quote:

---

Originally posted by Semsema:
Have just seen the most horrific footage of an Egyptian being beheaded. He confessed to being a spy in the pay of the U.S.A. responsible for the killing of men, women & children.

When is sanity going to prevail to stop these killings?

---

Wouldn't a man about to be beheaded say just about anything to save his life?

Common sense here people. I know I would say just about anything to fend off an execution.

And he wasn't killing innocent women and children. He was working for a subcontractor to the US military, he didn't have any weapons with him. Many subcontractors aren't allowed to carry any weapons with them, if they did they would be fired on the spot. He is just trying to provide for his family.

My husband has told me of at least 10 different Egyptians who work as subcontractors, electricians, construction workers, truck drivers, translators, and so forth. Tell me in which of these listed professions does it require to kill women and children?

Now who is siding with the insurgents here? Why side with people who have executed because they are not allowed to carry any weapons?

Okay, Semsema, Kenzie, and Luxorlover go out to your local teamsters union headquarters and hand them their execution notices for all their union members. Why not kill all skilled workers who don't carry a weapon to work everyday. That will solved all of your problems.

just think in this:

the enemy is trying to slice and skin your husband and children. ...your 'landsman' hasn't any weapons, but is sharpened their knifes and cooking the enemies food and is driving the cars which transports them to YOUR home.....
...I am rather sure you will not cook lunch for them...!?

Who SUPPORT the enemy - IS enemy!
If they wouldn't support them, then they couldn't kill that way !

My DEAR husband clicked around and found the video in which they killed severel men by cutting their neck - without "filter" - from the beginning to the very end...with all voices.......
My children came voiceless from the backside of my husband and watched ALL this HORROR !

I don't like this killings. But what they have done? They HELPED to kill innocent people with desire. The one, f.e., had NO WEAPONS, just some chip in his pocket.
Everytime he found some people gathered at one place he throw one of these chip; the satellit of the enemy got signal and threw without asking bombs over children, innocent people at this very place of this chip. He got a hundred Dollar per thrown chip...maybe he lost some in his way to the supermarket...with desire...
After listening this and watching again the horrifying injuries and death of iraqies, it didn't hurt more so much to watch this bleedy corpsless heads...

...good night-and daymares everybody....

quote:

---

Originally posted by germansara:
Ohhh, sonomod,

just think in this:

the enemy is trying to slice and skin your husband and children. ...your 'landsman' hasn't any weapons, but is sharpened their knifes and cooking the enemies food and is driving the cars which transports them to YOUR home.....
...I am rather sure you will not cook lunch for them...!?

Who SUPPORT the enemy - IS enemy!
If they wouldn't support them, then they couldn't kill that way !

Sara

---

Ever heard of 'there is 3 sides to every story' two opposing sides and the truth.

Now we all know the insurgents are not Iraqis they are from other arab states.

And I have stated this before. Have any of yous noticed that the Muslim countries under attack are predominately Shia? If a predominately Sunni country was under attack the other Arabs would join in support and WW3 would commense.

Personally my husband supports both wars started by Georgey boy and mainly because it creates a diversion so Sunnis can revert Shias to their faith. Taliban only came to Afghanistan to revert Shias to Sunni faith and the Saudis gave their full support to Georgey boy when our troops invaded the country.

I have software on my pc that allows me to translate Arab web pages to english. And I have read the vulgar hate.

These insurgents are only in Iraq because they want to manipulate an opportunity to push an Sunni cleric into power. It has nothing to do with fighting the western enemy. Their plans are to rid the world of the Shia faith.

Give it time and these same insurgents will invoke a conflict in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, India and other Shia holdouts. I know people from Indonesia, they point out that the armed coflict there just a few years ago was started by Sunnis wanting to revert Shias. Why cant they use intellect and the Islamic scriptures to do this instead of violence?

germansara really take a complete look at this picture. Its called exploitation and forced conversions.

But no Saddam was Sunni and thats what kept Saddam in power he was promising the Arabs Sunnis that Iraqis would revert to Sunni faith and thats why none of yous Sunnis cared about the suffering of Iraqis.

quote:

---

He was working for a subcontractor to the US military, he didn't have any weapons with him. Many subcontractors aren't allowed to carry any weapons with them, if they did they would be fired on the spot. He is just trying to provide for his family.

---

I don’t agree with killing people in this way. But he was not innocent; he was taking part in the occupation of a foreign country, in a invasion characterized as illegal by the UN.

The occupation which has killed 100 thousand civilians so far, cannot be maintained unless you have people assisting in the maintaining the American war machine.

Before we get high and mighty we should look at the strategy of total war as practiced by both allies and axis against each other’s civilians.

quote:

---

Now we all know the insurgents are not Iraqis they are from other arab states.

---

Not according to the American army, Of the 1000 people captured at Fallujah, only 15 where foreign.

The vast majority of the Iraqi resistance is Iraqi.

quote:

---

And I have stated this before. Have any of yous noticed that the Muslim countries under attack are predominately Shia? If a predominately Sunni country was under attack the other Arabs would join in support and WW3 would commense.

---

On the one hand you say that the resistance is foreign and now your complain that no one would support Iraq when invaded?

In reality I don't think they would.

Which country would invade to help? Jordon? Who's king took cash money from the American government every year until it was discovered?

Saudi? Kuwait? Who are dependent on American support for maintaining their governments?

America always supported Saddam, as did their allies in the region against Iran with the exception of Syria which is now on the cutting block.

But yet today it is Saddam’s Sunni aspect you wish to emphasize? How did Saddam act?

He was first and foremost a secularist and a nationalist. The fact is he was only interested in playing ethnic, religious groups, and political groups against each other to maintain his power. He was happy to slaughter Sunni and Shia clergy when they opposed him. His Sunni identity does not figure in his actions. Therefore mentioning it can only be irrelevant.

He was also a CIA agent who was taken to Egypt by the CIA to hide after their failed attempt to kill Kassam, who was a Nasserite inspired president of Iraq.

The Americans used to hand out names of people planning uprisings or that they wanted eliminated (Shia, sunni, and communists) to Saddam for elimination. I can post a article of quoting the daughter of a famous Shia politician who’s name was on one of those lists, who has returned to Iraq. In fact the clerics of Fallujah where a particular target for Saddam.

America armed both in the Iran-Iraq conflict, so they could slaughter each other, and the Iraqi army was majority Shia and where happy to fight against Iran.

Syria a Sunni country is in alliance with Iran, and together they maintain peace in Lebanon and aided Lebanon become free. Both have always supported each other.

Saudi Arabia has a large Shia population is the subject of numerous papers by the RAND corporation (American army think tank). About how they would have to make sure that if they topple the Saudis the Shia don’t get any power.

See (http://www.rupe-india.org/34/agenda.html)

Who toppled the democratically elected leader of Iran to replace him with a Monarchy and for what reason? Who put the Saudis in power?

Do some research please, and I’m sure you will come to the conclusion that all residents of the middle-east have the same enemies.

And we have seen what happens when they work together (Lebanon) and we will see in Iraq what happens when they fall for the same old divide and conquer tactics.

The minority sect of Druze Muslims in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are Shia. Druze Muslims are extremely repressed by the Sunni majority and there are a few here in the city I live in. If your a Druze you don't make it out of poverty and the USA INS will give you assylum if you can make it here in one piece.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sokarya_686@hotmail.com:
ALL Shia moslems were banned and exiled from Iraq in the Hussein Regime, most of them went to Iran. After Hussein fell, the Shias came back and wanted a slice of the power in government. The Sunni Moslems dont want them in power AT ALL. This is what 9O% of all the unrest is - Moslems fighting each other, brother against brother, for supremacy in the new ruling government. Its not the Americans and the world fighting and oppressing Iraq at all, its about Moslems fighting Moslems over doctrinal differences and a power struggle.
If Nato and the USA pulled out, there would be catastrophic slaughter. This is, of course, what the Sunni Moslems would like because they have the majority and would end up with all the power, and they would rule like the Taliban. Theres no way this is going to happen.... Charlie.

---

Pretty much inaccurate, in every respect.

quote:

---

In my experience I have had the fortunate experience of being in a seminar where a Iraqi assylum seeker spoke of how you made it up the ranks of the Baathist party only if you revert to the Sunni faith.

---

That's very strange. The baath part was founded by a Syrian Christian.

Tarq Aziz was a senior member of the baath party, he would be surprised to find out he was a Sunni.

quote:

---

Druze Muslims are extremely repressed by the Sunni majority and there are a few here in the city I live in. If your a Druze you don't make it out of poverty and the USA INS will give you asylum if you can make it here in one piece.

---

You found this out from the same people who told you Tarq aziz was a Sunni?

The Druze is the ruling group in Syria and the power brokers in Lebanon. The Rulling class is being oppressed by their subjects ?

quote:

---

I have been lurching amongst Shia chat forums and I must say this;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ford:

The best source of factual information.

---

I never commented on who started the Baathist party or who Tarq Aziz was or his motivations.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the Republican party has tried very hard to undo all that Abraham accomplished.

Political parties shift and change overnight in regions with newly drawn borders.

You can twist my words or throw in contradictory information whatever fashion you want, I won't change the facts.

If you don't remember the Maronite Christains of Lebanon have the power base thanks to French help. Before the French left the French did a concesus of population and considered the Christains to be more numerous so they have the advantage.

And Syrian Druzes have been shot in broad daylight in Palestinian refugee camps. No Druzes in Syria are the lowest of the lower class and extremely hated. During the Palestinian Coup of the Syrian government the Druzes felt the brunt of the Syrian government crack down and were the most responsible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luxorlover:
Ford -can I ask in what way do you agree with killing people and in what circumstances? I am not being contentious, I am interested.

---

Self defense.
Corporal punishment.

Neither of theses two is applicable in this case. Since their is no court or authority to sentence someone to death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonomod:
Syrian government crack down and were the most responsible.
[/B]

---

What religon is does the leader of syria belong to?

No response to Tarq aziz being a christian?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ford:
Self defense.
Corporal punishment.

Neither of theses two is applicable in this case. Since their is no court or authority to sentence someone to death.

Beheading someone cleanly as a form of corporal punishment as deemed by a court of law, is a far cry from cutting someone head off with a rusty knife.

---

Opps sorry to inject here, but what country in this world executes by beheading any more?

And doesn't some sort of international court or organization like lets say the Geneva convention decry against beheadings as inhumane and uncivilized? Hello, the swiss neutral as they are....

quote:

---

Originally posted by ford:
What religon is does the leader of syria belong to?

No response to Tarq aziz being a christian?

[This message has been edited by ford (edited 05 January 2005).]

---

I don't know what religion this new son of a president is. I don't care.

I don't hear too much about Tarq Aziz to care.

I doesn't really enter my mind nor do I see any soundbits on aljazeera relating to this Tarq Aziz.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonomod:

Opps sorry to inject here, but what country in this world executes by beheading any more?

And doesn't some sort of international court or organization like lets say the Geneva convention decry against beheadings as inhumane and uncivilized? Hello, the swiss neutral as they are....

Ford you sound just a little blood thirsty. I don't fantasize about beheading someone, maybe castration, but not beheading someone.

---

Now castration really does sound blood thirsty.

If you’re against governments executing their citizens for crimes, then I can understand that. I don’t think killing anybody can be classed as civilized, what ever methods used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonomod:

I don't know what religion this new son of a president is. I don't care.

I don't hear too much about Tarq Aziz to care.

I doesn't really enter my mind nor do I see any soundbits on aljazeera relating to this Tarq Aziz.

Sorry both topics draw a blank.

---

Let me help.

The president of Syria belongs to the allawi group as do most of the senior leadership. I made a mistake previously by saying they where druze. They are allawi.

The link from the encyoplodia will tell you that they claim to be Twelver Shiites.

Tariq Aziz was a Christian,and the Foreign Minister of Iraq, the baath party did not discriminate based on religion as long as your towed the party line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Aziz

quote:

---

Originally posted by ford:
Now castration really does sound blood thirsty.

If you’re against governments executing their citizens for crimes, then I can understand that. I don’t think killing anybody can be classed as civilized, what ever methods used.

But I don't think beheading is any crueler than say being gassed to death or fried in a electric chair or being shot in the head.

---

I personally am against any kind of killing, except maybe child molesters. Then I start thinking of castration.

And personally I don't like it when another state of the union executes someone. At least 20% of the time after the execution takes place we find out the executed convict was innocent so I don't find the technique useful.

In my state we have Donald Bloom who killed Katie Porter and Donald Bloom owned a house just across the street from a family friend. If he touched a hair on the daughter of this family's head I would've instantly advocated castration and then to live with no d*ck or balls the rest of his life in prison. That would make alot of pain subside, but not dissapait.