It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Female Hostage's Plea...a new low, even for terrorists...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
abcnews.go.com...

Not sure how I missed this, but I'd love to hear how terrorists plan to justify beheading a woman, even to other fanatics...

Previously, the terrorists have attempted (vainly) to try and justify their actions as attacking the supply lines, etc. of the enemy, and thus try to make their actions seem like acts of war, not terrorism.

The simple truth is that it is terrorism. When we capture the enemy, we do not execute them, in public, or in private. Therefore, such executions by them, are terrorism.

Now, with the element of a woman involved, this changes the situation even further, according to their own rules.... To make matters worse, it is obvious that this hostage is a member of a charity organization reaching out to Iraqis, not supporting the occupational forces.

If she is killed (which seems extremely likely), then at least she will likely die for a good cause, as this will create quite a backlash in the Militant Islamic community, at least I would hope so...as her death cannot even be justified to these animals...




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The simple truth is that it is terrorism. When we capture the enemy, we do not execute them, in public, or in private. Therefore, such executions by them, are terrorism.


Not to defend the terrorists, but in the interest of full disclosure, the enemy has been killed after we capture them. We call it accidents, or a 'few bad apples'. Maybe some Americans, 'on thier own', set-up private prisons in Afghanistan. Sometimes we have people, but just don't tell anyone where they are.

Al-Qaeda Suspects Disappear in U.S. Custody, Rights Group Says
Are they alive? Dead?



To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

White House Press release


So to say that we don't kill people we have in our custody, is a little disingenuous. IMO.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I agree that if they kill Margaret Hassan, it will be a new low, even for terrorists. In fact, to even kidnap Hassan, who is a humanitrian, who is married to an Iraqi and holds an Iraqi citizenship, is an outrage even the Iraqi man on the street should be able to understand.

curme, your constant advocating for the enemy is certainly consistent with the values of your presidential candidate and American traitor.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 04/10/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

curme, your constant advocating for the enemy is certainly consistent with the values of your presidetial candidate and American traitor.



All i said was that, in my opinion, the US government has killed prisoners that they have had in custody. How does that equate to a traitor? Because I question the government?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

So to say that we don't kill people we have in our custody, is a little disingenuous. IMO.


Last I checked we weren't parading them around on tv with public executions....

Regardless, by definition, any American military personnel guilty of such acts are just as barbaric as the terrorists, and do not deserve to wear the uniform. We hold ourselves to a higher standard, or at least try to. When we find our own guilty of such acts, they are then subject to prosecution, as we are seeing with the prison abuse case.

I see no such self-policing by the terrorists...

You're trying to equate apples and oranges here, and it's hardly a fair comparison...

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The simple truth is that it is terrorism. When we capture the enemy, we do not execute them, in public, or in private. Therefore, such executions by them, are terrorism.


I agree that these acts are barabric, no matter who commits them, and there is no defense for them. But when you said "private", that's stretching it a bit. The US does some shady things. How many death squads have we supported? How many death sqauds had the CIA participated in?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Could you imagaine the outcry if we executed a woman on TV by beheading? How about killing a school full of children?

And before anyone starts whining about the mean old Americans have killed kids too show me where we went into a school and started shooting kids? Show me a tape of us cutting a womans head off?

Its one thing to hit the wrong target with a bomb especialy if the the Target is delibertly placed next to a school and another to walk into a school and start shooting kids. Yes we have had people shoot prisioners and those people should (and will) be taken care of, but we do not have a policy promoting it.

The ones doing this are not even animals they are vermin and should be treated as such



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by Gazrok
The simple truth is that it is terrorism. When we capture the enemy, we do not execute them, in public, or in private. Therefore, such executions by them, are terrorism.


I agree that these acts are barabric, no matter who commits them, and there is no defense for them. But when you said "private", that's stretching it a bit. The US does some shady things. How many death squads have we supported? How many death sqauds had the CIA participated in?


Slice it , dice it, smother it, cover it. chunk it, and top it...no matter what our gov't may or may not have done in "private", it's not even in the same ballpark as what these videos portray. Usually I am full agreement in that our gov't is shady to say the least, but I can't even begin to try and justify these war tactics with comparing them to how we treat out prisoners. Even Abu Graib can't compare to this.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
Slice it , dice it, smother it, cover it. chunk it, and top it...no matter what our gov't may or may not have done in "private", it's not even in the same ballpark as what these videos portray. Usually I am full agreement in that our gov't is shady to say the least, but I can't even begin to try and justify these war tactics with comparing them to how we treat out prisoners. Even Abu Graib can't compare to this.


I'm not justifying it. Gazrok said we don't do these things in private. I just said I think we do.
There's no justification here. It's wrong, no matter who does, for whatever reason.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   

I'm not justifying it. Gazrok said we don't do these things in private. I just said I think we do.
There's no justification here. It's wrong, no matter who does, for whatever reason.


Then allow me to clarify...

We don't PROMOTE it, CELIBRATE it, nor CHEER it, like the terrorists do. We PROSECUTE it when known.

Fair enough?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Leaving aside the humanitarian involvement of the captive (as opposed to contracting for 'foreign' commercial operations) - what does gender have to do with this issue?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Leaving aside the humanitarian involvement of the captive (as opposed to contracting for 'foreign' commercial operations) - what does gender have to do with this issue?


It might not be an issue with anyone else but as a Southern Gentleman it damn sure does with me



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

what does gender have to do with this issue?


It has a LOT to do with it.

Their attempts to justify this in the past, was to label the contractors, drivers, etc. that they killed as "combatants" as in they were part of the supply line.

By their OWN beliefs, the same cannot be applied here, as a woman cannot be so labelled, in accordance with their own ideals. Therefore, this is a new low, even for them, and may be seen as such by those who previously supported their actions. This is the point I was trying to make...



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

By their OWN beliefs, the same cannot be applied here, as a woman cannot be so labelled, in accordance with their own ideals.



Not so at all.

Females can be combatants, politicians, leaders, heroes, villains, victims.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Granted our government has done some bad things in the past, but when it comes to cutting innocent peoples heads off that is where I draw the line. The low life scumbags that do this to innocent defense less people should have the same thing done to them, but in a much slower fashion. To me this is such a cowardly act it is unbelieveable that someone could do this to a innocent civilian.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join