al-Qaeda starts a means of execution worse than beheading...

[Manedwolf]

Pouring lighter fluid onto them, then pushing them into a burning pit.

Al Qaeda's latest display of terror has made its way onto the Internet, showing horrifying images of what appear to be prisoners in Iraq being doused with an inflammatory liquid and then burned alive.

The video, which appears to have been posted first on Google last December in an alleged anti-Al Qaeda Web film, shows five insurgents standing behind three blindfolded prisoners kneeling at the edge of a burning pit.

"And now that we have captured these scums who committed this dreadful crime, we will burn them with this fire," the Al Qaeda leader says in Arabic. "The same fire which they committed their crime with.

"And I swear by God almighty that, I swear by God almighty that we will have no mercy on them," he continues. "Allahuakbar, Allahuakbar."

As he speaks, two of the insurgents pour liquid on the blindfolded prisoners. Then they push the bound men into the pit, where they are engulfed in flames.

According to the summary  in Arabic and German  included in the nearly 15-minute video posted on Google, many of the clips were found in Diyala, Iraq. The makers of the film say that the originals were "passed to us by others."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330810,00.html

Animals. 

[MillCreek]

It reminds me of the 'necklacing' done in South Africa and Haiti some years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

[CAnnoneer]

Barbaric cultures with barbaric customs. What else is new?

Apologetic legalese equivocating nonsense incoming in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

[Bogie]

Fight fire with fire. Every time we find them, we drop leaflets, telling all unaffiliated civilians to leave. Four hours later, we bomb the square mile.
 
Sooner or later, the civilians won't allow them around.
 

[seeker_two]

Fight fire with fire. Every time we find them, we drop leaflets, telling all unaffiliated civilians to leave. Four hours later, we bomb the square mile.
 
Sooner or later, the civilians won't allow them around.
 

Change it to one hour and use fuel-air and WP bombs, and I'm for it, too....

[roo_ster]

Not a big fan of  Desmond Tutu here, but this shows some brass balls:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu once famously saved a near victim of necklacing when he rushed into a large gathered crowd and threw his arms around a man accused of being a police informer, who was about to be killed. Tutu's actions, which were caught on film, caused the crowd to release the man.

[Scout26]

Yep, waterboarding is soooooo much worse.....

[De Selby]

Fight fire with fire. Every time we find them, we drop leaflets, telling all unaffiliated civilians to leave. Four hours later, we bomb the square mile.
 
Sooner or later, the civilians won't allow them around.
 

Change it to one hour and use fuel-air and WP bombs, and I'm for it, too....

Yep-that's what civilized nations do right? 

An article about a horrific crime being committed leads people to start chanting for an equally horrific crime to be committed against millions of people instead of just one.  I fail to see how engaging in this barbaric behavior will make us even an iota better than the terrorists.

[Standing Wolf]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

[The Rabbi]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

[Tecumseh]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

  Yes, because all Muslims are terrorists.  Just as all Catholics are pedophiles. 

[seeker_two]

Fight fire with fire. Every time we find them, we drop leaflets, telling all unaffiliated civilians to leave. Four hours later, we bomb the square mile.
 
Sooner or later, the civilians won't allow them around.
 

Change it to one hour and use fuel-air and WP bombs, and I'm for it, too....

Yep-that's what civilized nations do right? 

No......that's what nations that want to show other nations/organizations why a second attack wouldn't be such a good idea do......

Research traditional Middle-Eastern warfare.....always good to know the language.....

[De Selby]

Fight fire with fire. Every time we find them, we drop leaflets, telling all unaffiliated civilians to leave. Four hours later, we bomb the square mile.
 
Sooner or later, the civilians won't allow them around.
 

Change it to one hour and use fuel-air and WP bombs, and I'm for it, too....

Yep-that's what civilized nations do right? 

No......that's what nations that want to show other nations/organizations why a second attack wouldn't be such a good idea do......

True.  That's what the terrorists are doing too-showing people that it's not a good idea to disobey them.  I will quote the article:

"And now that we have captured these scums who committed this dreadful crime, we will burn them with this fire," the Al Qaeda leader says in Arabic. "The same fire which they committed their crime with.

The only difference between what you are advocating, and what these guys are doing, is that you think it should be done from the sky to millions of people.

I have no idea how you can possibly see any moral difference between what you advocate doing, and what the terrorists do.

Research traditional Middle-Eastern warfare.....always good to know the language.....

Please identify the sources on "traditional middle eastern warfare" you consulted to come up with this idea.

[De Selby]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

[Matthew Carberry]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

Be accurate.

Malaysia was not an example of a "colonial attack on the natives" in any way, shape or form.  It was a struggle by minority (in number) Communists, most of whom were ethnic Chinese, not indigenous peoples, to take political power under the guise of anti-colonialism.

This is easily proven by their continuation/resumption of attacks after complete sovereignty was granted in '57.  At no point in the emergency did their "counter-colonial" effort have any widespread real support amongst the Malaysian population.

 

[Manedwolf]

I'm more in favor of how the British dealt with the Thugees.

[De Selby]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

Be accurate.

Malaysia was not an example of a "colonial attack on the natives" in any way, shape or form.  It was a struggle by minority (in number) Communists, most of whom were ethnic Chinese, not indigenous peoples, to take political power under the guise of anti-colonialism.

This is easily proven by their continuation/resumption of attacks after complete sovereignty was granted in '57.  At no point in the emergency did their "counter-colonial" effort have any widespread real support amongst the Malaysian population.

 

In what sense is a war fought by the colonial power, while it occupies the home of the people it fights, not a "colonial attack on the natives"?

Maybe you don't think they were popular-they weren't, judging by the evidence.  But they were natives, and the police forces that destroyed the movement were colonial police, serving not at the behest of the Malay people, but at the pleasure of the government of England.  And they fought to stop threats to Colonial rule, not to "preserve the freedom of malaya" or any other such notion.

Those facts made it a colonial war, regardless of the popularity/unpopularity of the movement crushed by the colonial forces.

[De Selby]

I'm more in favor of how the British dealt with the Thugees.

How appropriate-not only was this a prime example of a colonial campaign designed to smash any threat to colonial rule....

There's actually a debate as to whether or not the Thugees even existed during this time.  It may very well have been a fairy tale concocted to justify a widespread secret police pogrom against the population. 

But hey, if it's for "civilization" it must be good, right?

[never_retreat]

Tecumseh
All Muslims are terrorists
Its a known fact. Read their book sometime.

[De Selby]

Tecumseh
All Muslims are terrorists
Its a known fact. Read their book sometime.

When did you read it?

[Manedwolf]

I'm more in favor of how the British dealt with the Thugees.

How appropriate-not only was this a prime example of a colonial campaign designed to smash any threat to colonial rule....

There's actually a debate as to whether or not the Thugees even existed during this time.  It may very well have been a fairy tale concocted to justify a widespread secret police pogrom against the population. 

But hey, if it's for "civilization" it must be good, right?

I notice that, as usual, you're trying to distract from the original atrocity committed by Islamic extremists, and trying to do your "B-b-but the WEST!..." schtick.

Can't you ever express outrage at the terrorists and leave it at that? MUST you continually try to obfuscate and divert from the horrible things they do? It makes me wonder about you, it really does.

[De Selby]

I'm more in favor of how the British dealt with the Thugees.

How appropriate-not only was this a prime example of a colonial campaign designed to smash any threat to colonial rule....

There's actually a debate as to whether or not the Thugees even existed during this time.  It may very well have been a fairy tale concocted to justify a widespread secret police pogrom against the population. 

But hey, if it's for "civilization" it must be good, right?

I notice that, as usual, you're trying to distract from the original atrocity committed by Islamic extremists, and trying to do your "B-b-but the WEST!..." schtick.

Can't you ever express outrage at the terrorists and leave it at that? MUST you continually try to obfuscate and divert from the horrible things they do? It makes me wonder about you, it really does.

Pointing out that burning a million people in a city is also terrorism is not "but but the west!".   It's a specific point about a specific comment-if promoting terrorism is a great crime, it should not be done.  Period.  I wish you were as intolerant of support for terrorism by people who agree with you as you are of middle eastern terrorists; if we were all so broadly against terrorism, it'd probably be a whole lot easier to stop it. 

But saying on the one hand "look at these barbarians! They burn people!" and then turning around and saying "Ah ha, I know how to stop it...let's a burn a thousand for every one they burn!" just makes us look more barbaric than the terrorists. 

Maybe you'd like for me to be emotional and upset and to not say anything rational when I see an article and the terror supporting responses like this, but it's in my nature to respond with my noggin. 

[Finch]

Tecumseh
All Muslims are terrorists
Its a known fact. Read their book sometime.

Right, because the Muslim text is the only one that advocates the killing of non-believers.

*cough* Deuteronomy *cough*

[The Rabbi]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

Be accurate.

Malaysia was not an example of a "colonial attack on the natives" in any way, shape or form.  It was a struggle by minority (in number) Communists, most of whom were ethnic Chinese, not indigenous peoples, to take political power under the guise of anti-colonialism.

This is easily proven by their continuation/resumption of attacks after complete sovereignty was granted in '57.  At no point in the emergency did their "counter-colonial" effort have any widespread real support amongst the Malaysian population.

 

In what sense is a war fought by the colonial power, while it occupies the home of the people it fights, not a "colonial attack on the natives"?

Maybe you don't think they were popular-they weren't, judging by the evidence.  But they were natives, and the police forces that destroyed the movement were colonial police, serving not at the behest of the Malay people, but at the pleasure of the government of England.  And they fought to stop threats to Colonial rule, not to "preserve the freedom of malaya" or any other such notion.

Those facts made it a colonial war, regardless of the popularity/unpopularity of the movement crushed by the colonial forces.

I am consistently amazed at your breadth of knowledge.  It doesn't matter what period or what country, you are a wealth of information.
If some of it were actually true it would be even more impressive.
In this case your facts are way off.  The British had already determined to make Malaya independent.  The struggle was for post-colonial Malaya, whether it would be communist or not.
So any opinion you have on this is invalid because your factual basis is simply wrong.

[CAnnoneer]

The only difference between what you are advocating, and what these guys are doing, is that you think it should be done from the sky to millions of people. I have no idea how you can possibly see any moral difference between what you advocate doing, and what the terrorists do.

Absolutely wrong. There is a HUGE difference. It is the difference between the allies and the nazis in bombing raids and the difference between a guy defending himself with a gun against the attack of a crazed maniac with a knife.

There is NO moral equivalence between us and these animals.

I used to buy into the nonsense that the terrorists are just propaganda geniuses who do all this barbaric stuff to scare the meek westerners. That is already a western, rational perception of the inherently irrational, and therefore it is wrong.

These guys are animals. For whatever despicable reason, they are twisted and evil from inside. They come up with these methods as a form of internal gratification that has nothing to do with politics, the victim, or propaganda. The way to see this is to observe that they would saw off heads even if there is no camera, even if the act takes place someplace in the boonies where nobody will document it and no meek westerner will see it. They do it in the same way children torture small animals - out of fascination, sense of power, and lack of ethical backbone. When grownups do what they do, it is also out of a sense of self-loathing, which matches nicely with their political, military, and technological impotence.

Most importantly, if one day the West finally gets fed up and wipes out those toilets in a nuclear deployment, it will ultimately make the world a better place, because it will wipe out the barbaric cultures and reinforce the global notion that barbarism will not be tolerated. And that more easily than anything else establishes the inequivalence between us and them.