I don't support the insurgency, but I can admit many of us would do the same were the situation reversed. But kidnapping foreign civilians, showing them pleading for their lives, and then cutting their heads off is pure barbarianism. They're not fighting the occupation, they're trying to prevent their own country from being rebuilt so they can install yet another Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in the Middle East.

Not quite.. the Korean was a civilian contractor who was supplying the US military. It would have been barbaric to kill those japanese aid workers.

There is a great line from West Wing where an airforce general tells Leo, the Chief of Staff, "All war is a crime" as they discussed US immunity from war crime tribunals. War is sometimes necessary, but it is neither worse nor less for an insurgent to kill someone who supplies the opposing force, or for the military to bomb a target knowing it will kill innocent civilians? Or bombing civilian infrastructures such as water, power and hospitals?

Am I trying to justify the killing? No. Am I disgusted? Yes. But in my mind, if I was on the other side, I would've seen the Korean as a legitimate target.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-22 02:38pm

Trytostaydead wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Shooting at an occupying army is one thing. I don't support the insurgency, but I can admit many of us would do the same were the situation reversed. But kidnapping foreign civilians, showing them pleading for their lives, and then cutting their heads off is pure barbarianism. They're not fighting the occupation, they're trying to prevent their own country from being rebuilt so they can install yet another Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in the Middle East.
Not quite.. the Korean was a civilian contractor who was supplying the US military. It would have been barbaric to kill those japanese aid workers.

There is a great line from West Wing where an airforce general tells Leo, the Chief of Staff, "All war is a crime" as they discussed US immunity from war crime tribunals. War is sometimes necessary, but it is neither worse nor less for an insurgent to kill someone who supplies the opposing force, or for the military to bomb a target knowing it will kill innocent civilians? Or bombing civilian infrastructures such as water, power and hospitals?

Am I trying to justify the killing? No. Am I disgusted? Yes. But in my mind, if I was on the other side, I would've seen the Korean as a legitimate target.

even if he is a legitimate target IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE FOR HIM TO BE FUCKING BEHEADED.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-06-22 02:40pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
even if he is a legitimate target IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE FOR HIM TO BE FUCKING BEHEADED.

By bullet, by sword, by hammer, by mace, by bomb or by plane.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-22 02:49pm

There is a deliberate sadistic cruelty to what they did which is not echoed in conventional warfare. But given that quite a few Iraqis have "mysteriously died" while in US custody, just how high is our moral high ground?

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2004-06-22 02:51pm

When I first heard about his kidnapping, I think it was yesterday, I thought "there's no way he'll survive".

Turns out I was right. What a surprise.

They probably killed him before they released their first demands.

I don't get these people. Did they think beheading some civilian worked the first time? No nation can withdraw their troops or anything like that because of a few kidnapped persons. Instead of kidnapping people they could just as well kill them right away and save some time. They can't seriously believe governments will give in to their demands, can they?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-06-22 02:52pm

Dooey Jo wrote: I don't get these people. Did they think beheading some civilian worked the first time? No nation can withdraw their troops or anything like that because of a few kidnapped persons. Instead of kidnapping people they could just as well kill them right away and save some time. They can't seriously believe governments will give in to their demands, can they?

It stirs up popular unrest in the hostages home countries. You get family's wailing for the government to save their son/daughter while the government refuses to negociate. Good propoganda.,

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-22 02:58pm

I saw this coming when I heard the news he was captured. They never intended to let him go in the first place.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-06-22 03:01pm

"Violence begets violence." If anything, I think maybe the higher ups in their hierarchy understand that they WILL evoke a stronger response. By getting a stronger response from the nations military will often mean collateral damage and more retribution on prisoners at places like Abu Gharib stirring up more civil unrest.

Most arabs, while having a more than unhealthy dislike for us won't pick up an RPG and shoot at a US convoy. But when these terrorists attack and force coalition forces to respond in kind, the populace gets caught in the cross-fire. And who do you think they're goign to blame for their dead sons and daughters?

Though conversely, the more level headed people will turn further against the terrorists.. and states will have to further and further distance themselves from these extremist groups. Which would also allow the extremists to call on "loyal" Arabs to take those states down and set up what extremeist states.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-22 03:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:There is a deliberate sadistic cruelty to what they did which is not echoed in conventional warfare. But given that quite a few Iraqis have "mysteriously died" while in US custody, just how high is our moral high ground?

As Stephen Colbert said on The Daily Show ... "Just because it's something we did doesn't mean that it's something we would do."

TempestMagister · Post by **TempestMagister** » 2004-06-22 03:41pm

Actually, I believe that Steven Colbert quote was actually a quote by George Bush replying to the Abu Gharib human rights violations.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-06-22 04:04pm

Look, killing our prisoners is not standard operating policy. I was trained in it, if there had been a S.O.P of killing prisoners I think I would have been told.

I would like to make believe that all men and women who put on the uniform are good, pure and true, but events had made it real easy to prove wrong anyone who holds to that fantasy.

There's a difference between a force that suffers from men and women taking advantage of chances to break the rules and a force that doesn't have any kind of rules.

The average American is disgusted by what happen in that prison. The average Muslium is disgusted by beheading kidnapped victums. The average follower of Islam is not the enemy but at this rate we can make him the enemy real quick

There is a difference betwen the average US solder and the average terrorist. However it seems there is no difference betweem our lawbreakers and theirs...

When people break rules in the military, they are punished. Maybe not enough are punished, but there is punishment. Bush likes to keep secrets, thankfully the media wouldn't him do that there. So there will be some measure of justice.

I was in Iraq. Saddam was not loved. Hell he was in power because we helped him hold it. He remained in power because of what we taught and gave him. I consider removing him to be cleaning up our mess. Disagree if you like after all, it's only my opinion right, I haven't told you you have to agree.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-06-22 04:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:There is a deliberate sadistic cruelty to what they did which is not echoed in conventional warfare. But given that quite a few Iraqis have "mysteriously died" while in US custody, just how high is our moral high ground?

"We" have an army in their coutry; soldiers have to follow a code of conduct or rules of engagement. "They" are insurgents (or resistance fighter, or whatever) - there is no lower limit to what they will do to "liberate" their country. They cannot be held to any kind of morality, because they will do anything to reach their aims. I believe that some people in the current government and in the military hold a similiar opinion, although I believe in the military those are in the minority. Our moral highground certainly isn't as high as it should be, and it hasn't been since the US gov. declared Afghani prisoners "illegal combatants".

Whatever the Iraqi insurgents do, they don't do it because of what the foreign troops are doing in their country - if they say so, they are only making excuses. They don't care about morality, be it theirs or ours. They are commiting those atrocities because foreing troops are in their country, and they want them out.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-06-22 04:44pm

They cannot be held to any kind of morality, because they will do anything to reach their aims.

Oh, whether they want to be held to any kind of morality or not, they will be when/if it all catches up to them. Pleading "I don't like the law/morals, so you can't do anything to me for not paying attention to it/them" doesn't get anyone anywhere, last I checked.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-06-22 04:50pm

True, but I don't think they care about what happens if they get caught. Those are the suicide-bomber kind of people, remember?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-06-22 08:51pm

Had an opportunity to serve in Korea for a year, and over that time I grew to love the Korean people who were, for the most part, kind and giving of themselves. They are an honorable people, and it angers me to see those butchers murder a man in cold blood who was likely there only to help them. I've little doubt that the murderers will meet an ill fate.

j1j2j3 · Post by **j1j2j3** » 2004-06-23 03:21am

RIP

That said, the general consensus here is that Mr Kim knew what he was getting into and shouldn't have wailed for his life like that.

That and the terrorists are not exactly getting what they wanted. While some people are arguing to recall our troops in Iraq, some want to send more combat troops for revenge.