Solution to beheadings (what if)
 

What if every time these militants beheaded a captive we beheaded those they wanted freed? And if they didn't want anyone freed we just picked a few that we know are terrorists that we have in captivity. What if at the same time we filmed it and put it all over the internet.


What do you think would be the response by the (1) terrorists, (2) World Muslim population, (3) World non-muslim population, (4) American muslim population, and (5) American non-muslim population?

Our moral highground would slip into an abyss.

1) Terrorists would have a reason to proclaim their hatred of us, and would proclaim those killed to be myrtars.
2) Moderate Muslims would sway away from us and back to funding terrorism.
3) Non-Muslims would start to feel sympathy for the terrorists.
4) American Muslims would be completely outraged. We didnt decapitate Japanese POWs even though they did it to us after all.
5) 90% of the population would be outraged and would ensure whoever was in office wouldnt survive the next election.

Agreed.

I think most Americans are outraged at the simple fact that it is a beheading. Not necessarily because of its statement or intent or what not, but the fact it is a beheading.

If we started beheading people, a lot of people would be pretty outraged as well.

I agree that most of the world and US would be outraged, i'm more curious to what would be the reaction of the people doing the beheading.

Other than a touch of irony, I really don't think it would change much other than give them more fire to continue killing.

They probably wouldn't be as disgusted about the beheading (as a concept), as it is a rather customary way of execution in the arab countries with death penalty, at least around the Persian gulf. I don't even think that they directly (at least in the beginning, before seeing the media reaction) thought about the fact that beheading hostages might be somehow more revolting than killing them in some other way.

Correction: Customary as a part of Sharia. I'm not aware what countries actually practice beheading. At least Saudi Arabia?

what's left of it would, i don't think it's in great condition at the moment to be honest

we shall see what happens post-handover... good luck to the new government, I think they might need it

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Not a good plan.

I suggest desecrating the bodies of dead terrorists. As far as I know, there was this rule in the Koran about not going to heaven if you have been in contact with a pig or something... If this is true, I'd say that'd pretty much ruin their plans of going to heaven.

But then I don't give a rat's arse about dead bodies. Nor do I care about Muslim anger at our treatment of their poor innocent terrorists...

/wishful thinking.

Some food for thought:

General Black Jack Pershing:
was born Septs. 13, 1860 near Laclede MS. He died July 15, 1948 in Washingtone D.C. Highlights of his life are as follows:
1891 Prof. of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish American War
1901 Promoted to rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadeer General
1909 Military Govenor of Moro Province, Phillippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from Active Duty

Just before WWl, there were a number of attacks on the U.S. Forces in the Phillippins by Muslim extremists.
So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they beleive pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won`t even touch pigs ay all, nor any of there by-products. To them, eating of touching a pig, it`s meat it`s blood ect., is to be instantly barred from Paradise (and the virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorists bodies and covered them in pigs blood and entrails ect. They let the 50th terrorist go. And for the next 42 years there was not a single Muslim extemist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it`s time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq.

I agree with that.

At least bury the bodies with pig carcasses. Make sure it's ONLY the terrorists, though, and not anyone who just happened to die in the way. Otherwise, it could get even uglier over there.

A member on another board I frequent told a story about a friend of his who is a contractor. He was hired to rebuild a mosque in the Mid-East. He completed the work, but the customers wanted to pay him only half of the agreed upon price. They then wanted him to redo a large portion of the building. He re-did the work. They still refused to pay the full fee.

What he didn't tell them is that, while redoing the walls, he put slabs of bacon inside of them. He plans to contact them in a few years and tell them that they have been praying to a dead pig.

Well he probably would win jackass of the year award.

I don't care much for terrorists but disrespecting another religion no matter happened is a pretty shitty thing to do.

Yes, he probably would at that.

I still think it is rather funny - and they did invite a bit of retaliation by not honoring the agreement.

Funny? - Yeah, in a way, it is funny.

But still, I think disrespecting a mass of people is pretty shitty.

Of course, if he did it if they did honor the agreement - that would just plain be bad.

Should the notion of Delenda Est grow, perhaps the terrorists will succeed in creating a war on Islam.

Morality aside, people will either become numb to the barbaric acts or they will decide to act out. Should people decide that killing one for one isn't enough, it could become a city for one. It's, in some ways, similar to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically making it far too costly to continue down this road.

whatever happened to taking the high ground?

Peopel disgusted by beheadings talking about beheadings as reprecussions, what is this world coming to.

Wars of survival are not pretty.

Well, while you're taking the moral high ground, I'd rather put an end to this senseless slaughter. You can be high and mighty all you want, but your extremist enemies won't give a rat's arse about your morality, and will continue to kill people in nasty ways.

Wars like this aren't won by being nice, they're won by making sure the other side understands they'll die a horrific death if they try anything.

Pardon me if I'm not willing to undermind everything this country is built on to win. I'd like to think that we are different than the terrorists. Your solution turns our military into terrorists.

Our country was built on the idea of everyone being free to live their lives. They are undermining that freedom. In my mind, that allows us to do whatever it takes to stop them.

I'm sorry but that's just insane to think that the terrorists are taking away the right for us to live our lives. They have made a few attacks that don't even come close to the amount of violence we've committed against ourselves over the same time period.

The terrorists are not the ones who are taking away our rights bit by bit. The terrorists probably wouldn't even give a shit about us if we weren't constantly trying to manipulate the balance of power in their area and influence their culture.

We are not the terrorists. We should not act like we are either.

It most certainly is not insane. The terrorists' objective is to destroy our way of life.

Period.

Appeasement is impossible. Co-existence equally so. They started it. It is up to us to finish it.

Fortunately, others in the Islamic world are finally awakening to the danger posed by extremists. The sooner moderate Muslims stop supporting terrorists by remaining silent and inactive, the better.

I had heard that Pershing story before and wonder if it is true.

It is probably going to turn into a religious war whether we like it or not. Mind you, I don't think beheading a few terrorists is going to help.

The pig idea may actually go further. (As crazy as that might be.)

Although I am not a Denis Miller fan, I heard he made a joke the other night about Abu Ghraib. Something to the effect of, "well at least the guys at Abu Ghraib with the panties on their heads still have their heads attached"

I don't like the idea of retaliatory beheadings. But pouring pigs' blood on the corpses of terrorists who are executed after a fair trial in which they are judged guilty and sentenced to death wouldn't bother me in the least.

ok, lets say we adopt this simplistic "eye for an eye"/"head for a head" idea. where are you going to get people to murder that we *know* are actually terrorists? how do you plan to prove that they are terrorists? or do you find that fact unimportant? what actions would warrant being a possible candidate? is being muslim enough? is professing a hatred for america enough? how about a hatred for president bush? how about trying to form an organization that is against the U.S. invasion and occupation of iraq? what about having attacked an occupying soldier? you're certainly not going to have any opportunity to kill suicide bombers and we've yet to capture any of the men doing the beheadings for the terrorist groups.

it seems to me that on top of this plan being morally repugnant and sure to turn every single one of our allies and the majority of the american populus against us it's also less than realistic.

Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what. If we were to execute any terrorist, they would see it as open season on anyone that isn't middle eastern (muslim).

They already do.

i think the ends do justify the means to an extent and this is not necissarily steping over the line

I agree. The terrorists have no problems with killing any non-Muslim, nor with killing their own people. They already hate us, so it's not like revenge is going to change that.

...besides, what's the alternative here? Do you have a solution that's better, and works in the long *and* the short term?

Would it be a solution is the better question.

And to that, I would say, no it probably wouldn't be (it being retaliatory beheading or pouring pig blood).

Because you stated it yourself - they wouldn't have a problem either way.

yeah good idea, i'm sure that will work. it won't alienate the few remaining allies the US has, or make all the moderate muslims hate you too. it's a fantastic idea.

/sarcasm ends

please may i leave the planet?

Absolutely. They did just fly the first privately owned craft into space you know. ;)

Since the whole object of some of these terrorists is martyrdom why not deny them after they are dead the reason they committed these acts. If a suicide bomber blows himself up, confiscate the body and bury him with a pig or suitable defacement. According to their religion this would deny him the virgins and other gifts he was promised. It would also make other think twice about killing themselves if they were going to be barred from their afterlife.

Hey CK, welcome aboard!

what body? there's not much left of suicide bombers afterwards... why not just hose down the area with pig blood?

Not true in many cases in Israel they have even enough left to identify the body. I was told in instances were they wear a bomb vest the head sometimes is blown clean. Also any insurgents shot sshould be confiscated for the same treatment.

Thanks for the link HT, cool place!

:)

ah ok, i'll allow you that point :) still sounds a bit macarbre to me though

Well, frankly, I don't give a rat's arse about the hatred of these supposed "moderate muslims". Why exactly should I care? Will moderates suddenly become extremist if we do bad things to terrorists? If so, they weren't very moderate to begin with!

But then again, I prefer security in my country over being loved by muslims for being such an easy target.

Yeah, I'm sure that desecrating bodies will do a lot good PR for western people among the moderate muslims.

Anyway, if we approach this as a theological problem, do you think that Allah (we assume in this that he exists and thinks that it's great that fundamentalists kill infidels) would deny the entry to paradise from these terrorists just because infidels and enemies of Allah desecrated their bodies with pig blood?

And rest assured, it wouldn't take long from the religious leaders of islamist fundamentalists to make up an elaborate theological argument to work the way around this. After all - Quran also more or less forbids suicide, too.

And how relieved I'm that this is only a crazy internet thread on some forum and that it is very, very unlikely that I should ever see people commiting these desecrations.

how many muslims are there in the world? a lot ... most numbers i looked at were over a billion. in my opinion, pissing them all off is not good strategy...

I love me some snopes: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

Haven't we been over this before? If we strike out in the most inflammatory, brutal way then we are ensuring a fresh supply of martyrs for the jihadists. Unlike sports, global politics is not just about kicking the other guys ass. Continuously inflaming existing tensions is the best way to decrease your own security. We don't want to wage war forever, do we?

There's just so much of this cowboy mentality that we can just kill them all. Common sense should lead one to believe that just going in and killing a desectrating bodies at random would evantually ingnite the wrath of the rest of the world and result in a WWIII type scenario. We sure as hell don't want to end up like Germany.

this thread is very demoralizing to me. i recognize that writing a response isn't gonna change anyone's mind, but anyone familiar with the islands off of italy?

my understanding is that there are towns without many men, because vendettas keep them all killing each other.

the idea that anyone doesn't care what a significant percentage of the world thinks is astonishing to me. i'm not just talking about what the terrorist-types think, but people that could be allies.

if we start violating the geneva convention, or messing with our prisoners religious traditions, we lose even more support around the world. europe, asia, everywhere. does anyone think it's just fine if we (the USA) goes it alone?

i'm sure Gandhi would have been more successful if he'd just kicked a little ass.

the high road does come cheap, or easy. but it's the best solution for making the world a better place. and it's entirely possible to protect yourself in self defence and still take the high road....

Let's consider the UN as a proxy for the world. The majority of member nations have totalitarian forms of government in which the subjects are enslaved and brutalized or are decadents on the decline. Why should we worry about their opinions when their value systems are anathema to our own?

Does it really make sense to take the high road when doing so enables the enemy to use our values (ie, open society) against us?

This graph seems to contradict the idea that most countries are despotic hellholes. Notice how the number of democracies has been steadily increasing. Perhaps we shouldn't forget our values and abandon the rest of the world.....

Hmmm...interesting correlation with winning the Cold War.

The graph is not accurate in that includes as democracies countries which are brutally authoritarian, such as Zimbabwe. Unless a democracy has a constitution and institutions which protect human rights, it is erroneous to consider it a functioning democracy.

So we should cut ourselves off from the outside world rather than engage with our neighbors and encourage a free society? That seems to go against 200 years of democratic tradition (not to mention economic necessity). Fortress America can be no more....we live in a globalized world and must learn to coexist,

No, that is not what I said. Your graph demonstrates the benefit to the world of America's efforts to end the Cold War and encourage the spread of democracy.

The UN, however, has morphed into a Society for the Preservation of Despots. When countries such as Sudan can sit on the Human Rights Council, something is seriously wrong. Add to that the inexcusable fraud and corruption of the Oil for Food Program and the recent Deloitte Touche survey, which uncovered the huge ethical problems within the organization, and we can see that the UN has serious problems of credibility.

IMO, it is time to replace the UN with an organization in which membership is predicated upon the practise of acceptable human rights.

I say put an arms imbargo on them and enforce it. Let them destroy themselves from within.

Beheading one would just start a ring of everexpanding death.

I still don't understand why there is not enough internal pressure to stop the asshats from resorting to med-evil means. Yes, we have made a few fouls, but these people are still way overboard.

The problem with this idea is that the US has a horrible record when it comes to supporting human rights. We may be okay when compared to China, but we have a rich history of supporting the worst despots for our own political motives. Would we be barred from entry in your new governing body?

About the graph...I thought that you said it was a farce...how can it be that and simultaneously prove the democratizing power of the US?

I did not brng up the UN. The UN is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that we must take global politics into consideration with our actions lest we alienate our allies.

As you linked the graph, I assumed that you supported what it represents.

You are using the "U.S. is not perfect so we are just as bad as those who murder millions of their own citizens" rationale. Please show me documentation of the mass graves filled with brutally murdered U.S. citizens on the part of our government. This bit of G2 has quite escaped my notice.

Human rights are first and foremost the responsibility of a nation's government. The U.S. is responsible for U.S. citizens. Other governments are responsible for the welfare of their own. When we do interfere in the internal politics of another nation, the justification must include that it is in the interests of our own national security to do so.

Does that mean that you do not support the occupation of Iraq? Because a whole lot of REALLY informed/intelligent people are suggesting that we are less secure now.

exactly! in the eyes of most democratic nations (ie pretty much everyone besides the USA) things like the death penalty, locking up a prisoner without charging them with a crime and preemptively attacking other sovern nations are considered unacceptable practices. you can't advocate building an international organization based only on the values of the USA.

sources:
http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

I disagree with that assessment. We are more secure for having moved the front line of the war on terror back to the Mid-East.

I don't happen to think that you can simultaneously reject and accept a piece of evidence, but logic, like everything, is subjective.

I am referring to actions that the United States is directly complicent in, not any vague moral equivication. Our government as supported terrible people....no one can contest that.

Security is always the justification for a war. Whether or not it is a true claim depends on the war.

Aren't we already there with their anti western bias? Remember its not what you did its who you are that they hate. You can't appease someone with such hatred as they will only use the time you are explaining your views to them against you. Wahhabism is being taught through much of the ME and is taking on the mainstream version of Islam. These radicals view all non Islams as infidels so don't confuse them. Someone with the rationality of willing to blow himself up in order to gain favor simply can't be bargained with. One can easily draw a parallel to fighting the Japanese during WW2 who refused quarter and offerd none themselves. Only by toppling the leadership and killing 1000's was any chance at change actually gained. Change is needed as the time for religious crusades such as theirs is passed in a civilized world.

How can a war on terror have a front line, seriously? You're just spewing militaristic rhetoric.

the man's got a point there... surely the war on terror is taking place everywhere?

Geez, do you post every silly forward that comes your way?

Simple Google Search


SLM3

I don't agree with this. The situation might be bad and going to wrong direction - but it doesn't mean it couldn't be even worse. The fundamentalists might hate the west just because "we" are infidels, but I don't really believe this means that ordinary (and maybe uneducated & poor) islamic people don't care what the west does or doesn't do.

I think that this "what do we care?"-attitude relates to the feeling that the west (or usually just the USA) could just "kick their asses, no matter how many of them came." The truth is that no army is invincible - and even in the most militaristic dreams it would be impossible for the west to occupy and pacify the whole islam world. Now I'll just wait someone to mention the nuclear weapons...:rolleyes:

Anyway - if we assess this scenario (to answer beheadings with brutality and desecrations) coldly and cynically, it is rather clear that the government knows that possible benefits (terrorists scared and fleeing) are dwarfed by the negative consequences.

I have to disagree wit hyour assessment. Before teh Iraq invasion, we were more secure, as there were no mobs of insurgents attacking or beheading anyone just for being westerners. We've found no connection between Saddam's government and Al-Quaeda, no Iraqi weapons were used in any terrorist attack on the US, and no terrorist attack against us was funded by the Iraqi government.