Ohhhh. Not like I expected anything else, but still. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Expected. Very tragic and sad. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I am sorry, but I hate the people who did this. Every breath they take is an affront to all mankind.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Each one is sadder than the previous.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
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.
Militaries are how countries express opinions.
[ November 17, 2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
TMedina-- she was an Iraqi national.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
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?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:TMedina-- she was an Iraqi national.
Yes, I was going to point that out too.
To quote the article I linked:
quote:"But it is repugnant to commit such a crime against a woman who has spent most of her life working for the good of the people of Iraq."
This is part of the reason this bothered me so much. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
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.
-Trevor
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
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.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Fair enough - semantic issues on direction notwithstanding, she still made her choice.
And apparently 30 years in-country didn't do much to change her image from Western foreigner to Iraqi native.
-Trevor
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
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.
[ November 17, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
At least one person didn't, provided the corpse is successfully identified as the victim in question.
And I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I don't think either the CIA or the Mossad were involved. I could, however, be wrong.
-Trevor
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
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.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
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?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
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?
hear hear
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Nobody can justify this. Margaret was against sanctions and the war.
Its good to know that people who did support the sanctions and the war deserve to die.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ November 17, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
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.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
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.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ November 17, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
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."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Paranoia time.
Her video came out almost immeidiately after the video of the American Marine shooting the unarmed wounded Iraqi.
This is the first time that the terrorists have beheaded a woman.
Her murder has greatly angered and upset many muslims around the world.
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?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dan,
I thought the video showed them killing her with a gunshot to the head, not beheading.
I can't remember if she's the first woman who's been killed or not.
But unless there's new information, I don't think they beheaded her.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Quoth the Raven:
quote: Paranoia time.
Yep. That definitely is paranoid.
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.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
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.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
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.
[ November 17, 2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
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.
![[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.