To Behead or not to Behead-An Islamic Debate

In an article the decribes the raging debate on Islamic websites, whether to behead Muslim captives, one thing is sure, the beheading of non-muslims is justified.

Times Union Article

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Debate raged on Islamic Web sites about the propriety of killing fellow Muslims who work for coalition forces in Iraq, after militants released three Turkish hostages they had threatened to behead.

Opinions are mixed. Some people appealed on the kidnappers to spare the Turks because they were "fellow Muslims." Others urged militants to decapitate them.

"Turkish Muslims should be the first to demand that those hypocrites be beheaded, as they are allied with the devil," meaning the Americans, one person wrote on a Web site that has published al-Zarqawi statements and claims of responsibility for other killings. "They should serve as an example to every apostate."

Another contributor who identified himself as "enemy of the foreign infidels" said he supported the decapitation of hostages -- but not Muslim ones.

This probably explains the release of the Turkish hostages earlier and the impending release of two more Turks, but no word on whether they will release the Muslim US Marine.

God, these people are sick.

They have no more moral ground to stand on. No more righteous indignation.

They have been cast into the lions den with the Christian coalition. Arguing over whether or not to behead people?

Savages, pure and simply. Animals. Not humans.

Religous whack jobs. Send them to the Aryan Nations compound with thier bretheren, and they can kill and behead each other.

I despise religious fanatics, no matter what religion they follow !!



[edit on C:Wedocu06e6 by Opus]

What a topic for these religious creeps to debate. To behead or not to behead that is the question!! SICK!SICK! I think anyone who is in the mid east now who is non-muslim should think seriously about leaving.

I don't know.. there's been a lot stronger stuff debated on this forum. To nuke or not to nuke? To invade or not to invade? Wipe 'em all out or leave'em alone?

Those calling for beheadings are indeed sick, but no sicker that many of the posters here. (you know who you are..)

Beheading is so 19th century and the people who are carrying it out are sick people. There is nothing to gain, just a big bloody mess on the floor. Its a horrible way to die, i would prefer a bullet to the brain then having my head slowly cut off.

Perhaps we should have Islamic extremist captives sodomized by pigs and then buried facing away from Mecca...??? No seventy two virgins for you!!!

You know... I have to say this is disturbing.

I am not the kind of person who criticizes relgious beliefs so I will not enter a conversation about whether or not beheading is an acceptable punishment for a crime in general. That's not my business.

However, let's say the Muslim religion allows for the beheading of people who have committed certain very serious crimes. Fine.

But can someone please tell me what crime the people who have been beheaded have committed? What capital sin did they commit? As far as I can tell the only thing they did was get kidnapped and not be on the same "team" as their captors. By any standards that is not a capital crime. By such logic, whether or not beheading is valid or not, in this case it is clearly not acceptable to do such a thing.

As a result, anyone performing this or anyone supporting the beheading of these people is a savage. That's all there is to it.

Well, if it was a soldier, let the mauslim do what they want. But Nick Berg was not a soldier, he was there to help the Iraqi people. Debating this is nuts. But I do like the sodomize by a pig idea. Even better, just let loose thousands of pigs in Iraq and when all the nutso Mauslim flee, invade and take what you want. No fighting, no deaths, no enemy for they all fled from the pigs. Wait, Bush and Co might try that, forget I said it!

These people that are beheading captives in the name of "Jihad" are violating international law blatently. When they are captured, they should be brought up on war crimes if they supposedly are fighting a war against us. It is illegal by international law to kill a POW if he/she was not trying to escape, procure weapons, or stage a coup at the enemy compound. That's why the Japanese and German's were tried for war crimes in WWII, so why should these genocidal nuts be any different?

If I recall correctly a POW is someone who fights for one legitimate side of the war and is captured by the other legitimate side of the war.

The civilians kidnapped by the barbarians in question do not fit this term.

The savages are not fighting for a legitimate party in a war, and the people they kidnapped (with one exception) are not fighting for anyone at all.

In that sense, this is not a POW abuse/killing issue. This is an issue of people being kidnapped and murdered. Nothing more, nothing less. The people who committed these acts should be treated simply as murderers. Not as fighters with a message, not as "jihadis", and not as any other term. As murderers.

But we aren't at war with them. Can't be a prisoner of war if there is no war. Bush said the war was over in Iraq. He hasn't declared war on any other country, so no war.

Anyways, are people are getting killed by terrorists while Bush sits around trying to ban pretzels and freedom of speech.

We are at war, what Bush said was "Major combat operations", as long as people are still shooting at US soldiers, we are at war. And I was talking in regards to PFC Maupin and Sgt. Wassen Ali. The civilians that have been murdered, I agree, were just that. They should be brought to justice for that too, but even though they dont fight for a county, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable under international law. Their anti-Americanism is wanted genocide, no matter how you beat the bush. If they had their way, no Americans would be alive right now. May God smash their hypocritical arses into the soil!