posted
I am sorry, but I hate the people who did this. Every breath they take is an affront to all mankind.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially since why would they think anyone is going to remove troops over this? It's been done how many times to citizens of at least three countries, and it hasn't worked once. Do they just think eventually sheer numbers will make us change our mind and pull out? Why isn't someone saying "Ooops, kidnapping and beheading/shooting civilians doesn't seem to be working, let's try another tactic!" Not like another tactic would be any better from our point of view, but at least it wouldn't seem so idiotically pointless.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw this on the news and had to hold back the tears. I am just so so sick over this...she gave her life to help the downtrodden, refused to leave, and was killed.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay : Regular warfare is an effort to kill soldiers until the sheer number of dead makes the other guy change his mind and start negotiating. Why should hostage warfare be any different? So yes, they are expecting numbers to kill the will to war. And as I recall, it has worked once already, with the Philippines.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid I'm just not that sympathetic - she did, after all, choose to walk into a country where any and all Westerners are fair game.
Good intentions do not stop bullets.
-Trevor
Edit: And KoM - it's not the sheer number of dead soldiers. It's the sheer number of dead civilians and destruction of resources that usually forces the other country to change his/her/it's mind.
posted
TMedina, why do the facts you state make you not sympathetic? Should I not be sympathetic when a soldier dies, because "he signed up for the military he took his chances?" Does that mean the family deserves no sympathy from others?
Regardless of why she was there, or what her choices were, she was a non-combatant, who was kidnapped and died a horrible death. That is deserving of some sympathy, is it not?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm afraid I'm just not that sympathetic - she did, after all, choose to walk into a country where any and all Westerners are fair game.
Just curious to your views on Ken Bigley, he was there for decades. Does his good work in a bad place make his death any less painful?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought she was a British national married to an Iraqi citizen with dual British-Iraqi citizenship.
According to ABCnews.com, she was born in Ireland and had, I believe, dual citizenship.
As to the other - she chose to walk into a hotbed of violence where people were being abducted and beheaded by Iraqi extremists who are probably less than thrilled with the notion of a woman working above her station (sic) and see her as a traitor to her people (or their notion of such issues, at any rate).
A soldier chooses to enlist and is then assigned to a job or theatre of operations - he or she is in harm's way ultimately because they were ordered to do so. They volunteered for the possibility, but generally speaking, the military does not allow personnel to specify "I will only enlist if I get sent to a combat zone."
My lack of sympathy comes from the fact she chose to act recklessly and irresponsibly - for the best of reasons, perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact she chose to be in Iraq.
quote:As to the other - she chose to walk into a hotbed of violence where people were being abducted and beheaded by Iraqi extremists who are probably less than thrilled with the notion of a woman working above her station (sic) and see her as a traitor to her people (or their notion of such issues, at any rate).
Trevor - let's be accurate. She didn't chose "to walk into a hotbed of violence."
She refused to walk out of it.
She'd been working in Iraq for 30 years, according to the accounts I've read. You can still question whether or not it was a good idea to stay, but to imply she "walked into" this situation is just plain inaccurate.
After 30 years, it probably felt more like home.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They considered her in Iraqi. WHen she was kidnapped, there was a protest from a bunch of IRAQI people demanding the release of "Mama Margaret" Her husband said she had never recieved any threats prior to the kidnapping. And the Iraqi rebels denied kidnapping her, and condemned it.
quote:semantic issues on direction notwithstanding, she still made her choice.
Trevor,
thanks for conceding part of the point, but it's more than semantics:
quote:she chose to walk into a hotbed of violence where people were being abducted and beheaded by Iraqi extremists
and..
quote:My lack of sympathy comes from the fact she chose to act recklessly and irresponsibly
You're painting a picture of some "reckless" do-gooder who just rushes into the middle of a battle zone.
In fact, she was a long-term resident who refused to leave when the going got even tougher than they had been for the previous 30 years. That used to be a thing to be admired.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She was a strong lady that made a stand. And they killed her. The folks who did it may not have even known who she was or what she did.
Or they may the type who, fully knowing of her, added her to the slaughter purely for the shock value. And in hopes of forcing out the aid agencies.
Please remember that even Saddam Hussein had not killed this lady in 30 years of her being active in Iraq. What does that say of the viral entities that did this deed to her?
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please remember that even Saddam Hussein had not killed this lady in 30 years of her being active in Iraq. What does that say of the viral entities that did this deed to her?
posted
I doubt that that was the intended meaning. Problem is that 'justify' is a double-edged word often used in place of 'rationalize'.
rationalize: provide plausible reasons to explain to oneself or others behavior for which one's real motives are different and unknown or unconscious. ie One can justify irrational behaviour through rationalization.
In this case, there is no way to provide a plausible reason.
posted
we should not have sympathy for those that walk into danger in hopes of decreasing the hardships and sufferings of others? we should not have sympathy for someone working under adverse conditions to help those that are overlooked or uncared for?
we should not sympathize, we should empathize, but unfortunately not many of us are as brave and compassionate.
tmedina, you might want to get your hinges oiled, i hear some squeaking.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're looking for "plausible reasons" you can always find one. For example, you could say murderering a person as seemingly innocent as Hassan will show other Westerners just how determined the terrorists are and how dangerous it would be to cooperate with the Americans.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't work as a plausible reason because killing Margaret Hassan demonstrates that those who opposed the war and oppose the occupation are targets for assassination.
posted
Except that their purpose isn't to kill people who support the war, the purpose is to kill the meddling Westerners. They've already killed people from countries that opposed the war and were only there to help rebuild the country. I don't see how you've shown that them wanting to just send the signal that anyone whose not Iraqi is a target isn't "plausible."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
BTW, she was shot, not beheaded, but I think your point is that she was the first Western hostage killed, and that is a valid point. However, I think the timing of her death has more to do with the fact that 15,000 heavily armed Marines were closing in on the kidnappers and they didn't know what to do with their hostage, so they murdered her in cold blood and ran.
May God damn them to Hell.
p.s. My thoughts and prayers are with Ms. Hassan's family.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sympathize or empathize with her, that's a noble idea.
What more people should be doing is putting their own shoulder to the wheels that she had put hers behind. People like this don't need your sympathy as much as they need your help.
She died doing what was right and wouldn't let either the war or the terrorists force her out of doing what she saw was her duty. They had to kill her to make her stop.
We shouldn't be eulogizing her. We should take the moment to see where we can pick up where she was forced to leave off.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think anything could help the Western cause more than her death on video.
So were the terrorists just stupid and unfortunate in their timing?
Well, the irony of this entire war on terror is that both sides seem to damage themselves more than they damage the other - because both sides fail to understand that you can't just do 'anything' to achieve victory. 9/11, suicide bombings, innocents beheaded... an Iraq invasion, tortured prisoners, a helpless rebel shot to death... when will people learn?
All I know is that in the meanwhile, it is the good guys and innocents who lose.
posted
And before people start heaping abuse on the American Marine - the Iraqi was pretending to be dead.
He didn't identify himself as alive and surrendering.
And, I believe, the Marine in question lost his best buddy the day before to a booby-trapped corpse, so I'm going to guess he might have been a little on edge.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Not like another tactic would be any better from our point of view, but at least it wouldn't seem so idiotically pointless.
