Recent beheadings

[panerd]

I am not sure if there is an answer to the following post but I am more interested in the discussion. It may turn into a political flamefest, but I hope there are enough other topics already burned that this one is left alone.

Apperently the main news headline this hour is that militants are threating to behead a South Korean hostage if their demands aren't met. My question is at what point does the media bear some responsibility in stopping this monster? Of course this is major news and one would surly sense a cover up if CNN, etc. didn't pick up the story. But isn't this press (obviously bad press, but press nonetheless) exactly what the militants are looking for? Is there a way to not report this?

This is very similar to the string a school shootings a few years ago that I in no way blame the media for causing, but kind of blamed to media for sensationalizing. I felt the intense press coverage was exactly what some of the fools desired and after the shock started to wear a little thinner and thinner from shootings day after day the mass shootings seemed to sort of stop.

The other day a poster made the point that this is a tragic death, but there are other tragic deaths all around the world that don't get this type of scrutiny. I guess my question is does the intense media coverage welcome more of this despicible new form of terror?

[panerd]

dola:

There is no question that the terrorists are 99.99% responsible and I in no way have any way of understanding what the hell they hope to accomplish. My question is can we just ignore them and hope they go away?

[JPhillips]

In the long term I don't see any downside to publicity. It shows our enemies in their true colors. Imagine the difference if those holding Mr. Johnson had released him saying they were not about to commit the atrocities they saw the US commit at Abu Ghraib. They would have been much more likely to draw people to their viewpoint. As it is, tapes of them beheading innocents only angers the world and fortifies the resolve of those opposed to terrorism.

[panerd]

In the long term I don't see any downside to publicity. It shows our enemies in their true colors. Imagine the difference if those holding Mr. Johnson had released him saying they were not about to commit the atrocities they saw the US commit at Abu Ghraib. They would have been much more likely to draw people to their viewpoint. As it is, tapes of them beheading innocents only angers the world and fortifies the resolve of those opposed to terrorism.

I guess I don't even understand why they would behead innocent people. The 9-11 attacks were without question disgusting. But I think many anti-Americans see them as symbolizing attacking the wealth/greed (WTC) and military complex (Pentagon) of the infidels. What does cutting off an innocent person's head signify?

[vtbub]

The point of terrorism, or at least terrorism in the 21st century, is to make those being terrorized feel unsafe. The hope is that we will see these horrible pictures and pack our bags and leave.

[JPhillips]

My belief is they think they can get us and those that support us to withdraw for the region. While they may make some headway in the short run(God knows if I were in the Middle East I would want to came home) in the long term they are hurting their cause. Who can stand up and offer support for these thugs? In the end they are fighting a political struggle and these actions hurt their cause.

[Flasch186]

In the long term I don't see any downside to publicity. It shows our enemies in their true colors. Imagine the difference if those holding Mr. Johnson had released him saying they were not about to commit the atrocities they saw the US commit at Abu Ghraib. They would have been much more likely to draw people to their viewpoint. As it is, tapes of them beheading innocents only angers the world and fortifies the resolve of those opposed to terrorism.


However, I have a sneaking suspicion that in their circles, this is almost considered "cool" and draws more youths to their ranks. I give you the following example, a stretch but proves my point. The movie "around the world in 80 days" came out this week. This movie is a childrens movie, wholesome and good fun, by the producer's admission....this is what his goal was. The same weekend dodgeball comes out which is the basest of humors, on the verge of disgusting (i found it halarious). Which one topped the BO? Dodgeball.

Unfortunately, I feel like today in our country, if the under 30's are drawn to this stuff like moths to the flame and THEN I wonder if in those cultures the same age group doesnt find themselves drawn to that "edgey - jihad group". I have no proof of this but wondered what you all thought....

[Driftwood]

My opinion is that these are vicious, violent criminals who are using the whole terrorism/Iraqi/Muslim issue as a cloak to give a reason to their actions.

My guess is that the people who are doing these things would be violent criminals in any society--even if America were wiped off the face of the planet.

Its just a handy excuse, and a justification for doing whatever they want. Some people are just evil. Full stop.

[Anthony]

you gotta admit, if the media would flat out refuse to air this stuff it would pretty much render the beheadings useless. the terrorists use our media as another weapon in their arsenal - we should really try to take that weapon out of their hands.

they take hostages and threaten death as way to spit their rhetoric. i think instead of airing all the footage the terrorists provide, the media should just give basic info like "an american was kidnapped". the way they do it know they show the footage, quote from the terrorists (who are just trying to get their message across on the grandest stage possible), and by and large provide a lot of exposure for these kinds of acts. to restate, the media needs to filter what they provide so that we are informed and aware of who's been kidnapped, but not necessarily what the message of the kidnappers is or giving them access into our homes via the airwaves and newpapers.

[Sharpieman]

I don't think some people are just evil. Evil is such a ambigous and really stupid word. The terrorists who do this sick stuff have a very deep hatred for westerners. They obviously have been brainwashed by their leaders into thinking that these actions are somehow justifiable because of various reasons. I just pray to God that no more innocent Americans are killed in Iraq.

[Anthony]

i'm telling you, this is going to make us look very stupid and inept years fro mnow. just like how we laugh that the Russians weren't able to take over Afghanistan during the 80's and they left the country w/ their tails between their legs the same will happen to us. the day we decided we had to fight this war with one hand tied behind our back due to lack of global support it was over.

[SFL Cat]

i'm telling you, this is going to make us look very stupid and inept years fro mnow. just like how we laugh that the Russians weren't able to take over Afghanistan during the 80's and they left the country w/ their tails between their legs the same will happen to us. the day we decided we had to fight this war with one hand tied behind our back due to lack of global support it was over.

Agrees with HA....twice. :eek:

[stevew]

This South Korean is toast. Continuously showing him screaming in the camera doesnt do any good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess my question is does the intense media coverage welcome more of this despicible new form of terror?
Phrased that way, it seems to me to be a fairly simple question with a fairly straightforward answer: Yes, the more coverage these incidents receive, the more of them we seem likely to see.

The kidnappings, the beheadings, et al are weapons in a war. Weapons used by an enemy that is hopelessly outgunned (when we are willing to use them) and hopelessly outmanned.

It's odd in a way -- as hateful & despicable as the beheadings are, I think I'm probably in a small minority that really doesn't think any less of the enemy because of them. I believe that's largely a function of how little I thought of the vermin to begin with, but it's still an odd realization (one that struck me before I ever saw this thread).

Absent an aggresively prosecuted strategy, this seems to be a battle of attrition, not of men & materiel, but of wills. And this is one possible way to undermine the will of the weak.

I really don't believe there's much of a downside to the use of the tactic either. It doesn't take much effort to find people willing to give de facto absolution to these murderers, by virtue of the "they are just so oppressed, no wonder they react so violently, we need to address that oppression" etc etc etc ad nauseum. That crowd has already made it clear they lack the will to do what is required, and sadly, I suspect these incidents (and similar tactics) will lend them at least a few more members in their camp.

[Driftwood]

When we talk about the media fueling these actions by reporting on them, I really think we`re missing the mark. If the Western media never showed the footage, or got into details with regards to these beheadings, Al-Jazeera and the Islamic websites would still be showing it, and the like-minded Muslims would still revel in it. I think that these tapes are not solely intended for the average civilian back home.

[PilotMan]

There will never be enough international outrage from the beheadings to stop them. Like a child that has found a way to get attention the terrorists have found one way. More effective than a car bomb because of the personal nature of the attack. A car bomb is good for one day, but a beheading can ganer attention for a week or more, depending on how they play it. There is a chance to find out who they are and where they live. The family gets to say some stuff, then you broadcast it on the web. Simple, effective and low cost and low cost to life, with some immense returns on the attention and horror front.

The media cannot stop, because they will be accused of trying to sweep it under the rug, families of those involved will point to the administration as an attempt to hide something. The beheadings would not go away.

I don't think there will be enough international outcry, because pretty much anything that happens, I believe that a majority of those opposed to the US feel like we are getting what we deserve and that the terrorists are really freedom fighters. Similar in idea as to why you are happy when the Lakers or Yankees lose terribly, they are so good it is good to see them lose. I am not saying its the same, but I believe it to be a decent analogy.

It does give the US leverage against other countries in the region to clean up their acts or feel the squeeze. And it paints big, red, bulls-eyes on the chests of the terrorists too.

Our best road may lead with the media, if we can find the right thing to say. A death is still a death, and I would like to see it treated that way. I still think the media sensationalizes it way over the top, and they do it for the shock, to draw viewers and to sell advertizing, that is what makes me the most angry.

[sachmo71]

I don't think there will be enough international outcry, because pretty much anything that happens, I believe that a majority of those opposed to the US feel like we are getting what we deserve and that the terrorists are really freedom fighters. Similar in idea as to why you are happy when the Lakers or Yankees lose terribly, they are so good it is good to see them lose. I am not saying its the same, but I believe it to be a decent analogy.


I disagree with this. I'm pretty cynical these days, but I have more faith in people than that. Might be my downfall, but that's how I feel. I think all but the most hard core in the world are sickened by the beheadings. I can't see many people thinking that an innocent man deserves to be killed in that way just because of his government's policies.


Our best road may lead with the media, if we can find the right thing to say. A death is still a death, and I would like to see it treated that way. I still think the media sensationalizes it way over the top, and they do it for the shock, to draw viewers and to sell advertizing, that is what makes me the most angry.


I also disagree with this. Death is death on an existential level, but the manner in which it happens makes a world of difference. I won't disagree with you that the media sensationalizes stories, but the statement behind the execution is the story.

[Ben E Lou]

It's odd in a way -- as hateful & despicable as the beheadings are, I think I'm probably in a small minority that really doesn't think any less of the enemy because of them. I believe that's largely a function of how little I thought of the vermin to begin with, but it's still an odd realization (one that struck me before I ever saw this thread).I'm in that small minority with you, and I don't think it to be an odd realization at all. (It also struck me well before reading this thread.)

[duckman]

the day we decided we had to fight this war with one hand tied behind our back due to lack of global support it was over.
I don't see how you came to this conclusion. There are several countries that have supported us in the war on terrorism. We've had countries that have not supported the Iraqi war, but most countries back us and have backed us on other fronts. This is going to take awhile before we will see results. Many people I've spoke with are spoiled by the last couple conflicts (Desert Storm, Kosovo) that they think we should be done with this a long time ago and it doesn't work that way. I can see us taking 20 or more years before we see the fruits of our labor.

[KWhit]

Phrased that way, it seems to me to be a fairly simple question with a fairly straightforward answer: Yes, the more coverage these incidents receive, the more of them we seem likely to see.

The kidnappings, the beheadings, et al are weapons in a war. Weapons used by an enemy that is hopelessly outgunned (when we are willing to use them) and hopelessly outmanned.

It's odd in a way -- as hateful & despicable as the beheadings are, I think I'm probably in a small minority that really doesn't think any less of the enemy because of them. I believe that's largely a function of how little I thought of the vermin to begin with, but it's still an odd realization (one that struck me before I ever saw this thread).

Absent an aggresively prosecuted strategy, this seems to be a battle of attrition, not of men & materiel, but of wills. And this is one possible way to undermine the will of the weak.

I really don't believe there's much of a downside to the use of the tactic either. It doesn't take much effort to find people willing to give de facto absolution to these murderers, by virtue of the "they are just so oppressed, no wonder they react so violently, we need to address that oppression" etc etc etc ad nauseum. That crowd has already made it clear they lack the will to do what is required, and sadly, I suspect these incidents (and similar tactics) will lend them at least a few more members in their camp.
Great post, Jon. I agree completely, especially when you categorize it as a battle of wills. Incidently, I believe it's a battle that we will likely lose.

[BishopMVP]

Great post, Jon. I agree completely, especially when you categorize it as a battle of wills. Incidently, I believe it's a battle that we will likely lose.I disagree with this, because I believe that there are enough Americans who have the will to win. It's just probably going to take another attack or two worse than 9/11 for people to realize this. Remember the words of Tojo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I disagree with this, because I believe that there are enough Americans who have the will to win.
I hope and pray you're right about that. But I just don't know.

[PilotMan]

Now that you mention 9-11 did we set a bad precedent with the response and finacial outpouring to those poor families that lost loved ones.

What is going to happen the next 2 or 3 times? Are those families going get the same attention and financial backing? And if they don't could they sue (the govt.) for it? Would it get to the point that "Well we just can't afford to anymore, so now you just have to deal with it on your own mentality?"

I really don't have any anwsers on this, it was just something I thought of.

Another one, to try and stay on topic. Should the families of the terror victims in Iraq and SA be able to get the same financial support since they too are terror victims?

[sachmo71]

Now that you mention 9-11 did we set a bad precedent with the response and finacial outpouring to those poor families that lost loved ones.

What is going to happen the next 2 or 3 times? Are those families going get the same attention and financial backing? And if they don't could they sue (the govt.) for it? Would it get to the point that "Well we just can't afford to anymore, so now you just have to deal with it on your own mentality?"

I really don't have any anwsers on this, it was just something I thought of.

Another one, to try and stay on topic. Should the families of the terror victims in Iraq and SA be able to get the same financial support since they too are terror victims?
Nope. From what I hear, this will probably never happen again. I think most of the businesses now have legal defense against terrorist attacks. Not that it will stop people from sueing, but at least the business will now have a chance to defend itself.

[Dutch]

When we talk about the media fueling these actions by reporting on them, I really think we`re missing the mark. If the Western media never showed the footage, or got into details with regards to these beheadings, Al-Jazeera and the Islamic websites would still be showing it, and the like-minded Muslims would still revel in it. I think that these tapes are not solely intended for the average civilian back home.

I agree. We do have to take the bad with the good with free press. It's a sad reality, but I think it's important to keep the decision making of what the press reports squarely with the reporters.