TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › CNN just released this news about Paul Johnson
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CNN just released this news about Paul Johnson - Page 2

post #31 of 50
Oh yeah, BTW, how dare you tell me to :
Quote:
Get off your high horse and stop blaming the Bush, Blair, Your Neighbor or dog.
I generally like the job GWB is doing (and I love dogs, they have better traits and manners than most people!) It is the individual IDIOTS who decided it was "entertaining" to humiliate other people's sexual moral stances and religious beliefs. I KNOW they are terrorist, but geesh, use your head, if you do something that stupid, don't think you won't pay for it later!!


This is a IMO (opinion) forum. Like everyone else, I was expressing my mine!!
post #32 of 50
Let's reign in our tempers, folks.

catlover, I see your quote from the cnn article about prisoner release. What I think Arg0 meant was that Paul Johnson's killing had nothing to do with the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
post #33 of 50
That may be, Deb25, however, there is no need to tell people to get "off their high horse". I have a perfect right to defend myself. If that means I have a temper, so be it. He probably DID mean prisoner release as opposed to prisoner abuse, but they are entertwined!! I still stick by my "opinion of the whole mess". Regardless, it is a terrible tragedy to his family and my heart goes out to them
post #34 of 50
No, they are NOT intertwined. The terrorists who did this wanted the release of Al Quaeda prisoners that the Saudis are holding. They never mentioned anything, ever, about the prisoners in Iraq.

I have to say, I am almost more upset that people actually blame the soldiers who are doing their jobs, the adminsitration who actually has the juevos to do something about terrorists, and even the country as a whole for the actions of these radical psychopaths than I am about what the terrorists did. How can you possibly justify ANYTHING they do? Saying that it's our fault makes it a little less horrific, a little more understandable, and a little bit less of a terrorist threat. After all, by the logic I'm seeing here, we asked for all of it.
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiMa
I'm just saying I'm not at all surprised by what terrorists do - I expect it from terrorist. It is their nature. But from our own men and women who are supposedly so morally superior than these psychos? Now THAT I didn't expect. Did you?
Actually I am not surprised that activities have happened. It’s happened all the time in past wars and operations conducted by other government agencies besides the Department of Defense. The media blows it out of the water and says we are torturing them left and right and giving them no rights what so ever. I’ll say this, during the Cold War, if the general public knew about what happened behind the scenes on how we extracted information from people whom we “detainedâ€, it would be appalling and to some extent, sickening. To me, that’s just part of the job. PsyOps train soldiers to extract information thru certain ways. To me, this is normal however, to the normal person, this seems to be torture and abuse. Granted all we have seen is pictures that the media wants the public to see and start pointing fingers at who ever to place the blame. Granted there have been about 10 or so court martials set in place for those who did cross the line. That’s just the military covering its butt that the public demanded. If these pictures never got released or later down the road, there would have never been any court martials or punishments set down to those troops who participated in what ever activities had occurred at that prison. Hence, to a point, a witch hunt. Blame the person in the picture. However, I am not condoning any of the actions that have been blamed on the soldiers that occurred with the prisoners, but, I’m not surprised. The one thing I do find interesting is that fact that I have not heard of any reports, since we have released quite a few prisoners in the past month from that very prison, of ex-prisoners telling of how horrible it was, how badly tortured they were or what have you. What I suspect is the activity was minimal. That is MY stance on this situation.

However, regarding the excuse that first killing was because of the torture in the prisons, that was just an EXCUSE that the terrorists wanted. That’s what terrorists want, ATTENTION to their cause. No more, No less. I studied terrorism for a time and even was trained on terrorism when I was in the military and in college. These are your typical idiots that kill just to get attention. That’s what these last two killings have been. Even to make statements about what they do is a scare tactic to get what they want. I knew for a fact that the last prisoner wasn’t going to survive past 72 hours. That’s the terrorists MO: They want attention to their cause, and in some cases kill to get noticed, especially if the victim was a medium or high profile hostage or even an innocent bystander(s) (car bombs, suicide missions, etc). What we have seen, brutal enough though, is a bunch of idiots wanting attention. No less, no more. Makes me think of what the Drill Instructor said in “Full Metal Jacket,â€â€ Didn’t mommy and daddy give you enough attention!?†Am I upset what these dolts have done? You betcha. Will there be revenge? Probably, but we won’t know about it.
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb25
Let's reign in our tempers, folks.

catlover, I see your quote from the cnn article about prisoner release. What I think Arg0 meant was that Paul Johnson's killing had nothing to do with the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
This is exactly what I meant. The high horse thing may have been a bit too much, but, I have already been hearing people blaming Bush for the murder of the last hostage. And yes, I am a Bush supporter. Read the latest post to understand what is running thru my mind.
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by catlover67
He probably DID mean prisoner release as opposed to prisoner abuse, but they are entertwined!!
How are they intertwined when they are two different prisons? Possibly more? We don't know where the Saudi’s are keeping what prisoners they have. I fail to see the connection. All Al Queda wanted was their bothers released from prison(s) in their demands. I didn't see them stating otherwise. And I am going by the terrorists statement. Nothing more.
post #38 of 50
Well put, ARGO!
post #39 of 50
Quote:
when they are two different prisons? Possibly more? We don't know where the Saudi’s are keeping what prisoners they have.

This was something I was not aware of. Now I see why you say there is no connection. Just a little nugget of information I missed.
post #40 of 50
Before I respond to this thread, I'd like to clarify a few things. I have always been opposed to GWB's presidency, although in truth his domestic policies alarm me even more than this international debacle. I felt this way before he was elected. On the international front, I also happen to be pretty underwhelmed with 'old Europe': I believe their reactions before the Iraq invasion had a lot more to do with economic self-interest than anything else. I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out of power and that his sons, who were crazier than he was, are dead. I don't however believe that Saddam had any hand in 9-11, in part because as crazy as he is, he wasn't stupid enough to mount an attack of this magnitude on the US itself.

On to the topic:

I would call these radical religious terrorists animals but that would be too demeaning to the rest of the animal kingdom. This is not retaliation for the Iraqi prison abuse: that has just been a convenient excuse, and a recruiting ploy. As deplorable as the actions of the prison staff have been, and as mind-boggling as the lack of a coherent plan for handling the entire Iraq war has been, it's not what is causing this. Don't forget Daniel Pearl: he was killed during the Afghanistan campaign, which we HAD to engage in. Don't forget that the men who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9-11 were not desparate starving members of a Middle Eastern lower class: they were mostly educated, middle to upper-middle-class Saudis who had succumbed to a group psychoses. Their leader is (or at least was) a billionaire who opted to live in a cave. Remember the Taliban and the horrible life they subjected the Afghani people to? That's what is motivating Al Qaeda. Bin Laden originally justified his terrorist actions going back to the early 1990's because there were 'Americans in Saudi Arabia defiling their holy land by their presence'. Al Qaeda views the West as a threat to their goal because of our social, not religious beliefs and in particular our lifestyle. We are dealing with a group of religious crazies who in many ways are practicing the mores of the Middle Ages. (The Catholic Popes may have called for the Crusades hundreds of years ago, but if JP II today started calling for murderous attacks on the basis of religion, the Vatican staff would likely promptly drop some digitalis in his morning coffee and send him to the after-life.)

I'm very weary of people taking a pseudo-moralistic highroad when these types of attacks occur. (I'm referring to the world community, not posters to the Cat Site.) Al Qaeda's major issue is world domination of their crazy form of religion. Of course that is not the form of main stream practice of Islam or any other type of religion: they proved in Afghanistan that they would kill any Muslim daring to to live a modern, normal life. No matter what their rhetoric may be, who in the US is determined to stamp out the Islamic faith, as seems to be one of the prevailing views espoused by radical clerics and some of the Arab press?? It's a red herring that we are allowing to not only exist but prosper. (I would suspect that the average American never gave a passing thought to Islam before 9-11, unless it was the religion they happened to practice.) Wringing our hands about how bad America is, will not rid us of this menace. Main stream Muslims also need to rise to the occasion here, not just Americans & Europeans, and start actively acting to condemn and stop these people, not just worry about defending their religion from an American threat to it which doesn't exist. The civilized world needs to come together and relentlessly hunt down and eliminate the leaders of these movements, because the leaders provide the ways & financial means to the poor saps who they send on suicide missions. It may not rid the world of all terrorists, but it would be a good start.

I'm also reminded of the Oklahoma City attack in an odd way. Timothy McVeigh was supposedly motivated by the US government's siege of David Koresh's compound in Waco, Texas and the tragic way it ended, which McVeigh believed was the fault of the government. (Personally I think that blood is on Koresh's soul.)That's why he targeted a building with several government offices in it. He believed in his 'mission' to the day he was executed and described the toddlers killed in the explosion as collateral damage. There are undoubtedly other people in the US who believe what he did. Should those beliefs justify any future attacks on government offices, because they truly believe they are aggrieved, and because the changes they strive for will never be achieved? Should anyone even listen to that excuse?
post #41 of 50
[quote=Lucia] Main stream Muslims also need to rise to the occasion here, not just Americans & Europeans, and start actively acting to condemn and stop these people, not just worry about defending their religion from an American threat to it which doesn't exist. The civilized world needs to come together and relentlessly hunt down and eliminate the leaders of these movements, because the leaders provide the ways & financial means to the poor saps who they send on suicide missions. It may not rid the world of all terrorists, but it would be a good start. [quote]

I think many leaders of Moslem countries don't condemn and pursue these terrorists for fear of losing power and their lives. Just think of Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan, all of which have faced major terrorist attacks and/or assassination attempts recently. Turkey has a democratically elected government, as do some predominantly Moslem countries in Asia, but the same can't be said of most Arab nations or Iran. Any small attempt to change the status quo, for example, by giving women more civil rights, is met with tremendous resistance by the radicals. Supporting the "infidels" amounts to a death sentence. I keep thinking of Anwar Sadat, who had the courage and foresight to make peace with Israel, and paid for it with his life.

I do believe that Western countries have been fairly successful in hunting down and arresting terrorists. Those responsible for the Madrid attack have been rounded up, and the UK has agreed to extradite a British citizen to the US. There has been far more cooperation between the police and judicial systems since 9/11, but obviously more is called for, seeing as one indicted terrorist here wasn't convicted because the US government refused to allow potential witnesses in its custody to be questioned, and European countries, among others, won't extradite if the death penalty can be imposed.

Unfortunately, I don't believe any of those posting here will be around to witness the end of Islamic terrorism, i.e., it won't be eradicated in our lifetimes. Just look at the ongoing controversy surrounding abortion in the US - 30+ years after Roe vs. Wade, the battle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is still raging. Last week I read that many Southern states are finally wiping segregation laws off their books. They weren't being used, but -- how long does it take?
post #42 of 50
Quote:
I think many leaders of Moslem countries don't condemn and pursue these terrorists for fear of losing power and their lives. Just think of Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan, all of which have faced major terrorist attacks and/or assassination attempts recently. Turkey has a democratically elected government, as do some predominantly Moslem countries in Asia, but the same can't be said of most Arab nations or Iran. Any small attempt to change the status quo, for example, by giving women more civil rights, is met with tremendous resistance by the radicals. Supporting the "infidels" amounts to a death sentence. I keep thinking of Anwar Sadat, who had the courage and foresight to make peace with Israel, and paid for it with his life.
But that in large part is going to be what it takes. It's acceptable for Middle Eastern politicians to pussyfoot around the issue in public and stoke the flames in private? I understand their political realities, but at this point they either need to do something or be held publically accountable by the civilized world for helping to keep terrorism going. People need to stop making excuses for them. Look at Hamid Karzhai in Afghanistan. They keep trying to kill the man on a daily basis, and have almost succeeded a few times, but he's still there, instead of going back to where he probably had a pretty nice life wherever he was in exile.


Quote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe any of those posting here will be around to witness the end of Islamic terrorism, i.e., it won't be eradicated in our lifetimes. Just look at the ongoing controversy surrounding abortion in the US - 30+ years after Roe vs. Wade, the battle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is still raging. Last week I read that many Southern states are finally wiping segregation laws off their books. They weren't being used, but -- how long does it take?
You might be right, but I do not agree with your comparisons. Controversy is not the same thing as swearing to kill anyone who does not agree with you. There are no bands of anti-abortionists or pro-choice people actively planning and funding the murder of the opposition. There have of course been tragic murders of people working in abortion clinics, but those actions are few and far between, and their murderers (who were largely crazy to begin with) have been hunted down and prosecuted.

The US federal government is even now trying to redress the historical laughable 'prosecutions' during the civil rights era, where racist murderers were found not guilty by juries who would not convict white citizens of killing a black person. They went back and re-tried the murderer of Medgar Evers and are attempting to do the same thing with killings of the 3 'northern' civil rights workers killed in Mississippi decades ago. I think (but did not go back and check) that they have also taken action in the church bombing where 4 little black girls were murdered. There might still be some people who might passionately want a return to segregation, but a)it's not going to happen and b) even they are not running around killing people to make their point. And I've never heard a historian today announce that the Ku Klux Klan while despicable, had some 'understandable' reasons to do what they did. More importantly, the black people who were actually wronged by historical segregation policies and by lingering racism today by some idiots are not organizing to unilaterally kill their "oppressors" as a result.

Personally, I'm fed up with people on the world stage using undebatable moral standards to judge and criticize the US and then forgetting about those moral standards when it comes to the individuals who plan, fund and recruit killers in the name of religious fanaticism.
post #43 of 50
"But that in large part is going to be what it takes. It's acceptable for Middle Eastern politicians to pussyfoot around the issue in public and stoke the flames in private? I understand their political realities, but at this point they either need to do something or be held publically accountable by the civilized world for helping to keep terrorism going. People need to stop making excuses for them. Look at Hamid Karzhai in Afghanistan. They keep trying to kill the man on a daily basis, and have almost succeeded a few times, but he's still there, instead of going back to where he probably had a pretty nice life wherever he was in exile. "

It appears to me that it is Western governments, including, and often primarily, that of the U.S., that continue to block any efforts to hold powerful Middle Eastern governments responsible. Why does the U.S. maintain "close relations" with the autocratic leaders of Saudi Arabia, who have actively been promoting a particularly abhorrent brand of Islamic fundamentalism internationally for decades? (OIL?). Why are any attempts to condemn extreme actions of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories consistently blocked by our government in the UN Security Council? How can the US demand that other nations be held accountable for their actions while at the same time calling for blanket immunity for US forces before the ICC? The inconsistencies are noted around the world, and undermine any claim to "moral authority", and thus (appeals for) concisive, coordinated action.
post #44 of 50
[quote=jcat
It appears to me that it is Western governments, including, and often primarily, that of the U.S., that continue to block any efforts to hold powerful Middle Eastern governments responsible. Why does the U.S. maintain "close relations" with the autocratic leaders of Saudi Arabia, who have actively been promoting a particularly abhorrent brand of Islamic fundamentalism internationally for decades? (OIL?). Why are any attempts to condemn extreme actions of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories consistently blocked by our government in the UN Security Council? How can the US demand that other nations be held accountable for their actions while at the same time calling for blanket immunity for US forces before the ICC? The inconsistencies are noted around the world, and undermine any claim to "moral authority", and thus (appeals for) concisive, coordinated action.[/QUOTE]

The terrorists have breached any country or faith's claim to morality.
I'm not suggesting that the leaders and populace of the Middle East need to follow a 'moral authority' promoted by the US. I'm suggesting that they need to develop a little bit of their own moral authority based on common decency & the prescriptions of their own
faith and just about every other mainstream faith in the world. That's what calls for world action.

As to the 'plight of the Palestinians', Al Qaeda doesn't give a rat's patootie about them, IMO. Prior to 9-11, OBL rarely brought them up in his rants. But, after various people tried to make a connection between that conflict and the acts of depraved lunatics on 9-11, in order to blame the victim, Al Qaeda adopted it as part of their marketing campaign. They have no interest in an independent Palestinian state, at least not a democratic one: that would accomplish nothing for Al Qaeda.
post #45 of 50
My thoughts and prayers are with his family
post #46 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucia
Personally, I'm fed up with people on the world stage using undebatable moral standards to judge and criticize the US and then forgetting about those moral standards when it comes to the individuals who plan, fund and recruit killers in the name of religious fanaticism.


Of course the US isn't perfect and it is assanine to think we should impose every part of our culture on another country, but I don't think we're doing that.

As for our relations with the Saudis - sure it is a mutually beneficial relationship as far as oil, but they have stuck their necks out for us on multiple occassions, most notably as a staging area for Operation Desert Storm (and they were outright condemned by many of their neighbors for doing so). They have been active, as seen by the swift actions following Paul Johnson's execution, in opposing terrorism. Must we oppose every culture that doesn't agree with ours? Wouldn't that make us just as wrong as the terrorists?

Whether or not you like or support GWB, even slightly justifying the beheading of an innocent man by these thugs only lends credence to their cause. Do you really think they the terrorists will stop everything once Bush is out of office, whether that is next year or in 5 years? If you blame Bush, then why were they active during the Clinton administration?
post #47 of 50
"Do you really think they the terrorists will stop everything once Bush is out of office, whether that is next year or in 5 years?"



/insert sarcasm

Of course it will all stop when we get a new President.

We'll all go back to walking in daisy fields and singing "Tra-la-la-la-la-la-la", and it won't rain on weekends. The terrrorists will all say "Those Americans are really pretty nice people." and go Home. Osama Bin Laden will come out of his cave and fund an endowment for the victims of 9/11.

/end sarcasm

We haven't seen the last of this type of terrorism. A South Korean civilian is currently being held, and unless South Korea promises not to send 3000 troops they are deploying to Iraq, he'll be the next murder victim. South Korea has already said they don't negotiate with terrorists, so he's a walking corpse. What people need to realize is that this tactic of kidnapping and killing innocents is now part of the political policy of these groups.


Jeff
post #48 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb


Of course the US isn't perfect and it is assanine to think we should impose every part of our culture on another country, but I don't think we're doing that.

As for our relations with the Saudis - sure it is a mutually beneficial relationship as far as oil, but they have stuck their necks out for us on multiple occassions, most notably as a staging area for Operation Desert Storm (and they were outright condemned by many of their neighbors for doing so). They have been active, as seen by the swift actions following Paul Johnson's execution, in opposing terrorism. Must we oppose every culture that doesn't agree with ours? Wouldn't that make us just as wrong as the terrorists?

Whether or not you like or support GWB, even slightly justifying the beheading of an innocent man by these thugs only lends credence to their cause. Do you really think they the terrorists will stop everything once Bush is out of office, whether that is next year or in 5 years? If you blame Bush, then why were they active during the Clinton administration?
The problem goes back many, many decades, if not centuries (some historians trace it to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, others to the Crusades or the foundation of the Islamic faith). I question why the democratic West, while refusing almost all trade with the former Soviet Union and its satellites during the Cold War, kowtowed to the Arab countries. They aren't democratic, either, have virtually no middle class or industrialized societies which would permit the development of democracy, and it has been the Saudis who have been trying to spread Wahhabism - through the establishment of Quran schools and mosques which are renowned for their radicalism. This has been a problem not just in Moslem countries, but also in Western countries (cf. Bonn, Germany). It's only now that the Saudis are promising to try to stop the flow of money from Saudi charities to terrorist organizations - the U.S. media have been full of reports on this lately. Here's an interesting one which also mentions activities on U.S. soil: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...wahhabism.html

There are countless Websites on Wahhabism, and books galore. A great many of the latter have not been written since 9/11, but long before then. Interesting, and frightening, reading.

Very little was learned from the oil crisis (over) 30 years ago. Where are the public transit systems, the urban planners creating communities where people aren't totally dependent on cars to shop, go to work or school, etc., the fuel-efficient cars, heating and cooling systems independent of fossil fuels? Far too little has been done to fight the West's "petroleum addiction", meaning we have to make deals with, and concessions to, Arab nations.

Just a note: Extremists are currently threatening to behead a South Korean kidnapped in Iraq unless South Korea withdraws its troops and refuses to send reinforcements. Same scenario, different countries and nationalities.
post #49 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb


Of course the US isn't perfect and it is assanine to think we should impose every part of our culture on another country, but I don't think we're doing that.

As for our relations with the Saudis - sure it is a mutually beneficial relationship as far as oil, but they have stuck their necks out for us on multiple occassions, most notably as a staging area for Operation Desert Storm (and they were outright condemned by many of their neighbors for doing so). They have been active, as seen by the swift actions following Paul Johnson's execution, in opposing terrorism. Must we oppose every culture that doesn't agree with ours? Wouldn't that make us just as wrong as the terrorists?

Whether or not you like or support GWB, even slightly justifying the beheading of an innocent man by these thugs only lends credence to their cause. Do you really think they the terrorists will stop everything once Bush is out of office, whether that is next year or in 5 years? If you blame Bush, then why were they active during the Clinton administration?
I'm confused. Are you addressing what I wrote, since you just quoted part of my posts? I was not sure whether your last paragraph was directed to me or not. If it was, I'm not justifying Al Qaeda's action in any way whatsoever. Other people are doing that. I only mentioned Bush in my very first post because I did not want everything else I said to appear to only be an effort to support Bush, assuming someone reading my posts did not know that I was not a supporter of him.

I do think that the Saudi's have been bad actors for quite some time now, since they have been fostering schools which teach what America would call 'hate speech' in their radical religious madrases, however that is spelled. They've also tended to bring up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the second part of any prior condemnation of anything done by Al Qaeda, even though Al Qaeda, other than wanting to kill Jews along with Christians, didn't have that as part of their original platform, so to speak. That's probably going to change, since Saudis are now being killed by Al Qaeda. I personally think they let the US use their land as a base for Desert Storm because they were afraid that Hussein could head in their direction after he invaded Kuwait, and they could not have stopped him on their own. I think the criticism in the Arab world of Desert Storm in many ways was their classic double-speak. I don't think too many Arab nations supported the invasion of Kuwait by Hussein, but they would never have publically commended the 'West' for getting him out of there in the Gulf War, because of their public belief that the West wants to 'destroy' Muslim countries. That's another part of the global discussion which I'm fed up with.
post #50 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucia
You might be right, but I do not agree with your comparisons. Controversy is not the same thing as swearing to kill anyone who does not agree with you. There are no bands of anti-abortionists or pro-choice people actively planning and funding the murder of the opposition. There have of course been tragic murders of people working in abortion clinics, but those actions are few and far between, and their murderers (who were largely crazy to begin with) have been hunted down and prosecuted.

The US federal government is even now trying to redress the historical laughable 'prosecutions' during the civil rights era, where racist murderers were found not guilty by juries who would not convict white citizens of killing a black person. They went back and re-tried the murderer of Medgar Evers and are attempting to do the same thing with killings of the 3 'northern' civil rights workers killed in Mississippi decades ago. I think (but did not go back and check) that they have also taken action in the church bombing where 4 little black girls were murdered. There might still be some people who might passionately want a return to segregation, but a)it's not going to happen and b) even they are not running around killing people to make their point. And I've never heard a historian today announce that the Ku Klux Klan while despicable, had some 'understandable' reasons to do what they did. More importantly, the black people who were actually wronged by historical segregation policies and by lingering racism today by some idiots are not organizing to unilaterally kill their "oppressors" as a result.
You're perfectly right, Lucia - those comparisons were pretty weak, read far-fetched, but I was afraid that the ones I actually had in mind (Northern Ireland, Israel, Cyprus, Armenia vs. Turkey, ex-Yugoslavia) would cause further controversy in a heated thread. I was assuming that people would make the "jump" from "domestic social disagreement " to "(inter)national, historical rancor". That was a failed attempt at being subtle - not my strong point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › CNN just released this news about Paul Johnson