South Korean Hostage Beheaded.

[Ben E Lou]

------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC Breaking News
------------------------------------------------------

Arab TV says South Korean captive killed -
The Arab TV network al-Jazeera reports South Korean has been killed by his kidnappers.


=========================================

[LionsFan10]

This isn't even surprising anymore so much as it is annoying, we really need to do something about this.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by LionsFan10

This isn't even surprising anymore so much as it is annoying, we really need to do something about this.

Our government and populace do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening. Further, in all likelihood it is a good thing (though not for the families and friends of any others who suffer this fate) that we do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening.

[Galaril]

I am an American living about 20 miles outside of Seoul and have lived here for a decade.I will say that for certain the Korean reaction to this won't be like Spainnot picking on Spain they had atough situation .Even though there has been alot I mean alot of anti american sentiment over here by the left and center-left lately(nothing new) it may change.My wife is Korean and she thinks do I this might embolden the koreans behind this.I know they are not aworld power but ask antone who served in Vietnam about the Koreans.They wer some mean mothers when they were let loose.The high ranks still physical kick the living shit out of their subordinate troops.I say jsut drop them off in Fallujah and watch the sand start flying.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Our government and populace do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening. Further, in all likelihood it is a good thing (though not for the families and friends of any others who suffer this fate) that we do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening.

What would you propose the solution is?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

What would you propose the solution is?

I'm not sure there is a viable "solution." I think the following steps would work, but I don't think they're desirable.

1. Openly and unapologetically torture any detainee with real or suspected ties to AQ until we get meaningful information or until we're convinced they have none.--Again, not desirable or remotely likely, but it would work over time. We'd get the needed information, and maybe even discourage others from joining their ranks. When they torture, rape and murder, they are now relatively secure in the knowledge that we will not retaliate in kind.

2. All unarmed citizens of all nations who have troops in Iraq leave the Middle East.--After all, unless they're carrying at all times, it is extremely difficult to protect them from armed thugs who are hell-bent on kidnap and murder.

3. Be willing to attack them with complete disregard for collateral damage.--Again, not a good move, not remotely likely to happen, but it would work over time.

4. Negotiate with terrorists.--Again, not a good move, not remotely likely to happen, but it would have saved these two men from beheadings.

5. Complete withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East. What is done is done. The troops are there, and our course of action is set. It would be a HUGE mistake now to give in to terroristic tactics.


Apart from these sort of extreme and undesirable courses of action, I really don't see a way to stop this kind of thing from happening.

[WSUCougar]

What a peculiar list.

[oliegirl]

Apart from these sort of extreme and undesirable courses of action, I really don't see a way to stop this kind of thing from happening.

I agree with you that these are the steps needed to stop the terrorists, and except for #4 and #5, I think the government is willing to do it, but the people of the US aren't. If the media had been as agressive in their coverage during Truman's administration, do you think he would have dropped the 2 bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I wonder...

I think in the long run people would support the decision because it would (hopefully) end the terrorism, but it wouldn't be an immediate thing and there would be alot of collateral damage...people don't like to see other innocent people killed. The initial backlash of calling the gov't "warmongers" and the like would be strong, and right before an election no president is going to open himself up to that kind of attack. Maybe a few months after the election we might see some of these tactics start, but not until then.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

What a peculiar list.

I agree, but please read it in the intended spirit, that of my second post in this thread:

Our government and populace do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening. Further, in all likelihood it is a good thing (though not for the families and friends of any others who suffer this fate) that we do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening.

Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that I think they've stumbled onto a tactic that has no good response.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

the government is willing to do it, but the people of the US aren't

Of the people, for the people by the people???

Sad how far we have drifted from that principle.

[Maple Leafs]

From the CNN article...

The insurgents had demanded that South Korea cancel plans to send 3,000 additional troops to Iraq.

Overnight, hundreds of South Koreans gathered in central Seoul on to condemn the dispatch of South Korean troops to Iraq...

Anyone else greatly disturbed by this?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

From the CNN article...
Anyone else greatly disturbed by this?

Im not *greatly* disturbed by it. I'm assuming it happened before the murder. Now, if their response to the murder is to give in to the terrorists, then there would be cause for concern.

[cthomer5000]

Basically, we gotta get medieval on their ass.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Basically, we gotta get medieval on their ass.

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.


(Even if we didn't get through to them, we could be secure in the knowledge that they'd be sure to live the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain.)

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

From the CNN article...
Anyone else greatly disturbed by this?

No. It is a very unpopular war to start with, and the average South Korean probably has no idea why they need to send troops there in the first place. Now they see an innocent person from their country die in direct relation to the troop movements. Of course they would protest. What else can they do?

[The Afoci]

I say we start circumsizing their prisoners and then releasing the tape. Bring back that ugly chick to point and laugh at their junk.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.


(Even if we didn't get through to them, we could be secure in the knowledge that they'd be sure to live the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain.)

And along with you, I believe this would work. Whether or not I could actually support this is a whole other thing though.

But I have no doubt that ruthless, vicious, and relentless torture of those involved would yield some results.

Marcellus would make a nice consultant.


It's just an ugly situation all around. When people start getting beheaded on a regular basis, it's not easy to avoid thinking about this stuff emotionally.

[Lucky Jim]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.

It's that or we send Sam Jackson in with his pocket-sized bible and a gerri curl.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

No. It is a very unpopular war to start with, and the average South Korean probably has no idea why they need to send troops there in the first place. Now they see an innocent person from their country die in direct relation to the troop movements. Of course they would protest. What else can they do?

What's disturbing is that a group of terrorists threaten to kill an innocent man and demand that a government take a specific action, and hundreds of citizens respond by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do. After seeing reactions like this you can bet that the terrorists are already busy lining up their next victim--they couldn't ask for a better response.

(By the way, I may be missing something but where are people seeing that the hostage was beheaded? The articles I see so far only say he was killed.)

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

What's disturbing is that a group of terrorists threaten to kill an innocent man and demand that a government take a specific action, and hundreds of citizens respond by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do. After seeing reactions like this you can bet that the terrorists are already busy lining up their next victim--they couldn't ask for a better response.

(By the way, I may be missing something but where are people seeing that the hostage was beheaded? The articles I see so far only say he was killed.)

Yes, they are accomplishing their goals, for sure. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

(By the way, I may be missing something but where are people seeing that the hostage was beheaded? The articles I see so far only say he was killed.)

This is the current headline at MSNBC.com:

Hostage executed
Terrorists holding a South Korean hostage in Iraq have beheaded their captor. • FULL STORY | • VIDEO

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

This is the current headline at MSNBC.com:

Hostage executed
Terrorists holding a South Korean hostage in Iraq have beheaded their captor. • FULL STORY | • VIDEO

He must have escaped, then!

[Hurst2112]

It's that or we send Sam Jackson in with his pocket-sized bible and a gerri curl.

That would work. If somebody sent me Sam Jackson, I would kill myself.

[Ben E Lou]

MSNBC is reporting that Al-Jazeera has received a tape of the murder, and plans to air it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.


(Even if we didn't get through to them, we could be secure in the knowledge that they'd be sure to live the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain.)

Somebody give that man a cee-gar, he's got it.

Although actually, I'm much more an advocate of another of your options

3. Be willing to attack them with complete disregard for collateral damage.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

3. Be willing to attack them with complete disregard for collateral damage.--Again, not a good move, not remotely likely to happen, but it would work over time.

If we are willing to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iraqis to stop a few terrorists from kidnapping and murdering a few innocent Westerners, what exactly would make the terrorists worse than us?

[KevinNU7]

What if you found out the terrorists were in Monticello, GA. Would you be alright with option #3 then?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

What's disturbing is that a group of terrorists threaten to kill an innocent man and demand that a government take a specific action, and hundreds of citizens respond by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do. After seeing reactions like this you can bet that the terrorists are already busy lining up their next victim--they couldn't ask for a better response.

Seoul has millions of people. The fact that hundreds gathered is no surprise. You could probably easily find the same number of moonbats in any major US city, or decent-sized college town. If it was tens of thousands marching that would be a problem, but it was hundreds out of millions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by clintl

If we are willing to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iraqis to stop a few terrorists from kidnapping and murdering a few innocent Westerners, what exactly would make the terrorists worse than us?

You're writing as if I'm advocating such a thing.

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You're writing as if I'm advocating such a thing.

I think clint was responding to John's comments but had to quote you inorder to get the #3 and text in his quote.

[clintl]

Not at all. That solution is completely unacceptable, and if the US pursued it, the proper world response would be to never trust the US as a moral voice in world affairs again. There would be nothing to distinguish us from the hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by clintl

Not at all.

This is in response to what?

[oliegirl]

What if you found out the terrorists were in Monticello, GA. Would you be alright with option #3 then?

If I found out that there were terrorists in the town where I lived, first of all I would get the hell out of there immediately. Then they can obliterate the place as far as I am concerned...I'd be more supportive of it in my own town than I am in country I have never been to and never plan to visit.

[oliegirl]

Not at all. That solution is completely unacceptable, and if the US pursued it, the proper world response would be to never trust the US as a moral voice in world affairs again. There would be nothing to distinguish us from the hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

So given this train of thought, we are already "terrorists" because we bombed Japan. How is it any different? A specific group of people are threatening other countries, killing innocent people in horrible and inhumane ways...

[clintl]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

This is in response to what?

Your post, questioning my post. Although Kevin is right that Jon's remarks were the reason I posted in the first place.

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

If I found out that there were terrorists in the town where I lived, first of all I would get the hell out of there immediately. Then they can obliterate the place as far as I am concerned...I'd be more supportive of it in my own town than I am in country I have never been to and never plan to visit.

What if you didn't know they were there until it was too late.

People can't jsut pick up their shit and walk out of Iraq or SA, they have no idea where to turn because not matter where they go they could end up right where anotehr terrorist group is.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

So given this train of thought, we are already "terrorists" because we bombed Japan. How is it any different? A specific group of people are threatening other countries, killing innocent people in horrible and inhumane ways...

That would require streaching the definition a bit, but some people might see things exactly that way.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

So given this train of thought, we are already "terrorists" because we bombed Japan. How is it any different? A specific group of people are threatening other countries, killing innocent people in horrible and inhumane ways...

There has been plenty of soul searching by many people about whether we should have dropped the bombs on Japan, but the supportive arguments always come down on the side that they save more lives than they took, and given that there was a full-scale war on, and the US would have invaded Japan, it's a reasonable argument to make. That's not the case here.

[oliegirl]

People can't jsut pick up their shit and walk out of Iraq or SA, they have no idea where to turn because not matter where they go they could end up right where anotehr terrorist group is.

I know this is going to sound crass, and I'll probably get flamed for it, but sometimes you have to do something horrible in order to insure that things like this won't happen in the future. If someone came to you, and said - you have to make a decision. Either bomb these people and wipe out their terrorist cells (or cripple them beyond effectiveness) so that the rest of the world is safe for the next 50-100 years or so, or do nothing and "hope" that they choose to only keep bombing the other side of the world and beheading hostages one at a time instead of creating mass graves....what do you do? I'd launch the missles in a heartbeat.

[oliegirl]

There has been plenty of soul searching by many people about whether we should have dropped the bombs on Japan, but the supportive arguments always come down on the side that they save more lives than they took, and given that there was a full-scale war on, and the US would have invaded Japan, it's a reasonable argument to make. That's not the case here.

This may not be a way by "traditional" definition, but then again, neither was the cold war. Just because it's not what history books tell us a war is, doesn't mean it's not a war.

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I know this is going to sound crass, and I'll probably get flamed for it, but sometimes you have to do something horrible in order to insure that things like this won't happen in the future. If someone came to you, and said - you have to make a decision. Either bomb these people and wipe out their terrorist cells (or cripple them beyond effectiveness) so that the rest of the world is safe for the next 50-100 years or so, or do nothing and "hope" that they choose to only keep bombing the other side of the world and beheading hostages one at a time instead of creating mass graves....what do you do? I'd launch the missles in a heartbeat.

What if you did that and then you got bombed too because you either;

A) didn't get all the bad guys
B) didn't realize that country A,B and C were going to be pissed off by this and now they are coming after you.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

1. Openly and unapologetically torture any detainee with real or suspected ties to AQ until we get meaningful information or until we're convinced they have none.--Again, not desirable or remotely likely, but it would work over time. We'd get the needed information, and maybe even discourage others from joining their ranks. When they torture, rape and murder, they are now relatively secure in the knowledge that we will not retaliate in kind.

Wouldn't this just make "them" hate us more and encourage more to join their ranks? Morality aside, I honestly think this makes AQ stronger, not weaker.


The fact that we don't do what they do, the fact that we don't do the things on that list, that's why we're the good guys. We can be hurt, and outraged, because we don't do the things they do. Once we start doing it back, we don't have the moral high ground anymore. Once we start doing the things on this list, I'm off to Canada, eh?

You know, we're not losing tons of men here. The men we are losing are trumped up in the press. The beheadings are grusome, but men are going to die. It's war. We're there voluntarily. Many are there earning hazard pay. All should understand the risk. That doesn't make what is happening to these civilians OK, but, they have to understand the risk. As we are constantly reminded, this is a war. Bad things happen in a war. I can't imagine the fact that these few people are dying in this terrible way could sway my opinion in either way on the war. I cannot imagine Joe Average for the war seeing this and changing his mind about us being there, and I can't imagine Joe Average against the war is going to all of a sudden take a kill'em all attitude...

The one exception I think we can start to justify making is the collateral damage. Not in terms of innocent civilians, but when insurgants are hiding in mosque's in fallujah, I can see making this attack. As for collateral damage including numerous innocent iraqi's, that's a decision that our armed forces have to make. If they can take out a target with 1000 Iraqi insurgants, or, back to the forgotten Bin Laden, if we could kill him but 100 innocent afghani's or saudi's or whoever would die... that's the type of decision our armed forces are trained for. there was a lot of talk about urban warfare when we went into Iraq. We didn't have to deal with it during the intial strike, but that's the type of thing we're dealing with now. Our men should be trained for it, and we'll win without spitting in the face of the Geneva Convention or changing our standards because it's difficult.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

This may not be a way by "traditional" definition, but then again, neither was the cold war. Just because it's not what history books tell us a war is, doesn't mean it's not a war.

OK, maybe you didn't interpret that completely the way I meant it. But here's what I mean. Japan had a large, capable army that would have fought an invading force very aggressively and head on. It would have been very much like the devastation in Europe.

In Iraq, you have small, clandestine terrorist groups whose capabilities are pretty much limited to car bombs and kidnappings. They are probably attacking at pretty close to the limits of their capabilities now, and even at the rate that they are killing, it would take a really long time before they killed enough to justify the scorched earth policy of Option #3 by actually saving more innocent lives than were cost.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by oliegirl
the government is willing to do it, but the people of the US aren't

Originally Posted by Samdari

Of the people, for the people by the people???

Sad how far we have drifted from that principle.

How so? The unwillingness of the American people to do it is preventing a "willing" government from doing it.

How can you say that we have drifted from that principle?

[oliegirl]

I can't imagine the fact that these few people are dying in this terrible way could sway my opinion in either way on the war. I cannot imagine Joe Average for the war seeing this and changing his mind about us being there, and I can't imagine Joe Average against the war is going to all of a sudden take a kill'em all attitude...

What if instead of the names Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, we were talking about your mother or father, or sister, or me, or Anthony? The fact that these people were civilians makes me more outraged, not less. They were there working, not holidng guns as they walked down the street, not working to institute a new government, just there working. Hazard pay doens't justify being captured, held hostage and then beheaded.

[Ben E Lou]

FWIW, CNN is now reporting it as a beheading as well.

Pentagon: South Korean hostage beheaded

Kim Sun-il in a photo taken during his captivity.

Iraqi insurgents beheaded the South Korean civilian they were holding hostage, the Pentagon said today. The insurgents, in a video broadcast Sunday, had given South Korea 24 hours to cancel plans to send 3,000 additional troops to Iraq, threatening to behead Kim if it did not.

FULL STORY

[oliegirl]

What if you did that and then you got bombed too because you either;

A) didn't get all the bad guys
B) didn't realize that country A,B and C were going to be pissed off by this and now they are coming after you.

Ok, realistically we are never going to get "all" the bad guys. But we can get enough of them to where the ones that are left are not a threat to us or anyone else.

Secondly, what country is going to attack us? They might disagree with us, they might boycott us as a sign of protest, but no country is going to bomb us for fighting terrorists. The world economy depends on us. Someone has to be #1 and we are it. That gives us a lot of responsibility, and a lot of tough decisions to make. Sometimes it sucks being in this position, but I would much rather it be us and not some other country who is less stable economically, militarily, etc...

[Desnudo]

Israel and Russia [USSR] have always followed the eye for an eye mentality. Two of them for every one of us. Looking at their respective histories, has that helped solve their problems with insurgents?

[oliegirl]

Israel and Russia [USSR] have always followed the eye for an eye mentality. Two of them for every one of us. Looking at their respective histories, has that helped solve their problems with insurgents?

I don't know enough about Israel to comment on that, but I would say that from recent history - they tried to be passive, they tried to attain peace, but Palestine continued to bomb them. How did that help them at all.

As for Russia, the reason the soviet empire fell was more economic than anything else. A classless system like communism doesn't work. If they had handled that aspect better I think they might have survived and who knows what the world would be like now.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

What if instead of the names Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, we were talking about your mother or father, or sister, or me, or Anthony? The fact that these people were civilians makes me more outraged, not less. They were there working, not holidng guns as they walked down the street, not working to institute a new government, just there working. Hazard pay doens't justify being captured, held hostage and then beheaded.

If someone in my family chooses to go into a war zone as a civilian, then s/he does so a) against my wishes and after a long, lengthy forceful conversation debating why this could possibly be a good idea, and b) we all know exactly how much danger this person is in every day.

If this family member dies it would pain me to no end. Just like if this family member was mugged and killed walking down the streets of downtown Atlanta by a thug one day.

And no matter how much I hurt, it would not for a second justify some of the overboard responses being atlked about here in Iraq, just like it wouldn't justify me as an individual taking the law into my own hands and killing my family member's killer.

Both are equally unjust death's, both stir up terrible emotions, that we must not act on as we keep the high moral ground and remain on the "good side" instead of sinking to the thug's level.