ISIS appears to execute British aid worker David Haines

Unitedwestand13 said:

they are following the will of this book apparently.


http://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf

Click to expand...

Just as I guessed.

VanceMack said:

The Latin cartels continue to grow and expand now into the US because people continue to allow them to. Brilliant maneuver, that whole ignore them and hoping they will go away tactic. Makes it difficult to breath what with sand in your nostrils and all.

Click to expand...

The question is always will military action make things better in the end or worse. Had we never went into Iraq and continued the policy of containment, there would be no ISIS today, Iran would not be resurgent, Syria would not be in the middle of a brutal civil war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be alive, thousands of American serviceman would still be alive, and we would not have spent over a trillion dollars.

So, the question now is, what will be the result of going back into Iraq? It may be a hell of a lot worse than ISIS.

VanceMack said:

You quantify heroism based on the quality of life? What is YOURS worth? Should rescue personnel assess that before they decide to help you, heaven forbid you need it?

Click to expand...

Yes, if I were a drug-addict or a murderer or a thief or a terrorist they should decide whether they want to rescue me or not.

You can quantify my life, maybe even being an asshole can be plugged into the "should I be saved?" equation.

GBFAN said:

I don't think you can attribute it to that ... this is an attempt by ISIS to say 'We are serious about this, and you should just go home, because you've proven you aren't serious. How many are you willing to allow die before you acquiesce, pack your bags, and go home?"

Click to expand...

If that is the case it is a serious miscalculation. But then these idiots have a pattern of miscalculating the resolve of the west when they get our dander up. Ask Saddam, Bin Laden, and many of the big players in Al Queda who are eating dust or are fish feed.

Luftwaffe said:

At some point, you should realize a region is dead and leave it to die.

If you go to aid suffering people there while knowing these guys are out and about you receive none of my sympathies.

What he did was righteous, wonderful, but this was expected. Only a foolish Westerner outside of a military would be in that region of the ME.

Click to expand...

Do you feel the same about US inner city neighborhoods that are being overtaken by street gangs? Should we simply declare them "tribal zones" and post keep out signs? The problem, as I see it, is "that region" is rapidly expanding and will continue to do so with your plan to avoid interfering in the affairs of "others".

SouthernDemocrat said:

The question is always will military action make things better in the end or worse. Had we never went into Iraq and continued the policy of containment, there would be no ISIS today, Iran would not be resurgent, Syria would not be in the middle of a brutal civil war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be alive, thousands of American serviceman would still be alive, and we would not have spent over a trillion dollars.

So, the question now is, what will be the result of going back into Iraq? It may be a hell of a lot worse than ISIS.

Click to expand...

Al Qaida would have still been Al Qaida and would still be committing attrocities throughout the world. This mindset that somehow the US caused the **** to stink is just foolish. Fundamentlaist extremism has ALWAYS existed. Muslim countries combat it regularly and always have.

Tell me...since you brought up the Cartels doing the same thing...do you think it is the US's fault they exist? Did we cause THEM too? Or could it be that there have always been scum like that (history is filled with brutal groups...I guess they must have all been caused by the US too), they ahve always used brutality and horror to achieve their gains, and the only way to stop them is to stomp them.

Luftwaffe said:

Yes, if I were a drug-addict or a murderer or a thief or a terrorist they should decide whether they want to rescue me or not.

You can quantify my life, maybe even being an asshole can be plugged into the "should I be saved?" equation.

Click to expand...

Based on your current responses, if that were the case I wouldnt bother making the phone call if I was you.

DA60 said:

My point was don't go snooping around the M.E. alone...or you might lose your head.

And I happen to think the U.S. should mind it's own business and stay away from the M.E..

Click to expand...

Pandora's box has been opened. We can't stay away now. We broke it we need to fix it if we even can. Leaving the mideast would only cause us to be chided as cowards.

PoS said:

These killings are a retaliation for Western airstrikes. Pretty obvious, really.

Click to expand...

The only thing obvious is that you are always right there to offer simple minded explanations that transfers blame away from Islamists and on to the west.

If you hate your own culture so much, why are you still living there?

Mason66 said:

You mean the richest terrorist group in existence can't afford anything more than a knife?

Where do you get your information?

Click to expand...

At teenagersstickingittotheman.com?

SouthernDemocrat said:

They are trying to provoke the western world (specifically us) into over responding. ISIS is a horrible, brutal, and sadistic group. They are not the only one. Latin American drug gangs like Los Zetas have beheaded far more rivals than ISIS has. Hell nuns have been murdered in South America for trying to save the rainforest. The world has a lot of depraved groups in it, we can't be drawn into a war every time one of them tries to provoke us.

Click to expand...

All these savages have to do is kill Americans on American soil and the fight will be on.

Texmex said:

All these savages have to do is kill Americans on American soil and the fight will be on.

Click to expand...

They've already done that and the reaction was zip. And who are you going to fight? Do you know who the enemy is?

DA60 said:

My point was don't go snooping around the M.E. alone...or you might lose your head.

And I happen to think the U.S. should mind it's own business and stay away from the M.E..

Click to expand...

Do you think you can relax at home in safety without them ever coming after you? They have already made their intentions and it might be wise to take them seriously.

EnigmaO01 said:

If that is the case it is a serious miscalculation. But then these idiots have a pattern of miscalculating the resolve of the west when they get our dander up. Ask Saddam, Bin Laden, and many of the big players in Al Queda who are eating dust or are fish feed.

Click to expand...

It is ONLY a miscalculation if we have leaders who are willing to do what is necessary ... we haven't shown that ability for the last 6 years. I think it's a calculated gamble on their part, and they just MIGHT be right.

Serenity said:

He wouldn't want any of your "sympathies". He didn't go there for YOU he went there to assist in a humanitarian role to help those less fortunate than himself. Who the hell are you to call him stupid or foolish for getting off his arse and actively living what he believed in.

While many sit on their asses behind their keyboards, faking outrage at the injustices carried out against the people in the ME at the hands of ISIS and other extemists groups, he actually got off his ass and tried to make a difference by helping those in need. At least he died living his life doing what he was passionate about and believed in.

Click to expand...

He had a 4 year old daughter. I actually have to explain to you that she should have been his number one priority in life?

The Middle East was not going to collapse without him. And he could have done JUST AS MUCH for the world by staying home, doing local volunteer work and looking after his little girl.
We are NOT talking about a guy who is fighting a war to save his country. We are talking about a guy doing humanitarian work - he could have done it at home. I guarantee you there are PLENTY of needy people in his community who could have used his assistance almost as much as those he helped in the Middle East.
But no...he abandons his parental responsibility and goes running around the world to satisfy his craving.

If he had no young children, then I would have said 'good for him. He died doing what he loved by helping others'.

But I won't, because the second you have a child, that child should be the number one thing in your life. And everything else you do must take a back seat to that child until they are grown up (at least), until they don't need you anymore. That is, IMO, what a great parent does. They sacrifice their selfish desires for the child. And they do so gladly.

This guy didn't. Getting his danger fix (doing something noble, granted) was more important to him then raising his child.

He was stupid and he should have stayed home to help raise his little girl - that should have been his job and his passion...and I don't really care if you agree or not.


Good day.

EnigmaO01 said:

If that is the case it is a serious miscalculation. But then these idiots have a pattern of miscalculating the resolve of the west when they get our dander up. Ask Saddam, Bin Laden, and many of the big players in Al Queda who are eating dust or are fish feed.

Click to expand...

I don't see a great deal of resolve in the west as much as I see it with ISIS. Islamists are willing to die for their cause but I don't see much of that in the bickering democracies. The west is still debating Saddam Hussein, bin Laden was only symbolic, and the west has actually been in retreat, and even announcing their retreats.

I hope you are right but without leadership to inspire general confidence among a splintered people I remain a reluctant skeptic.

Grant said:

Do you think you can relax at home in safety without them ever coming after you? They have already made their intentions and it might be wise to take them seriously.

Click to expand...

Good gawd! You probably wear a helmet, goggles, knee pads, elbow pads, ear protection, dust mask, and carry a can of mace when you mow the lawn. JFC dude, put your big boy pants on!

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep - how dare anyone try to stop a group of savages on an ethnic/religious cleansing mission?

Click to expand...

Well thats the difference between you and me, you want America and the UK to be the policemen of the world while I want to save American lives (and their allies too).

VanceMack said:

Al Qaida would have still been Al Qaida and would still be committing attrocities throughout the world. This mindset that somehow the US caused the **** to stink is just foolish. Fundamentlaist extremism has ALWAYS existed. Muslim countries combat it regularly and always have.

Tell me...since you brought up the Cartels doing the same thing...do you think it is the US's fault they exist? Did we cause THEM too? Or could it be that there have always been scum like that (history is filled with brutal groups...I guess they must have all been caused by the US too), they ahve always used brutality and horror to achieve their gains, and the only way to stop them is to stomp them.

Click to expand...

Well we have been trying to "stomp them" since 2001, and there is no correlation at all with our efforts and any reduction in worldwide terrorism. In fact, the years since 9/11 have all been much worse in terms of worldwide terrorism than the years prior:

SouthernDemocrat said:

Well we have been trying to "stomp them" since 2001, and there is no correlation at all with our efforts and any reduction in worldwide terrorism. In fact, the years since 9/11 have all been much worse in terms of worldwide terrorism than the years prior:

Click to expand...

The graph pretty clearly represents what I have said all along about how Iraq and Afghanistan have been mismanaged by both Bush and Obama. But because of the reengagement triggered by 'surge' operations, they began to decrease...right up until Obama decided to completely abandon all reason and outright left Iraq and let terrorists and terrorism go unchallenged. Then the place blew up.

As for the graphic...it represents other things as well. For example...it shows the world has always experienced terror attacks. It also represents a post war environment where terrorists (some people like to call them 'insurgents') continued to fight on after the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were ended. Surely you arent shocked by this?

What that graph does NOT show is how many people were killed by the ousted Taliban (those committing the acts of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan) killed during their periods in power. "According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against civilians.[39][40] UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001"

But of course...that doesnt count.

In 1998, the United Nations accused the Taliban of denying emergency food by the UN's World Food Programme to 160,000 hungry and starving people "for political and military reasons".[162

But hey...at least it wasnt due to 'terrorist attacks'.

"On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500 defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead."

Could have been worse though...they could have been maimed by an IED by insurgents...right?

At this time ten Iranian diplomats and a journalist were killed. Iran assumed the Taliban had murdered them, and mobilized its army, deploying men along the border with Afghanistan. By the middle of September there were 250,000 Iranian personnel stationed on the border. Pakistan mediated and the bodies were returned to Tehran towards the end of the month. The killings of the Diplomats had been carried out by Sipah-e-Sahaba a Pakistani Sunni group with close ties to the ISI.[110][164] They burned orchards, crops and destroyed irrigation systems, and forced more than 100,000 people from their homes with hundreds of men, women and children still unaccounted for.

See...if only we had just left them alone, they would still be in power and we wouldnt have stupid charts presenting stupid agendas to be used trying to prove stupid points.

"The city of Istalif i. e. was home to more than 45,000 people. In Istalif the Taliban gave 24 hours notice to the population to leave, then completely razed the town leaving the people destitute.[43][166]

In 1999 the town of Bamian was taken, hundreds of men, women and children were executed. Houses were razed and some were used for forced labor.[167] There was a further massacre at the town of Yakaolang in January 2001. An estimated 300 people were murdered, along with two delegations of Hazara elders who had tried to intercede.[26]

By 1999, the Taliban had forced hundreds of thousands of people from the Shomali Plains and other regions conducting a policy of scorched earth burning homes, farm land and gardens.[43]"

But people with a myopic ideological bent want to claim we create them.

Like I said...at least they werent blowing up roadside bombs before we went to war with them.

DA60 said:

He had a 4 year old daughter. I actually have to explain to you that she should have been his number one priority in life?

The Middle East was not going to collapse without him. And he could have done JUST AS MUCH for the world by staying home, doing local volunteer work and looking after his little girl.
We are NOT talking about a guy who is fighting a war to save his country. We are talking about a guy doing humanitarian work - he could have done it at home. I guarantee you there are PLENTY of needy people in his community who could have used his assistance almost as much as those he helped in the Middle East.
But no...he abandons his parental responsibility and goes running around the world to satisfy his craving.

If he had no young children, then I would have said 'good for him. He died doing what he loved by helping others'.

But I won't, because the second you have a child, that child should be the number one thing in your life. And everything else you do must take a back seat to that child until they are grown up (at least), until they don't need you anymore. That is, IMO, what a great parent does. They sacrifice their selfish desires for the child. And they do so gladly.

This guy didn't. Getting his danger fix (doing something noble, granted) was more important to him then raising his child.

He was stupid and he should have stayed home to help raise his little girl - that should have been his job and his passion...and I don't really care if you agree or not.


Good day.

Click to expand...

This 'Blame The Victim" syndrome is going around everywhere and you seem to have caught a pretty serious dose.