Video shows beheaded of American in Iraq. Not for the weak of heart.

[Barcik]

Surprsingly enough, I have to say that this isn't much different from what the Americans did to the Iraqis, and thus, as shocking as it is, it is hypocrisy to call it sub-human.

Unlike what those fucking Hammas dogs did to the remains of six Israeli soldiers today. Fucking sub-human apes. I hope there's already a rocket with their name on it.

FACT 1: Calling the Iraqi beheading a "sub-human" action is hypocrisy.

FACT 2: Labelling Hamas' actions as "sub-human" is not a hypocrisy.

FACT 3: To simultaniously believe the above two facts is the real hypocrisy.

Let's be realistic here: you can't say one thing is a hypocrisy and then say a similar situation is not.

It's like saying "You're drinking alcohol?? That shit is bad for you! Don't touch alcohol, man, whatever you do because it's addictive and will kill you! And if you believe it's not addictive, then you're a hypocrite in denial! (pause) Man, I need a smoke!"

Ain't we contradictory beings? With no recent known case of abuse by the IDF, I allowed myself to say this. But, yet, I do see your point. I take my words back.

As for the beheading, there's a lesson to be learnt and IMO it's this: for every bad thing that happens in a war, another bad thing will happen as an opposite reaction, only a little more extreme. Then another opposite reaction happens, then another, then another, until we're so far ahead of what happened with the violence and the carnage that we don't know where we started. We end up losing everything that made us innocent in the first place (and by this, I'm talking about both sides of the war).

This is very, very, theoretical. The same can be said the other way. If one bad thing in a war goes by without a reaction from the other side, the next attack will be worse. Weighed against one another, these two extremes of the same scale are equal. Equal, and fictional. War is not a hypothetical case. The are things which happen that are outside the norm (whether it is the one you mentioned or the one I did). Indeed, as with most general cases, this fits, but just loosely. Sometimes, for example, a good and effective blow will destroy the opponent's ability to react. Where is the worse next vengance step then?



And, by the way, I agree with Darth-Mandrab. These things are part of human nature, and not surprising.

[DGMacphee]

Oh I agree, it is a part of nature and it's surprising. And I do see your point that in some cases, things happen outside the norm. But in this case, I feel it's a little different.

Consider this: why did terrorists crash planes into the WTC? What were their reasons? I'm sure terrorists don't attack without reason. I'm sure it was reactionary to something. Same can be said about a many number of instances, such as the Madrid bombing or the recent beheading. All were reactionary and with some reasoning (granted, not the best reasoning, but reasoning, nevertheless). And in the same light, the Bush administration has also retaliated in similar ways. It's like each side is trying to one-up the other.

[Sylpher]

I also don't see or hear of American soldiers killing young Iraq civilians.

You may need to look a bit deeper then Yahoo news to find America doing wrong.

Everyone-
I understand this war is hella sensitive but we have discussed just as difficult and opinionated topics as this with little to no bullshit or name calling. Please keep this very important subject somewhat respectable and at least take the time to read all that has been said and really think about it before all that blood rushes to your head and you start posting with your ass.

(Not pointed at anyone specific. This thread has done fairly well at discussing everything just please keep in mind.)

[Darth Mandarb]

I also don't see or hear of American soldiers killing young Iraq civilians.

I can virtually guarantee that there are a lot of Iraqi civilians being killed on a daily basis.Ã,  I've already seen a report of a van shot to shit by American soldiers that had a woman, a kid, and two old men in it.Ã,  Only the woman survived, and spent the night lying with her dead relatives 'cause she was too afraid to move.

These reports will surface in the years following the military action.Ã,  Sure a few will leak out from time to time (freedom of the press and all that shit) but the military still censors a LOT of the information coming from the war.

Again, with war comes atrocity.Ã,  Why did the U.S. troops light up the van?Ã,  Why did the van continue to approach after warning shots had been fired?Ã,  The questions go on and on ...

You may need to look a bit deeper then Yahoo news to find America doing wrong.

If there's one thing I've learned (being a student of history) is that for everything you hear about, there are 10 things you don't hear about.Ã,  Yahoo! News might report factual information ... but there's always more that even they don't know about.

Consider this: why did terrorists crash planes into the WTC? What were their reasons? I'm sure terrorists don't attack without reason. I'm sure it was reactionary to something. Same can be said about a many number of instances, such as the Madrid bombing or the recent beheading. All were reactionary and with some reasoning (granted, not the best reasoning, but reasoning, nevertheless). And in the same light, the Bush administration has also retaliated in similar ways. It's like each side is trying to one-up the other.

This is a good point ... everybody seems to justify what they're doing as a 'reprisal' for another action by the enemy.Ã,  It's been going on for so long I doubt anybody remembers what started it all.

In the immortal words of Steven Pearcy (RATT) "'round and 'round ... what goes around comes around"

One day, one side will have to realize the downward spiral this metality has caused.

I only hope it's not too late ...

[Jockstrap]

Of course death, toture, killing and the like are to be expected when people go to war. But this is a war that should never have been started in the first place. The reasons for this war were, in my opinion, extremely flimsy ones (it's been almost a personal vendetta for George Bush Jr.) I personally hate all wars (although I can't really think of anyone who could LOVE them), especially pointless ones, and this is one of THE most pointless, selfish (oil) and contradictory (US gave them the weapons in the first place) wars in the past fifty-sixty odd years. My point is that war is a disgusting, volatile thing and disgusting and volatile things happen in war, but it makes it even more disgusting and volatile when these things happen in a war that should not have happened. I mean, sure Iraq was in a terrible way but do you really think the US had explored ALL possible solutions? Was it even the US's place to step in? Perhaps it was because it was the US who had given the "weapons of mass destruction" to begin with. And the images of torture and decapitation further cement the idea that this war should not have gone ahead.

Feel free to analyse, pull apart and find mass errors in the heap of crap I just wrote. Just remeber that most of it is just my opinion.