Nothing. Other than the united world scorn and damnation.
Why would anyone or group even think of killing a woman who dedicated the best part of her life to helping people? She has come from a world much better than Iraq could have ever been, integrated herself within the society, married a local and continued to spend her time and efforts to helping people of her adopted country to achieve better lives.
And how do they thank her. With a bullet to the back of her head.
The Iraqis should have exerted much more effort in securing her release. They should have chased down these criminals and brought them to justice.
The whole Arab and Muslim objectors should now and forever shut the fuck up about their conspiracy theories and expend their efforts to unequivocally condemn these acts of violence and clearly disassociate themselves from these animals.
Comments
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
I would imagine that in the view of the insurgents of Fallujah, who have a large contingent of foreign jihadis who adhere to the Wahhabi doctrine of Islam, she was just another infidel who should be killed to further the ultimate victory of Islam. I would imagine that is the same reason they killed the other blonde woman they found wrapped in a blanket in the street in Fallujah. They cut off her arms and legs, cut her throat, and disemboweled her. She was probably the Polish woman taken captive at the same time as Hassan. She came to do good, too. And of course, our troops found lots of other jihadi victims and torture rooms and slaugher rooms and dozens of videos of various victims being beheaded or shot.
That’s probably the same reason why a Wahhabi Muslim killed Van Gogh in Holland a few days ago. As he was shooting him down in the street, Van Gogh cried “Have mercy! Have mercy!” The Wahhabi responded to his pleas by pulling out a knife and stabbing him, tearing him up like one would tear up a tire, one witness said. Then he pulled out another knife to stab him, affixing his religious screed to the body. That’s Wahhabi mercy. Van Gogh had harshly criticized Islam and the Wahhabi slaughtered him for it. That sounds evil to me.
This week we found out that Bin Laden got a fatwa from one of our Saudi “allies in the war against terror” to use a nuclear bomb against America. The fatwa said it was perfectly permissible to kill millions of Americans. We deserve it, it said. We also found out from interrogation of a Pakistani Al Qaeda member that Bin Laden explored smuggling a nuke across the Mexican border into the US. I am very struck by the enormity of the evil intentions evil Muslims like Bin Laden and his ilk bear us.
Meanwhile, back in the Middle East, moderate Muslims hesitate to call the headcutters of Fallujah evil. They don’t feel comfortable with the US military fighting them because for them, just as for the Wahhabi jihadis, it’s all about Islam. No matter what evil they perpetrate, they feel obliged to support them because they are fellow Muslims.
America is fighting the evil Muslim Wahhabis in Fallujah to stop them there, rather than fight them in America. In doing so, it also preempts those same evil Muslims from doing even more murder in Europe and the Western world. It also stops the evil Muslims from taking over the moderate Muslims and killing them, too.
No, we don’t expect any thanks from you nor even recognition. We understand we are the only defense against the spread of Wahhabi Terror. However, it appears the rest of the world is getting an education, one murder at a time, and slowly coming to recognize the threat.
Steve
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Grotesque. It’s as if these global jihadists are in a competition with each other to see who can commit the worst barbarity. Executing a woman who selflessly dedicated her whole life to caring for Iraq’s destitute takes some beating: sadly the only thing that’s certain is that the jihadis will manage it in short order.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
To quote someone from another forum, “The terrorists committing, and then distributing films of, such evil, pointless acts probably think they’re scaring the shit out of us, whereas by doing so they’ve even managed to outrage and anger a wussy, appeasing, liberal luvvie like myself.”
These murderers clearly know nothing about the British at all.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Steve,
You will never receive thanks from me for the war my/your/our country started in Iraq. We/You/They have opened up a far greater can of worms than Saddam could ever be. And btw, moderates like myself will continue to call these terrorists evil — just as I will continue to call George Bush’s war an unjustified grab for power and resources, as well as a chance to stand tall in front of his daddy. That sucks as much as the terrorists in my opinion.
As for Margaret Hassan: May Allah bless her soul and prepare a rightful place in Paradise for her. Insha’Allah she will find far greater rewards there for the struggles and good deeds she engaged in so selflessly.
Very sad, sad state of affairs….
Salaam,
PM
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
PM,
If George Bush were interested in grabbing oil for his constituency, he could have easily taken over Kuwait. Or Venezuela. There’s a Bad Guy running that country too and no religious fanatics blowing themselves up for the pleasure of their deity.
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]We/You/They have opened up a far greater can of worms than Saddam could ever be.[/quote]
It’s a bit more than a “can of worms” when a group of people, in the name of Islam, kidnap a woman aid worker of exemplary courage and selflessness and proceed to hold her for nearly a month, filming her in ever worse states of distress and eventually shooting her in the head. Wars have raged between peoples since time immemorial, with all the bloodshed that means, but such a calculatedly drawn-out torture of someone like this takes a rare sort of psychopath.
Then there is the Polish woman aid worker, too, about whom we have heard much less but who was last week found decapitated, dismembered and disembowelled.
And the people who did these things have nothing less than control of Iraq as their goal. They will not, of course, be allowed to win.
[Modified by: Ash (Ash) on November 17, 2004 06:55 PM]
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
PM,
[quote]You will never receive thanks from me for the war my/your/our country started in Iraq.[/quote]
It’s always good to start out in agreement.
[quote]We/You/They have opened up a far greater can of worms than Saddam could ever be. And btw, moderates like myself will continue to call these terrorists evil — just as I will continue to call George Bush’s war an unjustified grab for power and resources, as well as a chance to stand tall in front of his daddy. That sucks as much as the terrorists in my opinion.[/quote]
PM, the worms came looking for us. They were already out of the can. Ignoring the worms won’t make them go away but rather allows them to multiply until you can ignore them no more. While calling evil by its right name is a good start, fighting evil is the best way to end it.
If we wanted to take over Iraq, we could have done it in the first Gulf War. We are certainly not profiting from occupying Iraq now. We would be far better off buying oil from a stable Iraq. That option doesn’t exist.
As for the crack about Bush invading Iraq to impress his dad, you’re smarter than that, PM.
Steve
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Just a thought, but it seems from my experience it’s non-muslims who seem to make this more of an issue about Islam than Muslims. I guess if you go looking for “radicals” and ask them how they feel about it, you’ll going to find what your looking for. As for me and most other muslims I know, it’s condemend for what it is; a horrible crime.
I see it the same way when I see tanks in Iraq with crucifix’s hanging from the barrel. When those tanks kill civilians, it’s a crime not a crusade. Why is it when American soldiers do it, it’s collateral damage or a few screwed up soldiers, but when a few loony people do it in Iraq, it’s suddenly all about Islam? A crime is a crime is a crime.
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]but when a few loony people do it in Iraq, it’s suddenly all about Islam? A crime is a crime is a crime. [/quote]
It’s usually because the people who have committed the crime say loudly and often that they did it in the name of Islam, because they describe their victims as “infidels”, and because they shout “Allahu Akbar!” just before they saw the head off some hapless hostage.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
You’re going to get the conspiracy theories no matter what. There’s too many gaps in the info for that not to happen. It still has nothing to do with condemning her murder, which is obviously a heinous crime. There’s no excuse for it, but I doubt poor Margaret’s family will ever see any real justice.
In addition, it seems what they’re going to gain is giving some people another excuse to kill even more of those “evil muslims” in Iraq.
[Modified by: Sume (Sume) on November 17, 2004 06:01 AM]
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]Sorry, but for me it’s the same as the neo-cons sending soldiers off to carelessly kill civilians. They don’t do body counts, remember? The only differences are they wrap it in the guise of spreading democracy and refuse to do their own dirty work.
[/quote]
Rrrrright. So if those Coalition soldiers held Iraqi aidworkers hostage for a month, filmed their distress and then shot them in the head, that would be just ordinary warfare to you, huh? No worse than anything else that happens. Might as well just chuck out the Geneva Convention altogether in that case and go the no-hold-barred route.
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
That’s the problem, Sume. Moderate Muslims just don’t think it’s a big deal when the Wahhabis cut the heads off infidels or crash a jet into a skyscraper. After all, it’s just infidels they’re killing, not Muslims. Let me explain why it’s bad.
First, the Muslims are deliberately targeting innocent civilians. The US military takes care not to target civilians. That is a big difference which is probably blurred on Al Jazeera.
Second, I doubt there are any US tanks in Iraq with a crucifix hanging from the barrel. That sounds like Muslim bullshit to me. However, you seem to swallow it without questioning it. Why? What other crap do you swallow without thinking?
Third, the jihadis wage a depraved war to conquer the world for Islam. The US military is not fighting for religion. We would not be in Iraq were it not for Saddam’s belligerence. We’re fighting to establish a free, democratic Iraq. Can you honestly say the insurgents have a worthy motive?
Fourth, if we lose, you lose. If the jihadis come to power by cutting off heads, they are not going to stop when they run out of infidels. Murderous revolutions eventually consume themselves and a lot of innocent people with them. Those jihadis for whom you feel sympathy do not feel the same sympathy for you if you violate their many restrictions on your freedom. The only thing standing between you and them is the American military.
Steve
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume,
If our soldiers are “carelessly killing civilians”, then why do Iraqis feel free to protest in front of our armed formations? Do you see Iraqis protesting the foreign jihadis? Why do think that might be?
Likewise, you have the lesson of bodycounts back-asswards. Killing people is not the goal of the US military. If you keep a body count, that becomes your metric for success. We don’t see ourselves as more successful with more deaths. You should not either.
You seem intent on making this a religious war. It is not. Perhaps you are so indoctrinated that you can not conceive of people fighting for causes other than religion. Put simply, we would not be in Iraq if Saddam had not been in Kuwait and tried to get in Saudi Arabia; had he complied with the UN resolutions, and had he not shot a thousand surface to air missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone in six hundred plus separate attacks. It’s Saddam’s Baathists who make up the core of this Sunni insurgence, wanting to go back to the good old days where they could slaughters hundreds of thousands at will.
Where is your regard for the innocent killed by Saddam or the innocents that would have been killed by Saddam had America not stopped him. Why are you blowing on the dying embers of Saddam’s regime rather than seeking to snuff it out?
Steve
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume,
The prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib were common criminals, not insurgents. Combatants are covered by the Geneva Convention, not thieves and rapists.
The prisoners at Gitmo are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they did not comply with it. First, the Taliban was not a recognized by the UN as a legitimate government but rather as a group which overthrew a legitimate government, the Northern Alliance. The Taliban did not sign treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, with infidels. The only law they recognized was Sharia. To be protected as a combatant under the Geneva Convention, you must identify yourself as a combatant with a distinctive insignia, such as a uniform. The Taliban and Al Qaeda did no such thing. They dressed in civilian clothes. Under the Geneva Convention, that makes them spies who can be shot.
Quite frankly, if you are going to cite the Geneva Convention, you need to go find out what it says. It does not mean that the US has to extend every protection to our adversaries, who in turn are required to do nothing. It does not mean that the US must assume all the risk in combat and the Geneva Convention is some big Get Out Of Jail Free card for terrorists.
Even so, the prisoners at Gitmo have been treated fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention, even though we could have shot them. Unfortunately for them, since their Taliban and Al Qaeda pals declare undying war on America, it doesn’t look they will be freed at the end of hostilities as in usual wars because the diehard Muslims don’t believe in an end to hostilities.
Your idea that both sides in this fight are morally equivalent is also false. Al Qaeda launched an attack on the US from Afghanistan with the help of the Taliban, not vice versa. Saddam launched attacks on his neighbors and the US, not the vice versa. The tactics of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam are heinous. Their mass murder of civilians, their bloody depravity, their torture make them the inferior moral parties to this war.
Steve
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]If the jihadis come to power by cutting off heads, they are not going to stop when they run out of infidels. [/quote]
Steve,
Assuming you mean “infidels” are non muslims, I don’t think these nutters will stop even if they run out of “infidels” They will then turn on the Shi’ after that then the moderate Sunni who are not Wahhabis, then the Druze, the Ibadhi etc etc etc…..Sooner or later they will start killing themselves with their own twisted views.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sorry Steve, I completely missed your comments. Ick. It wasn’t intentional. Give me a few to read them and respond. My apologies.
Sume
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Say what? Who said anything about “ordinary warfare”? Maybe for you, blatantly killing civilians is ordinary warfare, but I can’t accept that. And I think they threw out the Geneva Convention with abu ghraib, Gitmo and the exportation of detainees to foreign countries for torture.
The thing I can accept as inevitable is that crimes have been and will be committed by both sides. I don’t condone either.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume,
I also abhor the war but I think to make the comparison that the kidnapping, mental/physical torture, and eventually videotaped deaths is really about as low as one can go and is not in the same league as common warfare (which unfortunately also claims many innocent victims). One of the main differences is that no one films and brags about the erroneous killing of innocent civilians. They may try to even sweep it under the carpet because it is considered a shameful act. In fact, there is usually an investigation when innocent civilians are killed.
As for these terrorists committing these atrocities for Islam, I would argue that at most it is because using Islam suits their political purpose. By that I mean, it suits their political purpose to shout Allahu Akbar when they murder someone because they think they can brainwash other Muslims to accept their acts as some kind of twisted jihad. However, true Muslims will always recognize them for what they are — common criminals, geopolitical terrorists and lowlife murderers.
Salaam,
PM
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Okay. I can’t speak for all “moderate� Muslims. I consider myself fairly moderate and have cursed what happened on 9/11 and the kidnappings and murders in Iraq. Almost my entire family consists of “infidels�, so it is a big deal to me and as much so because it is the taking of innocent life. It’s criminal. I have also condemned the suicide bombings of civilians in Israel to the horror of some of my peers. I don’t think it’s the way to go about things.
I don’t pay much attention to Al Jazeera. The pic is here: http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/001488.php?action=results&poll_ident=74
Once again, you are assuming no civilians have been intentionally targeted. This is something you seemed to have swallowed. That’s fine with me. Given the number of civilian casualties, yeah, I have my suspicions.
“We don’t see ourselves as more successful with more deaths. You should not either.â€?
Quite the contrary, I see a failure with the increasing civilian deaths. I will say again that I can’t so easily dismiss them.
Being Shia, I shouldn’t have to tell you what I think about Saddam or “the wahabi jihadis� and their methods and motives. But since you seem not to know, I’ll fill you in. I have condemned this kind of extremism over and over again. It is my belief that religion is a personal quest and should be left to each person. I never declared sympathy for “jihadis�. I feel for the innocent civilians. That includes the thousands slaughtered by Saddam. I could write a book for me to explain how much and why I despise Saddam.
Religious war? I’ve never believed this is a religious war. I think there are aspects and people who do consider it so, but personally, I do not. I have refused to consider it as such despite those who would try to make it so. As to why we are in Iraq, I find it difficult to believe it’s all about liberation and fighting terrorism.
My point was that there are crimes being committed on both sides and that they are crimes. I can’t excuse one crime for another. I did not equate them other than to say they were all crimes. As I said before, I get it from both sides when I defend the good things about America and Christians or Muslims and Arabs. I also get it when I criticize both, which I do quite a lot.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
PM, I don’t equate them as the same. If that’s what I put across, I apologize. There are criminal acts going on from both sides. To narrow it down, we all have our criminals. That was really all I meant to say. I wasn’t equating them, for goodness sake, I can’t.
I agree that many paint it with Islam or Christianity and I think there are those who truly believe what they say. I guess I’m coming off from too much of a defensive stance. It happens to me sometimes. We probably agree a lot more than I’m putting across.
Perhaps, too, I am making too many general statements. I should know better. I’ll try to narrow things down in the future as to not throw out a bunch of misperceptions about myself.
And I also in no way meant for anyone get the impression that I’m an apologist for terrorists. If that’s the impression I’m giving, I’m absolutely horrified!
[Modified by: Sume (Sume) on November 18, 2004 09:18 AM]
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]First Ash, you’re going on the assumption that all the detainees are guilty of some terrible crime, and that they were all “murdering scumbags�. [/quote]
I’m assuming that they were all captured fighting for those Islamofascists known as the Taliban. I regard them much as I would have regarded fully paid up members of the Nazi Party in 1946. What’s more, I guarantee you – absolutely guarantee you – that not one of them will be shot through the head and their body them hideously mutilated and dumped on a street someplace.
[quote]Secondly, you’re assuming that all the civilians were killed without spite or intention, that all the soldiers over there are honorable and are guiltless of any crimes. Most people know that isn’t the case. It isn’t in any war. [/quote]
I’m not assuming anything of the sort. I know perfectly well that such things happen in wars. But what happened to Margaret Hassan – a month of torment and humiliation, porn movies of her distress released to TV stations, and the final sickening slaughter and mutilation – has no parallel in any of these things.
This woman was not a tragic victim caught in crossfire. She was deliberately targeted by people who knew exactly who she was – that she had dual Iraqi citizenship, that she had spent 30 year helping desperate Iraqis, that she was married to an Iraqi, that she had converted to Islam. They knew all of this. They didn’t care. All they cared about was that she was a white woman whose other nationality was British. Her kidnapping was carefully planned. Her distress was caused deliberately over weeks and it was filmed. Her eventual murder did not occur in a single adrenalin-maddened moment. It was calculated and cold-blooded.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
“The prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib were common criminals, not insurgents.�
Steve, can you give me links? It’s not meant as a insult, but I would like to see it for myself. I’ll see what I can dig up in the meantime.
I mentioned the Geneva Convention in response to Ash’s statement. I try to come from a humanitarian perspective, I guess. Let me say again, that I differentiate between innocent civilians and criminals. Terrorists are criminals. From what I understand, the Taguba report stated that many of the detainees at abu ghraib were innocent of any crime and that teenagers were also “tortured� while being detained. I don’t morally equate the motives of Al Qaida and their ilk with the U.S. I admit I’m not expressing myself very well in this discussion. Plus I suck at debates so let me try to make myself clear.
Terrorists are criminals and their crimes are atrocious. I have no argument with that. The killing of civilians is terrible, the intentional killings of civilians is terrible and a crime. It may not be a blatant crime, but a crime, leaving no side guiltless. Do I think the U.S. as a whole are guilty of war crimes? No. I think some things have gone terrible wrong. As far as the war in Iraq, I stand somewhere in the middle overall. I don’t wholly condemn it or condone it. Death of the innocent is a great loss to me. I was not equating methods but the loss itself. I won’t defend the actions of terrorists or common criminal be they Muslim or otherwise.
To give you some background. Up until a few years ago, I was pretty much oblivious to things. Sorry, I was busy with four kids and a house to run. It took something terrible like 9/11 to wake me from my domestic bliss. Politically and socially, I’m still an infant. I am learning and developing my opinions all the time. Some would wish me to keep my mouth shut, but this kind of interaction is part of my learning process. In that, I thank you for your responses.
Ash, please refer to the above.
[Modified by: Sume (Sume) on November 18, 2004 10:55 AM]
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
To illustrate the nature of the people in Guantanamo, one newsmagazine told the story of Half Dead Bob. The guards call all the prisoners Bob. This particularly Bob was caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
He was in bad shape when we caught him, so bad the guards nicknamed him Half Dead Bob. They don’t eat well in Afghanistan, so this guy was malnourished, under a hundred pounds. He also had a lot of medical problems like parasites and such. The doctors attached to Gitmo cured him of his ills. He got regular meals for the first time in his life and began putting on some weight.
The interrogations were more like conversations where Bob was glad to tell everything he knew and thought. He came to get along with his interrogators, after a fashion. One day he was talking to one of the senior officers who periodically interrogated him and said, I know that you are a good man but if I were free I would kill you because you are not a Muslim.
And that really sums it all up.
Steve
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Steve are saying they were ALL like that? What about the ones that were released?
[Modified by: Sume (Sume) on November 18, 2004 11:07 AM]
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]Sorry, but for me it’s the same as the neo-cons sending soldiers off to carelessly kill civilians.[/quote]
By this I meant, what is the difference between Christian-right neocons who whose motives are or seem to be to take the world for Christianity any different than Al Qaida and their kind?
Is this the basis for all this discussion?
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Let me look for links tonight, but the prisoners in the section who were abused were not insurgents caught fighting the GIs. They were Iraqi criminals imprisoned for crimes. For example, the guy who is shown shrinking in the corner while being menaced by a dog was caught, along with another guy, raping a sixteen year old boy who was imprisoned with him.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to civilians imprisoned for crimes. It just doesn’t apply at all to the criminal population of Abu Ghraib and it is shaky as far as many of the insurgents who do not identify themselves as combatants. It also doesn’t apply to traffic offenses or smuggling or price-fixing or any number of civil offenses.
And really, it’s hypocritical for Arabs to castigate Americans for such abuse, which is an anomaly, when such abuse is the standard policy in Arab prisons.
Yes, I believe innocent people were swept up in Abu Ghraib. Consider the situation. It’s not exactly stable and the environment is chaotic. The difference is that eventually it all gets sorted out and innocent people are released. By contrast, lots of innocent people were ordered to Abu Ghraib by Saddam and never returned. For some reason, that is forgotten.
Don’t beat yourself up for expressing an opinion. We’ll do that for you. Just put it out there and see if stands the test of differing views. Don’t worry about offending me. Nobody else does. It’s not personal. Just agree with me and you’ll be right two thirds of the time.
Steve
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Thanks, Steve. To be honest, I’m not as informed as I should be on the Geneva Convention so I’ll keep my mouth shut about it for now. My concern is for those detained who had done no wrong. I’m aware that it’s bound to happen in a situation where a soldier is hard to distinquish between a civilian for lack of uniform. I guess I get all bent out of shape when people forget that there were and perhaps still are innocents there. For example, the taxi driver who was swept up and later cleared of any wrong doing, then released. I’ll look for the story if you like.
And believe me, I’m well aware of the torture that goes on in Arab countries, and I condemn it no less. I haven’t forgotten what Saddam did. I try very hard not to let myself be consumed by hate, but I can’t help. I really HATE him.
In the interest of balance, I am critical at the of the Islamic community and self-critical. The fact that Islamic governments were slow to stop this rise in radicalism doesn’t escape me. I can go on about that for days. I believe we all share in this responsibilty of promoting tolerance and human rights, regardless of religion or race. I admonish myself frequently for my own silence, so now I’m speaking out.
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume dear,
I am not sure who your response was directed to but if it was to me let me clarify a few things (maybe you are new here? if so welcome!).
I am not shi’a — although a number of my close friends are. I became a Sunni Muslim 4 years ago after I had lived in Doha, Qatar for over a year. I am also an American and although I don’t refer to my family as “infidels” they are ALL Christians. I have great respect for their devout belief in Allah and they do for mine, as well.
I think I am in a very similar situation to yours. I get it from both sides although I try to be fairminded and appropriately critical. However, I also value the position I am in because I CAN see many sides to an issue and can often help others to gain a better understanding, as well.
I do not “buy” that all civilian deaths in wars are accidents. It is war: people get over excited, literally jump the gun, don’t always know who constitutes a threat and are fearful for their own lives. I do watch Al Jazeera, as well as CNN, BBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX (via satellite). I see them all as biased — although I tend to think BBC and CNN probably hit closest to the mark of accuracy.
We probably have a lot in common and I certainly can identify with the things you are saying. I have a long history of political activism (long before becoming a Muslim) and certainly placed my interests within the the peace movements over the years. But sometime after I reached the age of 40, I became less and less tolerant of terrorism poorly disguised as resistance, and now take a pretty harsh stand against these creeps. They are shaping international reception to our religion and we MUST take a stand against them. And in this case, I think the murderer/s of Margaret Hassan deserve a special place in hell. I am going to post a very interesting editorial from our local paper on the subject on my own blog. Perhaps you will take a look.
Salaam,
PM
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Salaams,
Thanks PM, that response was to Ash. I wasn’t referring to my family as infidels in spite. I guess it was sarcasm to what Ash said. I respect their beliefs and they respect mine as well. We are very close still. I don’t care if you’re sunni or shia, it’s not an issue for me. I have very close friends from just about everywhere. I, in no way had you in mind in that response. It was perhaps, too defensive of a response to Ash. I’ll try to calm down from now on.
I’ve already stated that I don’t condone terrorism further down in the comments. I really feel awful if that’s what I put across. Concerning Margaret’s murder, I don’t equate it in that manner. As I said, I meant the loss of her and other innocent people, not the manner in which she was killed.
I agree with you and will probably blog it myself before I have to cut my net service. I have peeked at your blog before and have great respect for you. I’m glad you’re sharing some of your experience. So again, I apologize for sticking my foot in my mouth and appearing the have my head up my behind.
I started blogging in order to speak out against terrorism, extremism and to show we weren’t all a bunch of radical hate mongers. I seem to be failing miserably at getting my point across. You can see there that I’m a terrible writer. God willing, I’ll get expressing myself right sooner or later.
Learning all the time,
Sume
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]Say what? Who said anything about “ordinary warfare”? [/quote]
You, the moment you attempted to constitute this most calculated and prolonged of killings as no more heinous than the unintended deaths of civilians in war. And as for your comparison of the philanthropic Margaret Hassan to those murdering scumbags now detained in Guantanamo Bay … words fail me.
Re(2): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Big Salaama and Ahlan wa Sahlan Sume,
I KNEW we had a lot in common! 😀
After I went back and read the whole thread I figured you were not responding to me. And I have a lot of respect for the strength and commitment that comes across in your posts. Keep it up sister! Sorry if I sounded touchy 🙂 and great to have you on board.
If one good thing has come out of these troubling times, it is that more and more of us are taking on a personal responsibility to represent Islam in positive ways. We can no longer sit by and hope someone else does it. Glad you are blogging… do you have your own blog? If yes, give us a plug and we’ll visit 😀
Salaam Sis,
PM
Re(2): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume,
Few people who complain about the US military complying with the Geneva Convention have any idea what the Geneva Convention is about. In the US, it is safe to bet $100 that any liberal mouthing off about it is completely clueless about it.
A lot of innocent people got swept into Abu Ghraib when we invaded. It wasn’t a choice between a good and bad decision, ie locking up bad guys after careful deliberation and examination and cutting loose the innocent, but rather only having the time and manpower to choose between a bad and worse decision, which is to say, sweeping up some innocent people in the necessary haste to stop the bad guys from killing more people. We can free innocent people from Abu Ghraib after we locked them up in error. We can not free innocent people from the grave because a bad guy we should have locked up blew them up while they waiting in a line for a job.
The Arab governments are not ignoring the rise of the radicals nor dragging their feet to fight them. They are actively supporting them with money, weapons, and logistics. Saudi Arabia is the source of much of this. Syria, too. And the Iranian government is supporting the insurgency in concert with the Arab governments.
Steve
Re(3): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
PM,
Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatalhi wa barokota, shukran ikhteer, ya ukhti. My transliteration stinks and I’m not sure if I just called you bro or sis. I do mean well. Wallahi, I’m so relieved. It bothered me to death that I was coming across like that.
Anyway I’ll try to blog it all. I did learn something from all of this. I try so hard to be diplomatic and objective. It wasn’t a good idea in this case. You’re right that we should scream loudly against terrorism and crimes done in the name of Islam.
Jizdo Mahmood has kindly linked my blog in the Bahrain section. It’s Ethnically Incorrect. I’ll try to remember not to be so vague in future blog posts as well. I’ll go through your blog tonight too. Right now it’s time to cook dinner and I’ve been at this way too long today. I’ll be keeping a close eye on your blog.
Insha’Allah Khair, sis
Salaams
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume,
The idea that the neocons or anybody in America is invading Iraq for Christianity is crazy propaganda. We just don’t give a flying leap what the Iraqis believe, just as long as they don’t threaten anyone or us. We certainly aren’t trying to conquer the world for Christianity. However, the world could learn a big lesson from the American model of tolerance for other religions. You don’t see us cutting people’s heads off for Jesus or Buddha or Jehovah or what have you. They only do that for Allah.
Steve
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
First Ash, you’re going on the assumption that all the detainees are guilty of some terrible crime, and that they were all “murdering scumbags�. Some of these people were innocent, some were children. How do you know that some of them weren’t extraordinarily good people caught up in one of the broad sweeps that they’ve conducted over the last few years?
Secondly, you’re assuming that all the civilians were killed without spite or intention, that all the soldiers over there are honorable and are guiltless of any crimes. Most people know that isn’t the case. It isn’t in any war.
I respect and admire Margaret Hassan very much and her murder affected me deeply. I don’t think she would have dismissed the civilian deaths so easily. She thought the Iraqi people were worth her efforts as evident in her dedication to them.
I get the same argument when I express my sadness over the soldiers who go to Iraq with good intentions and come back mangled or dead. This is an old argument for me. You have the same opinion as my dad. Yes, I value the lives of ordinary, innocent people just as much as I do Margaret’s. I apologize if that offends you. It’s certainly not my intent. I’ve already expressed my outrage at Margaret’s murder and all the other kidnappings. There should be no doubt how much I condemn these actions.
Obviously neither of us is likely to change our opinions, Ash. We can go round and round if you like, but I’m content to respect that you have your own way of thinking. I imagine you’re a decent person in life and your strong opinion comes from a well-intentioned heart.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sorry, but for me it’s the same as the neo-cons sending soldiers off to carelessly kill civilians. They don’t do body counts, remember? The only differences are they wrap it in the guise of spreading democracy and refuse to do their own dirty work.
Hmmm..sending young men to kill and die on your behalf without regard for the innocent or the conseqences believing they were doing God’s will. I can name two people in particular who fit that description.
[Modified by: Sume (Sume) on November 17, 2004 05:57 PM]
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume ..
Interesting observations. And, I must say, you have done a very good job of holding steady.
I just wanted to take a stab at this. ‘They’ murdered Margaret Hassan for the same reason thay they kidnapped Allawis cousin. It sends a very strong message to anyone who is trying to get involved in Iraq that does not fit in with ‘their’ agenda. Its a non discriminatory strategy – they kill Iraqi police like they kill foriegners. Nothing to do with Islam. Nothing to do with Allah. Everything to do with power.
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
[quote]they kill Iraqi police like they kill foriegners. Nothing to do with Islam. Nothing to do with Allah. Everything to do with power. [/quote]
JJ. You are right it is about POWER, but is it not being being done under the quise of Islam? From where I sit that seems to be the case.
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Jasra & BMark,
Islam is the vehicle for this savagery, just as Marxism was the vehicle for Soviet savagery. It is a utopian vision which excuses all violence done in its behalf. Such savagery appears to be a permanent feature of Islam.
I was flipping through a book yesterday in the book store, “Krakatoa : The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883” which related what happenned after the Krakatoan tidal wave washed through Indonesia: the Muslims went on a bloody rampage, killing all the Dutch infidels they could find, men, women, children, and babes. They cut them up in savage fashion. The core of these Muslim savages were radicalized in Arabia, where they had been taught by Wahhabi clerics. They were acting on a prophecy by a local Indonesian cleric who preached an apocalyptic victory for Islam there to be signalled by volcanoes, floods, etc. Any of this sound familiar?
The Wahhabi-inspired savages believed their faith could defeat bullets but their arguments were rebutted by Dutch repeating rifles. The rebellion was smashed by Dutch troops killing the Wahhabi rebels. That’s a good lesson for us to learn. And repeat.
It would be easier to believe that the current depraved butchery had nothing to do with Islam if it were an isolated case geographically or historically, if Wahhabi and other clerics were not approving it and urging it on, and if entire states were not engaged in its support. But it isn’t an anomaly. It’s a feature of Islam that must be struck down with such authoritative force that Muslims reject violence and choose to tolerate other faiths and philosophies peacefully, like the Japanese did.
Steve
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Steve, I don’t think the general population is like that, but of course there are always a few. Almost my entire neighborhood voted for Bush and support the war in Iraq. None of them support it for religious reasons. Many of them say they supported Bush for his conservative values, but the war in Iraq seems to be all about terrorism to them. I disagree, feeling it helps to create more terrorism, but that’s another issue.
As far as politicians, I think it’s usually about money and getting re-elected. With them, it seems they paint themselves with just enough religion to keep the support of their base. But people like Boykin give me the willies and it is creepy to hear Bush hints that God tells him to do things or suggests that he feels chosen by God.
As far as religious tolerance goes, it’s not perfect but I do agree so far that it’s one of the best places. I say so far, because I haven’t actually lived anywhere else since my conversion. Living here as a Muslim has not been all that bad. Except for the occasional Jehovah’s Witness, no one has tried to save my soul. The school and introduced vegetarian meals and started talking about Islamic observances and has bent over backwards to make us feel welcomed. We are one of three Muslim families that go to that school.
[Modified by: Sume (Sume) on November 19, 2004 05:21 AM]
Re(2): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
It’s an anecdote, so I can’t say all of them are like that. Our military guys are saying that of the ones left, a large number of them are like that. Of the ones who were released, it looks like at least a handful were bad guys who went back to doing bad things without delay. Some appear to be innocent. A few were kids. One kid had been playing dead and shot dead one of our special forces. He was released. In my mind, they should not have taken him prisoner but shot him on the spot. At least a couple of the Afghan kids saw it as a good experience where they were segregated from the bad guys, lived in their own hut with GI minders, played volleyball, got English lessons, and ate regularly. Perhaps more typical was the Afghan man who was released who said that the Americans did not mistreat him but he didn’t like them because they weren’t Muslim.
Steve
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Sume,
OK, Sume, you actually do have some evidence for what you believe. However, one crucifix hanging off one armored personel carrier does not a Crusade make. Many of the inscriptions on the tank guns are about sex or cartoon characters yet that is not proof that our Army took over Iraq to get lucky or to install Homer Simpson as emperor.
Sume, the number of civilians killed in this war are very low by any standard. It is certainly lower than the 70,000 people the Iraqis examining Baathist records estimated that Saddam would have executed in the year after he was removed from power by the US invasion. I’ll grant you that you’ll probably find some soldiers who shot people for the hell of it, but they are an anomaly. By contrast, the insurgents target civilians as their policy, their strategy.
Steve
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
PM,
[quote]I do watch Al Jazeera, as well as CNN, BBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX (via satellite). I see them all as biased — although I tend to think BBC and CNN probably hit closest to the mark of accuracy.[/quote]
BBC is one of the most relentlessly anti-American media sources of them all. Their correspondent was standing on a quiet corner of the Baghdad airport while we were taking it over saying that we were lying about being there. He virtually parroted Baghdad Bob’s party line as we invaded. Doesn’t it bother you that the British government found that the BBC had “sexed up” its stories against the British government in the Hutton Report, forcing its chairman to resign?
The BBC is the propaganda organ of the British loony left, not a credible news source.
Steve
Re: What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Salaams JJ and thanks,
“It sends a very strong message to anyone who is trying to get involved in Iraq that does not fit in with ‘their’ agenda. Its a non discriminatory strategy – they kill Iraqi police like they kill foriegners. Nothing to do with Islam. Nothing to do with Allah. Everything to do with power.â€?
To be honest, I’m still not sure who “theyâ€? are. I know what I’ve heard, but until they’re found, who knows? I’m so glad you remember that Iraqis are also victims of these terrible crimes. While Margaret’s kidnapping and murder cuts me to the bone, I can’t forget the Iraqis and people like that Japanese kid who were just working to support themselves and their families. I believe that there are those who believe they’re doing it for religious reasons, but I think for the most part its power, greed, revenge, and hate, to instill fear and maybe some mixture of them. I can’t accept it as Islamic because it goes against all I’ve learned about Islam. Thanks for jumping in. I commend your efforts. This is such a mess and so hard to sort out and understand. It’s a relief that some are really trying.
Steve, we all have our screwy history and no, I’m not equating!
Re(1): What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
BM ..
Yes, they are doing it under the guise of Islam. Every war has to have its motto .. and religious wars have the most powerful motto of all ..
What exactly did they gain by murdering Margaret Hassan?
Steve ..
I agree with this statement:
Islam is the vehicle for this savagery, just as Marxism was the vehicle for Soviet savagery. It is a utopian vision which excuses all violence done in its behalf.
I dont agree with this one:
Such savagery appears to be a permanent feature of Islam.
Steve … unfortunately, human nature is quite savage. We have made a mess of our civilization. We have killed more of our own species than any other species on this earth. This savagery is not endemic to Islam, it is endemic to human nature and our inability to live with ‘the other’.
Lots of crimes are committed in the name of humanity. And most of them are committe in the name of religion. How many pedohpiles exist in the Catholic Church? A fair amount. Does that mean that it is correct to say that ‘such savagery apears to be a permanent fceature of Christianity?’ Absolutely not. But, it is correct to say that most pedophiles are attracted to the Church with its system of rigid beleifs towards sex in order to deal with their own abnormal desires. (Either by repressing, or by having a great front).
Likewise, it is fair to say that most repressed, frustrated, angry Arab and Moslem youth today are turning towards their interpretation of a very rigid interpretation of Islam in order to deal with their frustrations .. which are a combination of physicial, sexual, societal and political frustrations. It is more a reflection of the state of the Arab economies and societies today than a reflection of Islam.
Steve .. the day you realize that your enemy is not Islam, but it is the ideological structure that governs the day to day life of these guys, is the day you will have learned how to fight, and win, the war on terror. The ideological structure that governs them is partly Islam, partly patiarchy, partly tribal ..the positive trait of treating a guest like a king (dont lose face in public) is the same negative trait of placing priority on staying in an abusive marriage rather than ask for a divcoe (dont lost face in public).
If the Church keeps preaching about abstinence in a world where teenage pregnancies are a reality and rising, then the Church will slowly, but surely, lose its position as an effective social force in the 21st century. The day it condones birth control and abortions is the day and starts preaching about planned parenthood and creates a social environment that deals with the drivers for teenage pregnancy (poverty levels being a significant contributing factor) is the day that maybe, you can change the trend.
Islam is a mess because the Arab Moslems are a mess. The Arab Moslems are a mess because their socio-political fabric is a mess. You clean up the socio-political fabric, and you have won half the battle. If you keep pointing to Islam as the enemy, you will just reinforce its strength .. and you will strengthen the hand of ‘them’ .. and you will help alot of moderates to avoid doing the work that they need to be doing by giving them an easy target.
The moderates who are currently sitting on the shelf will dismiss ur (very logical arguements) by saying that u are anti Islamic. Make it difficult for them to ignore your points… make them look inward at their leadership and their ideas, and their thought processes and their socio-political-economic fabric .. make them aware of their own roles and responsabilities in their average day that reinforce the very things that they claim to abhor ..
There is a lot of work that needs to be done .. dont give anyone any ammunition to avoid doing it ..