Was American Hostage Paul M Johnson Jr Beheaded by Militants?

[jimmy p]

Have a gander at this

The Arab satellite network Al-Arabiya has reported that American hostage Paul M Johnson Jr has been beheaded.

The news was scrolled across a newsbar at the bottom of the screen in a transmission monitored in Riyadh, the Saudi Arabia capital.

Johnson was kidnapped last weekend by militants who threatened to kill him by Friday if the kingdom did not release its al Qaida prisoners.

from one of the banner headlines from www.wanadoo.co.uk[/URL]

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone surprised?

 

[member 5645]

Anyone surprised?

Not I. I feel for the guy's family, but I am glad that we didn't give into the terrorists.

 

[member 5645]

I believe he was wearing an orange jumpsuit - CIA on this one as well?

 

[jimmy p]

I believe he was wearing an orange jumpsuit - CIA on this one as well?

Yeah I saw that too. Has it been confirmed yet though?

 

[member 5645]

Yeah I saw that too. Has it been confirmed yet though?

yes, and they killed the leader of the group that got the contractor.

 

[Adam]

I saw civilian clothing, rather than an orange jumpsuit.

 

[member 5645]

Orange jumpsuit:

http://www.reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5462082&index=0

i'm going to go along with it being orange coveralls, and also say that is most likely what Berg was dressed in as well.
CIA was involved with neither.

 

[Adam]

Ah ok. The picture I saw must have been earlier.

 

[Dagenais]

Why are they doing this? Isn't it dead obvious that the military forces in Iraq aren't going to pull out? Capturing and killing innocent people, while video taping it is just going to motivate the US and other Countries to stay in Iraq and fight.

All they are doing is demonstrating more terrorism to the world.

Not I. I feel for the guy's family, but I am glad that we didn't give into the terrori

Giving in as in what? Negotiating?

Their demands don't make much sense, so there is little the US can do.

 

[Adam]

I think you may find that the groups doing this are packs of young males with no connections to any large organisation, and with absolutely no sense.

 

[studentx]

Why are they doing this? Isn't it dead obvious that the military forces in Iraq aren't going to pull out? Capturing and killing innocent people, while video taping it is just going to motivate the US and other Countries to stay in Iraq and fight.

All they are doing is demonstrating more terrorism to the world.

Their demands don't make much sense, so there is little the US can do.

The video gives a choice, which is a ridiculous one for fairly intelligent people; release some prisoners, or we kill him.
But for less intelligent people the choice might not seem so ridiculous and some might even blame the Americans for not taking the easy way; giving into the terrorists demands.
As for people who are opposed to this war, for many of them the responsibility for the beheading will slide towards the American side.

The video manipulates the weak minded, an attempt to divide us just like the truce offer from Al quada to the european countries and countless other reasons they give for their actions. Their videos are filled with tricks and ploys for the subconsciousness, and they are very succesful.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The video gives a choice, which is a ridiculous one for fairly intelligent people; release some prisoners, or we kill him.
But for less intelligent people the choice might not seem so ridiculous and some might even blame the Americans for not taking the easy way; giving into the terrorists demands.
As for people who are opposed to this war, for many of them the responsibility for the beheading will slide towards the American side.

The video manipulates the weak minded, an attempt to divide us just like the truce offer from Al quada to the european countries and countless other reasons they give for their actions. Their videos are filled with tricks and ploys for the subconsciousness, and they are very succesful.

How are they successful? The usually have the opposite effect they want. They want us out, behead a south korean and now south korea is sending 3,000 more troops. How stupid are these terrorists!?

 

[Dagenais]

How stupid are these terrorists!?

Stupid enough to think that sending the US video tapes of malnutritioned soldiers, climbing on monkey bars will scare them.

Has Bush or any Korean political leader discussed this event to the public?

All they need to do is catch one of these guys (which is harder than it sounds) and put a scare into those cowards. Or address them, and let them know that doing this cowardly stuff isn't going to help them and if it continues, more troops will be sent.

They want us out, behead a south korean and now south korea is sending 3,000 more troops.

I think they sent the troops prior to this event, which is why they captured a south Korean.

These cowards won't even show their faces on Video. If they want to fight a war, dress like soldiers and fight. Don't hide behind civilians and attack from behind.

That's absolutely sick.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Islamic militants in Iraq have beheaded a South Korean man they were holding hostage, al-Jazeera television reports.

The Arabic satellite channel said it had received a video tape saying that Kim Sun-il, 33, had been executed….

…A banner identified the group as Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad, which is led by a top al-Qaeda member, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Last month, the same group beheaded an American hostage, Nick Berg, and it has been responsible for a number of other attacks, including the killing of Iraqi Governing Council head Ezzedine Salim.

http://news.google.com/url?ntc=0M0A6&q=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3830843.stm


…and one other thing – don’t let the name al-Zarqawi escape your notice. He is the same ghoul that murdered a Jordanian, beheaded Nick Berg, and wrote an intercepted letter to bin-Laden outlining his plans for terrorism in Iraq.

The al-Zarqwai letter ---

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm

 

[russ_watters]

How are they successful? The usually have the opposite effect they want. They want us out, behead a south korean and now south korea is sending 3,000 more troops. How stupid are these terrorists!?

That depends on the goal, Greg. Obviously, if the goal is to get us out of the Middle East, their actions have had the exact opposite result to what they intend. In that case, yes, they are stupid.

But if the goal is spreading fear, or worse, simply murdering as many people as possible in as public a way as possible (a manifestation of hatred with no larger goal) then they have been quite successful.

All they need to do is catch one of these guys (which is harder than it sounds) and put a scare into those cowards.

Supposedly, the Saudi's did find and kill that last bunch.

Or address them, and let them know that doing this cowardly stuff isn't going to help them and if it continues, more troops will be sent.

This kinda takes you back to Greg's point. Stupid or not, they are historically, pretty slow learners. They did however, learn in the 80s (for example) that the typical airline hijacking is a good way to die without accomplishing anything and so airline hijackings (with the notable exception of 9/11) have become quite rare.

 

[Njorl]

Extremists need oppression. If they are not getting enough, they need to provoke more. Without oppression you don't get as many extremists. They are not trying to get us to leave. They are trying to provoke us into atrocities. If we go on a rampage of killing and "forceful interrogations", we might catch one or two or ten of the people responsible, and create ten or twenty or a hundred willing to take their place. The extremists are concerned that they might soon lose their biggest recruiting tool, the presence of US troops.

There are two ways to successfully defeat extremists. One is to devolve into completely depraved horror, and the other is to successfully co-opt the general populous against them. We don't seem willing to do either.

Njorl

 

[Tigers2B1]

This man almost certainly experienced the most extreme mental anguish – knowing his fate days before --

…The tape shows hostage Kim Sun-il kneeling on the ground in front of three masked militants. He appears to be gulping air and sobbing.

The part of the tape that was broadcast didn't show him dead, but an announcer on Al-Jazeera said he had been beheaded.

Linked is a frame from the video just before the beheading.

http://www.reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5485177&index=0

 

[studentx]

How are they successful? The usually have the opposite effect they want. They want us out, behead a south korean and now south korea is sending 3,000 more troops. How stupid are these terrorists!?

Im not talking about the effect it has on governments. They send more troops, but look what their population thinks of it. They demonstrate and thousands are begging their government to give into the terrorists demands. Then there are millions watching it on tv. Undoubtedly many of them will be furious that their government doesnt, and will be even more furious when the guy is beheaded.


Even we can't agree that terrorists should be battled becuz we want to change subject to America! The most some of us can get over their lips is denying they agree with terrorists, and then reminding others that a beheading is nothing compared to Abu Ghraib
Notice that in this thread some ppl just don't comment on the beheading. They have nothing to contribute and are in the illusion that we all know they find this terror act disgusting. But you don't fight terrorism by being silent! You do exactly the opposite when you say nothing about terrorism and only about America.

 

[Dagenais]

and create ten or twenty or a hundred willing to take their place.

I'd hate to believe there are hundreds willing to take the place of those cowardly bastards.

Then there are millions watching it on tv. Undoubtedly many of them will be furious that their government doesnt, and will be even more furious when the guy is beheaded.

Hopefully, the population realizeds you just can't "pull back" 3000 troops and hope that the terriorists, who obviously can't be trusted, will follow through with the bargain.

But if the goal is spreading fear, or worse, simply murdering as many people as possible in as public a way as possible (a manifestation of hatred with no larger goal) then they have been quite successful.

According to some news anaylysts on CNN, they are trying to draw attention to themselves.

However, their faces are masks. A lot of extremists don't care about the consequences of their actions and will willingly admit that they did something terrible.

So, these guys aren't getting famous since their faces are always covered. It's also extremely cowardly, as they are already safe inside a building attacking an unarmed man - yet they still have to cover their faces?

That's about as cowardly as someon can get.

 

[ku]

Killing innocent civilians is wrong. Some argue that to punish those who kill civilians, Americans should kill "their" civilians. This is the two-wrong-make-a-right fallacy.

 

[Dagenais]

I think they sent the troops prior to this event, which is why they captured a south Korean.

Wait, my mistake, Greg was right. Korea is planning to send another 3000 troops in August is what I just learned.

Some argue that to punish those who kill civilians, Americans should kill "their" civilians.

Nobody here said that.

Also, don't just focus on "Americans" here. The terrorists are targetting other people, and their latest actions have proved this.

You must also remember that those terrorists didn't just "kill" the civilian, it was done in a much crueler and sicker way.

To the point where some people think they are psychotic.

 

[jimmy p]

Killing innocent civilians is wrong. Some argue that to punish those who kill civilians, Americans should kill "their" civilians. This is the two-wrong-make-a-right fallacy.

Reminiscent of the Germans isn't it? For every German soldier the Serbians killed, the Germans would kill 20 Serbian prisoners in WW2. Wonder if anyone ever told them that?

 

[Tigers2B1]

Killing innocent civilians is wrong. Some argue that to punish those who kill civilians, Americans should kill "their" civilians. This is the two-wrong-make-a-right fallacy.

Who is "some?" I've never seen this argument. Would you please give a name, moniker, or a site or cite ---- or any combination of these for this?

 

[Njorl]

I have heard ignorant hotheads say things like "we should bomb the hell out of them". Though it is not explicitly a call to kill innocent civilians, it would have that effect.

We have been shelling individual sites in Fallujah which are reportedly safe houses for Zarqawi's organization. People have died. I have heard no assertions that those who died were terrorists. I don't think we know, or even have any way of determining if they were.

In warfare, you expect and accept some collateral damage. Is this still warfare? For damage to be collateral, you are expected to hit the target once in a while. Are we ever killing terrorists with this shelling, or just innocent Iraqis?

Njorl

 

[Dagenais]

I have heard ignorant hotheads say things like "we should bomb the hell out of them".

It's called war, and that has already happened.

That's different from, "Kill all of their innocent civilians", because nobody on this site has said that and it's rude to even imply it without proof (agreeing with Tigers2B1).

We have been shelling individual sites in Fallujah which are reportedly safe houses for Zarqawi's organization. People have died. I have heard no assertions that those who died were terrorists. I don't think we know, or even have any way of determining if they were.

So, what do you suggest?

That bombs shouldn't be used in war, even though they are primary weapons of war? (Aside from rifles).

How can you even compare this to what the terrorists were doing?

Most of the civilian deaths on the US part were accidental. This happens in war.

In warfare, you expect and accept some collateral damage. Is this still warfare? For damage to be collateral, you are expected to hit the target once in a while. Are we ever killing terrorists with this shelling, or just innocent Iraqis?

When they shelled Sadaam's place, yes, they were hitting terrorists. Their missiles were meant for terrorists and not civilians. The terrorists clearly want to hurt innocent people and won't even think about gearing up as a soldier and fighting.