Given the numbers of Muslims who have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other places, I have to disagree with your first sentence, Roel.
Collateral damage. They are martyrs and equal to the terrorists themselves according to Muslem propaganda, just like the Christians who died in the crusades - hundreds of thousands of them.
In the eyes of fanatical Muslims they are friends of satan and are just as bad, so they deserve to die as well.
I'm not saying it's the "right" thing to do, but it would still work. The extremists are willing to die because they are brainwashed to believe that a pack of virgins await them in heaven if they succeed. Dissolve that delusion and make them believe that they're going to damnation and see how many willingly go on suicide missions.
In theory, that could work, but you try rewriting a centuries old religion's primary defense mechanism. Not gonna be easy.
No,they just go around decapitating those poor buggers with a knife while they are still alive. :roll:
More likely you'll see a marked increase in extremly fanatical anti-American attacks. There are worse things to do to people than decapitate them.
Well yeah, but at least they don't make them go to hell according to their own religion... The problem lies in fundamentalists changing their interpretation of the Koran to a violent bloodbath as the right thing to do. They need to be taken out of action, so to speak, not their minions who as someone remarked have been brainwashed...
The big problem is the suicide bombers have nothing to lose. If tey are caught they go to hell if they kill themselve the go to heaven. Sgtbob if I kill your brother what will you do. If I abuse your family what will you do. I think you will try to kill me. That means I have made you a killer from a possible killer. By abusing Muslims in that way you are doing the same.
I agree with you. A suicide bomber needs a mentor. Take away the mentor and the motive and you take away the bomber. Now there will always be the occasional bomber who will never be convinced to give up, he/she will always kill. If you show the world that you really mean peace then the Muslim leaders cannot argue that you mean harm. If you are always on the offensive then they will be as well.
The problem is not fundamentalism, it's fanaticism; there's a world of difference between the two. Extremism of any kind is not a good thing, as it leads to one twisting one's religion (or political views or whatever) into something grotesque in order to justify doing things one knows are wrong under normal circumstances.
Thought since he is the subject the forum might enjoy this picture. Don't ask where I got it (if I told you, I'd have to kill you :lol: )
Dug this topic up as I noticed this article on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 349406.stm Basically asking "should he be exectuted". I know that we had this discussion way back when Iraq was invaded, but we have a load of new members now, and (see the link) the views of Iraqis too! Official note - this is not a topic to debate why America invaded Iraq and whether they were right or wrong to do so. We have topics on that - here - so if you wish to discuss that then go post in them.
Well no, I do not think he should be executed. Reasons: 1.I am opposed to death penalty. 2. Why make a martyr out of him?
That is a tough question. Killing Saddam could have its benefits (setting an example to extremist groups) and it could make things worse (Saddam becoming a martyr). I say he sits out the rest of his life in Spandau. Now if WMDs had been found, I could see executing him, but from a legal standpoint now, it's dubious. (Just my opinion, not meant to start an argument )
He committed crimes against humanity. In the Neurenberg trials those who committed crimes against humanity at a comparable scale were executed (and not just for show!). I see no legal reason to judge Saddam differently - unless the new Iraqi constitution doesn't allow for the death penalty. However, there are political reasons, such as the question of his martyrdom, which make the choice much more difficult.
Far better for everyone (except saddam of course) if he had been 'found' by the mob and chauchescu'd. No trial where embarassing facts could be highlighted, little chance of him being made a matyr and no chance of any action being taken to free him. 'Catching' him alive is probably as bad as sacking the army and dissolving the ba'ath party immediately after the war without having anything in place to keep control.
In reply to Roel re: the death penalty - it is interesting though that of all the nations represented as judges at Nuremburg only the USA (as far as I know) still has the death penalty...
