Centerfield

The name of the islamic terrorist group that did this:
"One God and Jihad" (translated in other articles as Monotheism and Jihad)

I think you bring up a good point Todd. It is almost as if they want this country to be united in our effort to wipe them out. I am somebody who strongly opposes the death penalty, but it has become obvious to me that the only thing these sick bastards understand is overwhelming force. I don't think we have a choice but to kill them all.

Todd,

I absolutely agree with you; I was thinking the very same thing earlier. If they wanted to help Bush get re-elected, this was the thing to do. Their ideology says that Jews and Americans love life so much that they will be terrified of those willing to die. In fact, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history (which obviously these animals don't have) would know it's just the opposite. The kamikazis made the Americans angrier and increased their resolve. And if they are trying to win sympathy for the killed "elderly, women, and children" this isn't going to do it. Unfortunately, rationality is not one of the characteristics of these groups. They are probably also playing to a different audience; i.e., the rest of Iraq and the Middle East where showing the willingness and ability to kill is likely to dissuade others from siding with the U.S.

Yes, surely such barbarisms increase our resolve to oppose them. But as MWS points out, which audience(s) are they playing to?

Do such acts make foreign civilians more or less likely to enlist in training and infrastructure efforts? I don't know for sure, but I'd lean towards "less."

My sense is that most of the terrorists efforts inside Iraq are gearing their efforts towards intimidating the people actually there much more so than worrying about how it plays with American opinion. But as you point out, to the extent that they think they're scaring us into bailing, I don't think it's working.

I personally don't know what to think for sure...

but these are Americans and British being beheaded...not Iraqis. It seems to me that this is set up for American and British eyes...and to effect what we as Americans and they as Brits do.

Btw...you can't "kill them all".

We have to address the root cause, not just the symptom.

The audience for this is clearly people in the middle east. They kill Americans and British because it is popular to do so -- many in the middle east think we have it coming to us. It strengthens our resolve to kill them but that too only plays into their hands. The extremists *want* us to continue to fight them because then they, the Jihadis, are seen as the only power with the moral authority to rule over Arab/Islamic countries. I don't know how we break out of this either because we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't fight back.

Carla,

I agree with your point that there is a root cause that needs to be addressed, and in my opinion it is poverty and suppression, but I think it is foolish to think that there are not people in that part of the world that are not going to change and need to be hunted down. Quite honestly, we can't afford to say that is not an option, which again, is why Kerry's recent goal announcements are absolutely ridiculous. If it is not Iraq, we will be deploying troops to other parts of that region for twenty years and maybe, and much that can be done about it no matter who is President.

I think both points are right. Beheading Iraqis wouldn't play well, beheading westerners is ok and sends the point that we can do it to you too. But they probably also believe that they can scare westerners into leaving. They don't realize that killing contractors is really pointless because, as long as there's money to be made, these guys won't leave.

Mathew,

AFAIK, poverty is not really a factor in terrorism.

Also, what was ridiculous about Kerry's pronouncements? He pronunced that terrorists should be destroyed.

If you're talking about his goal to withdraw troops after stabilizing Iraq, I don't see why it would be be ridiculous. Was withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia ridiculous? Do we need to invade Pakistan?

Oberon,

It was ridiculous because his point was that if you elect me the troops will be home, and that is a promise he cannot keep and he knows it. Whether they are in Iraq or not, chances are they will be deployed which is not what John Kerry wants us to think. His message is that things are awful right not and if you elect me they will go back to normal, which is simply not true.

I don't know what AFAIK is, but I disagree that poverty is not a cause of terrorism. It is the very root of it. Terrorism is breeded on hate spread to people who have nothing and are promised the world.

AFAIK=And For All I Know

The terrorists (it's not one group but many) have also beheaded Iraqis.

For an islamic terrorist group that calls itself "one god and jihad", perhaps this is one of the root causes:

Koran 8.012
(three common translations below)
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

Mathew:

I think the "kill them all" attitude only serves to make it worse. They want to die...they've got all those virgins waiting for them, remember?

The most effective way to end terrorism is to figure out what causes it and fix it. We're not going to scare these guys into submission and we're not going to kill them all. We can't.

We should be going after the individuals who do this stuff like we go after any criminal, with law enforcement. We should be going after nations that want harm us and harbor terrorists that harm us with the military.

I don't think we can treat this as a 'war'. We've tried that...and it's a miserable failure.

Btw Susan...the Qu'uran is no different from the Bible in terms of wishing violence and terror against unbelievers. The Book of Revelations is one big scary movie and some GOPers are referring to Republicans as "God's Own Party".

You certainly have to fix the root problems, but you can't ignore the symptoms either. Law enforcement, in my opinion, is a necessary but not sufficient option for dealing with transnational terrorists. For one thing, I would rather have these guys dead than having trials. Law enforcement assumes that punishment is some sort of deterrent--in this case, the only thing that will deter these people is death. However, I do believe western countries should work together to improve their law enforcement abilities vis a vis terrorists, but you cannot exclude the military option.

As for poverty, there have been some studies that note most terrorists do not come from poor families, that they are generally well educated, etc. I think it's a little simplistic, however, to say that poverty is not a factor in terrorism. Perhaps a more accurate way to say it is that powerlessness and lack of opportunity contribute to terrorism. Most terrorists come from oppressive societies with little opportunity for economic or political empowerment (I hate using the word empowerment). So, in that sense, while there is no DIRECT correlation between poverty and terrorism, I think terrorism is related to fundamental economic and political conditions in these countries. In addition, many of these oppressive states encourage Islamic extremism toward external enemies (ie, US and Israel) as a way to coopt them and keep the pressure off their own regimes.

Well maybe this time you won't vote Bush the Idiot again.