Taleban use 12 year old to behead "spy"

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, well doesn't seem like such a big a gap to me.
I could easily have a 21 year old with out stretching it, but I don't!
Have the 21 yo that is! :eek: Stretching it being part of the reason why not!! :eek: Sorry! That was rude.

ha!! i DO have a 21 year old.

Abuskedti wrote:

the news media in our country continuously pushes the anti arab agenda.. painting them as terrorist - and with war as the goal. their charactor is constantly under deliberate systematic attach leaving enough American's disinterested in their well being and unconcerned as we contine to kill them and plan on killing more.

We are very interested in selling an attack on Iran. This is part of the commercial.

you are aware of course that iranians are persians not arabs, right?

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

I don't know, dude ... The Taliban does not appear to need the U.S. media or anyone else to make them look bad. If this was really some kind of victim scenario, the Taliban and others in the Middle East could do a better job of managing their own image and combating "U.S. propoganda". Instead they just hand over more and more ammunition.
Do I agree with you when you say that this sort of story deflects attention away from problems with the U.S. military presence in Iraq? Yes, absolutely. But do I think that its all part of some ethnic cleansing-style crusade directed at Arabs in general? No, that's ridiculous. Fact of the matter is, people's fear and prejudicial attitudes only increase whenever people in Iraq and elsewhere behave in this fashion. They must bear at least some of the responsibility. Religious killings, suicide bombs, chlorine gas, gunning down government officials and police, bombing each others' places of worship ... When do they decide to change? A lot of them want to live peaceful lives, but there's a significant minority who do not, who hold religious beliefs that were already becoming outdated when the Dark Ages began to end and who honestly think that everyone should die sooner than practice equality and religious freedom. Unfortunately, the latter get the press. Its not different from what happens to non-Arabs here. The people who do horrid things get the press ... Yet few argue that rapists and murderers are unfairly focused on in the media.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I view increased immigration of people from these countries to Canada to be a very positive thing. Globalization will help people to change for the better ... It'll work better than tanks and bombs. The latter should be used only in extreme cases. Iraq is a prime example of the total misuse of military force.

I don't think its reasonable to declair that if the people of Iraq don't bow to the wishes of the military forces occupying their home land, that they are to blame for what happens.

I also don't think it accurate to say that people do not wish to live peaceful lives because of their religious beliefs - no matter how old those beliefs.

I never suggested ethnic cleansing was the goal.. The logic behind the desire to invade Iran and Iraq is anyones guess - there seem to be as many reasons as there are people to ask.. whatever the reason - the dehumanizing of the people of the Middle East is an important weapon.

rebornFixer

catefrances wrote:

you are aware of course that iranians are persians not arabs, right?

That too ...

Thus the furor over the movie "300"!

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

I don't think its reasonable to declair that if the people of Iraq don't bow to the wishes of the military forces occupying their home land, that they are to blame for what happens.

I also don't think it accurate to say that people do not wish to live peaceful lives because of their religious beliefs - no matter how old those beliefs.

Your first statement is an oversimplification of a complex situation, though. The U.S. did not magically create the religious/ethnic hatred that is currently driving the shitstorm over there. They kicked the hornet's nest over, granted ... But everything to create a civil war was in place before Americans got there. If indeed killing your neighbor is some sort of resistence strategy against the U.S. and nothing more, then ... well ... That's a pretty fucked up resistance strategy that obviously isn't working very well. I think we both know better, though. What's going on in Iraq is not the sole product of the American presence, even if the invasion by the latter did set the stage.

Your second point is hard to argue one way or the other ... Does the religious doctrine (in this case, extreme fundamentalist (but not all) forms of Islam) promote violence, or is it simply appealing to violent people? Either way, its a problem that will somehow need to be addressed. And not just by Americans.

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

Your first statement is an oversimplification of a complex situation, though. The U.S. did not magically create the religious/ethnic hatred that is currently driving the shitstorm over there. They kicked the hornet's nest over, granted ... But everything to create a civil war was in place before Americans got there. If indeed killing your neighbor is some sort of resistence strategy against the U.S. and nothing more, then ... well ... That's a pretty fucked up resistance strategy that obviously isn't working very well. I think we both know better, though. What's going on in Iraq is not the sole product of the American presence, even if the invasion by the latter did set the stage.

Your second point is hard to argue one way or the other ... Does the religious doctrine (in this case, extreme fundamentalist (but not all) forms of Islam) promote violence, or is it simply appealing to violent people? Either way, its a problem that will somehow need to be addressed. And not just by Americans.

Its a very complex situation. Kicked over the hornets nest is quite the oversimplication also. We actually used massive force to completely destroy their means of control and security. Now we stand among them as the security barking orders to people that we don't understand and that don't understand us. Whats worse - we badmouth and threaten their way of live and their allies -

If we can't work with them - can't help them - and sit back and allow the horror to continue - and if we have to blame them to ease our responsibility - then forgive me if I am not moved by these stories of the horror. I am well aware of the horror... And the biggest face is our own.

Yes, its not ALL our fault. it is very difficult for so many different cultures to coexist - But we are setting an aweful example for "democracy" and "freedom".

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

Yes, its not ALL our fault. it is very difficult for so many different cultures to coexist - But we are setting an aweful example for "democracy" and "freedom".

I disagree with your view that "the biggest face is our own". Not at all. But I agree that Iraq is indeed an awful example of democracy in action.

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

and their allies -

Are you referring to Iran here? Sorry, but a) Iran is not Iraq's ally and b) Ahmanadingdong and his hardline rhetoric has earned more than just a little badmouthing, IMO.

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

Are you referring to Iran here? Sorry, but a) Iran is not Iraq's ally and b) Ahmanadingdong and his hardline rhetoric has earned more than just a little badmouthing, IMO.

Iran is indeed on of Iraq's allies.. unless you don't consider that large percentage of Iraqis to count.

If you consider Iraq to be the US installed government, then, of course, you are right- Iran is not their ally

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

Iran is indeed on of Iraq's allies.. unless you don't consider that large percentage of Iraqis to count.

If you consider Iraq to be the US installed government, then, of course, you are right- Iran is not their ally

Well, you're not an Iraqi and neither am I, so maybe this specific point isn't worth too much discussion. Suffice to say, I don't think the Iraqis particularly love the Iranians after nearly two decade of brutal warfare.

Heatherj43

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually some girls would like it, they may say they don't, but people often lie.

Well, I'm really not interested in arguing with you about it. I was just interested where you got that belief from, and personal experience, is about it. So now I know.

And just to give you a challenging opposition, check out infant synaptogenesis and stuff, read up on how the brain works, because there is not much innate with the brain, certainly not morality.

First of all, I wasn't raped by a step-father, but I surely thought you'd get how it is different. I cannot believe you'd say some young girls enjoy geting raped by their step-fathers!!!!
Second, I don't see how you can connect infant syantogenesis with a 12 year old boy beheading someone.
Morality is formed by age 12.
My own brain was restructure because of trauma emotional) before age 5, and I still know right from wrong. I knew right from wrong probably at age 4. I knew to not behead someone just because I was told to.
I think this child is being forced to do it, becasue the adults around him think its the manly thing to do and therefore he did it. I doubt he was happy about it. I also think he will have nightmares and regrets later on.

rebornFixer

Heatherj43 wrote:

I think this child is being forced to do it, becasue the adults around him think its the manly thing to do and therefore he did it. I doubt he was happy about it. I also think he will have nightmares and regrets later on.

This is most likely true, unless the kid happens to be a bona fide child psychopath (extremely unlikely, given how rare this state of affairs is).

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

This is most likely true, unless the kid happens to be a bona fide child psychopath (extremely unlikely, given how rare this state of affairs is).

would you say the same about the adults that encouraged him to do it?

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

would you say the same about the adults that encouraged him to do it?

I would, actually. Most terrorists are NOT psychopaths, although the vast majority would probably merit some other psychiatric diagnosis.

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

I would, actually. Most terrorists are NOT psychopaths, although the vast majority would probably merit some other psychiatric diagnosis.

Just as any other battle weary soldier returning from war?

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

Just as any other battle weary soldier returning from war?

Quite possibly, yes ... Both terrorists and vets might suffer from PTSD. One kills civilians in response to trauma, the other does not (at least in most cases ... Obviously some soldiers have killed civilians, accidently or intentionally).
I think you should make your point explicitly ... That terrorists aren't so different from soldiers, yes? They ARE different, even if one can understand the terrorists' motivations as stemming from trauma. Many murderers and even hardcore serial killers probably have PTSD. That does not mean that they should not be held legally accountable for commiting homicides. Ditto for terrorists. We can certainly understand and even empathize with these folks to some extent. That does not mean that we need to neglect protecting the public from them.

Ahnimus

Heatherj43 wrote:

First of all, I wasn't raped by a step-father, but I surely thought you'd get how it is different. I cannot believe you'd say some young girls enjoy geting raped by their step-fathers!!!!
Second, I don't see how you can connect infant syantogenesis with a 12 year old boy beheading someone.
Morality is formed by age 12.
My own brain was restructure because of trauma emotional) before age 5, and I still know right from wrong. I knew right from wrong probably at age 4. I knew to not behead someone just because I was told to.
I think this child is being forced to do it, becasue the adults around him think its the manly thing to do and therefore he did it. I doubt he was happy about it. I also think he will have nightmares and regrets later on.

I don't think so. Kids beat down their siblings to gain power over them. A 5 year old boy brought a gun to school and shot a girl. It seems like you draw this line at age 19, after that people somehow become immoral? No, morality is not an instinct.

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

Quite possibly, yes ... Both terrorists and vets might suffer from PTSD. One kills civilians in response to trauma, the other does not (at least in most cases ... Obviously some soldiers have killed civilians, accidently or intentionally).
I think you should make your point explicitly ... That terrorists aren't so different from soldiers, yes? They ARE different, even if one can understand the terrorists' motivations as stemming from trauma. Many murderers and even hardcore serial killers probably have PTSD. That does not mean that they should not be held legally accountable for commiting homicides. Ditto for terrorists. We can certainly understand and even empathize with these folks to some extent. That does not mean that we need to neglect protecting the public from them.

If they are not psychopaths.. then they are not terrorists.

my point exactly is this.. they are soldiers just like us. The fact that they "target civilians" is not a result of some inherent evil - it stems from the fact that they are fighting a much different enemy. They are fighting more than one enemy - at the same time. They are fighting the US invasion and occupation. The US has infinately superior capability - there is no conventional way to fight them - terrorism is the only effective weapon.

From my point of view - a soldier is a soldier.. neither side more evil or less willing to comprimise.. Both sides too busy telling themselves how right they are and how wrong the other is - in an effort to justify the war.

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

If they are not psychopaths.. then they are not terrorists.

my point exactly is this.. they are soldiers just like us. The fact that they "target civilians" is not a result of some inherent evil - it stems from the fact that they are fighting a much different enemy. They are fighting more than one enemy - at the same time. They are fighting the US invasion and occupation. The US has infinately superior capability - there is no conventional way to fight them - terrorism is the only effective weapon.

From my point of view - a soldier is a soldier.. neither side more evil or less willing to comprimise.. Both sides too busy telling themselves how right they are and how wrong the other is - in an effort to justify the war.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Soldiers have choices about whom to target, they have choices about strategies regarding how to fight an occupation. You still haven't explained to me how killing your Shi'ite or Sunni neighbors (how convienient, BTW) is some kind of effective way to fight the U.S.
I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but there is something that separates someone who shoots at U.S. troops from someone who takes the U.S. presence as an opportunity to avenge some religious or personal slight, or from someone who decides to blow up a car bomb in a crowded market with no U.S. troops for blocks in sight.

Ahnimus

reborncareerist wrote:

Sorry, but I don't agree. Soldiers have choices about whom to target, they have choices about strategies regarding how to fight an occupation. You still haven't explained to me how killing your Shi'ite or Sunni neighbors (how convienient, BTW) is some kind of effective way to fight the U.S.
I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but there is something that separates someone who shoots at U.S. troops from someone who takes the U.S. presence as an opportunity to avenge some religious or personal slight, or from someone who decides to blow up a car bomb in a crowded market with no U.S. troops for blocks in sight.

Don't think like an American, you can't understand Iraqis that way.
http://shoutfile.com/v/jWKm6Ne4/The_Gun_Bazaar_of_Pakistan

callen

reborncareerist wrote:

Sorry, but I don't agree. Soldiers have choices about whom to target, they have choices about strategies regarding how to fight an occupation. You still haven't explained to me how killing your Shi'ite or Sunni neighbors (how convienient, BTW) is some kind of effective way to fight the U.S.

As you aluded in your post, the SHiites and SUnni's are killing each other cause they now can, don't really like each other....typical animal behavior........Now to your question, how does this affect the war with America? Well this sectarian killing is causing instability...it causes our media to focus on it..and most importantly it causes Iraqi's to feel that its the Americans fault, creates resentment and ultimately may help get the US out. This is one of the main reasons anti war folks want us to leave..then they can't use us as an excuse for their actions.