|
|
Post by JP on Jun 8, 2006 14:16:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by PW on Jun 8, 2006 15:59:17 GMT 1
But it's still an act of war committed by American aircraft on supposedly independent Iraqi territory-which means technically that, since there is supposedly a ceasefire in force, the US have committed a war-crime. Irrespective of the victim-if we're in a world where sovereign governments are allowed to commit war-crimes and people say "this is a good thing" then how far will it go?
For the record, if Al-Zarqawi had been killed by Iraqi authorities attempting to arrest him, then I would have said, unreservedly "this is a good thing". However-the Americans (and the British, because of Blair's support) are still interfering in a region of which they have very little knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Jun 8, 2006 17:40:14 GMT 1
Dunno why but when reading the story I had Another One Bites The Dust by Queen going on in my head.
As for the war or not to war question the fact is that at present we are stuck in the middle of a hostile situation, a kill or be killed environment. It won't really stop as another Al-Zarqawi will step from the breech.
To be honest the British should never have given up the land we aquired during the colonial era of which Iraq was one of ours
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Jun 8, 2006 23:57:52 GMT 1
A smile came to my face when i saw the photos of him lying on the ground dead, i'll try and get the link up soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperMouse on Jun 9, 2006 0:05:07 GMT 1
A smile came to my face when i saw the photos of him lying on the ground dead, i'll try and get the link up soon. Thats sick, no one smiles at dead pictures, no matter how evil the subject was... |
|
|
|
Post by JP on Jun 9, 2006 0:10:10 GMT 1
A smile came to my face when i saw the photos of him lying on the ground dead, i'll try and get the link up soon. Thats sick, no one smiles at dead pictures, no matter how evil the subject was... I did ;D The man was an animal.. |
|
|
|
Post by PW on Jun 9, 2006 0:30:30 GMT 1
He was. But surely, by gloating publicly (as you are) on the death of another human being brings you no higher then his level?
He's dead-and a very evil person has left this life. It doesn't mean you take great delight in it...particularly as it took the deaths of five other people (including a woman and child) to remove him...
You can't have it both ways-showing public distress at the death of one person and then glorifying in the deaths of someone else...irrespective of what they may have been in life.
The predominant reaction in the media, and indeed mine is "well, that was necessary, but it isn't something to be proud of" not "YEAH, we killed the SOB!"
Unless of course you can explain the moral difference between terrorists gloating about the murder of innocents and you gloating about the killing of terrorists.
(note the key word here is "gloating"-I am not taking exception to the view that this person was evil and deserved punishment-more the joy in the taking of another human life-which is one of the characteristics that people deplore so much in terrorists).
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Jun 9, 2006 1:18:59 GMT 1
I'm just glad to see him dead PW!
You can't not think of Ken Bigley and the other innocent people who were brutally killed by this man and slightly feel that justice has been done..
|
|
|
|
Post by PW on Jun 9, 2006 2:09:56 GMT 1
Don't bring Ken Bigley etc in to justify it...gloating over Zarqawi's death (as opposed to showing relief), is, in my view, fundamentally the same as a terrorist gloating over any other person's death, because their belief is also "they deserved it". Yet you would call one morally corrupt and worthy of being hunted down and killed with an airstrike costing hundreds of thousands of dollars for the attack alone, and defend the other?
I look at this and see, as I said above, the death of someone who committed acts so evil (in the view of the vast majority of humanity) that the taking of his own life in return does not evoke the same revulsion as, say, the rape and murder of a child would. HOWEVER, I don't take any pleasure in it, nor do I feel joy in it. I simply think "an extremely evil human being, who abused the privilege of breathing that was given to him in order to cause fear and pain in others' lives, is dead-perhaps the world will now improve slightly"
The taking of a life is the worst thing one human being can do to another-it may be considered necessary and even defensible in cases such as this one-however, it should never be a cause of pleasure...exhibition of such, in my view, is a possible symptom of, at the very worst, a lack of respect for human life as a whole-and is indeed a medically-documented symptom of possible psychopathic tendencies.
There is a world of difference between my attitude (relief) and the one you're exhibiting (pleasure)...
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Jun 9, 2006 2:16:16 GMT 1
If that's what you believe, then fair play to you  A very evil man was killed yesterday, it made my day a little happier. If that makes me psychopathic or a bad person, then so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by PW on Jun 9, 2006 2:41:41 GMT 1
You're misunderstanding me...
It's not the fact that you're privately relieved he's dead (and thus the feelings of relief disguised as happiness) that I'm taking issue with (that is an emotion probably shared by the greater part of the West and indeed the East as well): it's the open pleasure, the stating of "I'm glad he's dead" or "this guy's dead-that's good news" and offers to post pictures of the corpse. That goes beyond saying "did you hear they caught up with Zarqawi-about time, eh" and into the realms of "hey, we (the West) killed a guy-ain't that great?! Come and look at how clever we are, everybody!"-which is verging dangerously towards the reactions of Nazis in WW2 and others who thought that lives were something to be taken away lightly, so long as you could justify it in your own mind.
Most human beings only take lives as a last resort-when their own or that of their families are directly threatened, and there is no other option. Glorifying in either your own-act of life-taking or publicising that of others in a positive way is a bad thing...because who's to say, based on that evidence, that the person wouldn't take the lives of others in a similar way?
I find it interesting that the "I'm pleased when someone like that dies" lobby are usually those who don't actually have to be anywhere near the killing-it is a documented fact that people who have actually taken life (even to defend their own) are plagued with nightmares, doubts etc, even if the taking of a life was the only means for them to reach their goal. Even the thought of actually taking another life causes doubts in most people-consider your own reaction to the question "would you kill someone if they threatened your family"-even the most confident of men, and women will pause and wonder "could I really do it?" when they think about it.
I just think that the public rejoicing over this man's death which your exhibiting is distasteful-it certainly doesn't reflect well on you as a person-as you've seen from the comments of others in this thread. It's your opinion, and you have a right to hold it, but that's my view on it, and I'd appreciate it if it wasn't so public...
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Jun 9, 2006 11:02:22 GMT 1
It's only you and your good pal Ali that seem to have a problem and we all know why.
At the end of the day Wheeler, you do love to kick up a fuss so that's why i'm taking your comments with a pinch of salt. Go on other forums, let's use THF as an example, there isn't one person on there reacting like you and that's actually got the link to the pictures of the corpse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steph Cowley on Jun 9, 2006 11:17:50 GMT 1
It's your opinion, and you have a right to hold it, but that's my view on it, and I'd appreciate it if it wasn't so public... Why shouldn't it be? I'm not necessarily agreeing with JP's opinion, but as you say, he has a right to his opinion. He also has the right to post his opinion on this forum. You also have the right to post your opinion on this forum, and you have done. Just because you don't agree with JP's opinion doesn't mean he should lose his right to post it on the forum. If you think it does, then you and every other member should also lose the right to post their opinions. By all means say you don't agree with it if you don't, but don't suggest that his rights should be taken away just because you don't agree with him. |
|
|
|
Post by JP on Jun 9, 2006 11:27:52 GMT 1
It's your opinion, and you have a right to hold it, but that's my view on it, and I'd appreciate it if it wasn't so public... Why shouldn't it be? I'm not necessarily agreeing with JP's opinion, but as you say, he has a right to his opinion. He also has the right to post his opinion on this forum. You also have the right to post your opinion on this forum, and you have done. Just because you don't agree with JP's opinion doesn't mean he should lose his right to post it on the forum. If you think it does, then you and every other member should also lose the right to post their opinions. By all means say you don't agree with it if you don't, but don't suggest that his rights should be taken away just because you don't agree with him.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by PW on Jun 9, 2006 12:05:33 GMT 1
Why shouldn't it be? I'm not necessarily agreeing with JP's opinion, but as you say, he has a right to his opinion. He also has the right to post his opinion on this forum. You also have the right to post your opinion on this forum, and you have done. Just because you don't agree with JP's opinion doesn't mean he should lose his right to post it on the forum. If you think it does, then you and every other member should also lose the right to post their opinions. By all means say you don't agree with it if you don't, but don't suggest that his rights should be taken away just because you don't agree with him. Where did I say that his right should be taken away? I haven't said at any point that I had a problem with his right to post it-just that I found what he was posting somewhat distasteful, and I personally would prefer it if the content was toned down to, say "this is good for the people of Iraq, don't you think" rather then "I'm glad the SOB is dead" (note-I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the tone of the thing)-and that links to the pictures of the corpse were not posted-if people want to look at them, they'll find them-but most people take no pleasure in looking at a corpse, even that of a terrorist. Particularly after I was absolutely crucified for asking why there was so much fuss about the death of Eddie Guerrero back a while ago-and at no point then did I say anything as potentially objectionable as "I'm glad he's dead". To put it another way-does posting links to a picture of a corpse (which is universally agreed to be adult material) IRRESPECTIVE of the identity, contravene forum rules, or does it not-or is it only to be applied when the corpse is not that of someone people generally agree is not a hugely great loss to the world? For the record, if I was on THF I'd equally take issue there-as I'm sure that somewhere in their rules is the banning of linkage to pornographic or adult material... And you know as well as I do that, given a link to a site like ogrish, most people are not just going to click on the one thing, but have a look at others as well-or is "well, we thought it was OK because it was on other forums" going to be the defence when someone complains about being presented with material that most people find, at the very least, distasteful... Or, by the same defence (i.e it's in the public domain) am I now allowed to post a link to the famous Eddie Adams picture of a Vietnamese being shot in the head (google it if you don't know what I mean)? |
|
