David Haines worked for the Royal Mail, then joined the Royal Air Force. He later worked with the United Nations in the Balkans, where "he helped whoever needed help, regardless of race, creed or religion," according to his brother.Having chosen what made him feel most alive, he was chosen to be the next in line in the one-by-one beheadings performed by ISIS for the world audience.
"During this time, David began to decide that humanitarian work was the field he wanted to work in," Mike Haines said. "... David was most alive and enthusiastic in his humanitarian roles."
He was abducted in March 2013 near a refugee camp in Atmeh, Syria, where he was working to arrange for the delivery of humanitarian aid to people staying at the camp. He had previously worked on aid operations for victims of conflict in the Balkans, African and other parts of the Middle East, according to an ACTED spokesman.Why select a man like this? Is it in the hope of getting money, a ransom scheme? Or is there focused antagonism on foreigners who arrive with offers of help and claims of humanitarianism? In the video of the beheading, the executioner warns about "another bloody and unwinnable war" and tells those "who've entered this evil alliance of America against the Islamic State to back off and leave our people alone." Presumably, he knows that the beheadings are aggravating America and our allies and bringing us closer to war. Choosing a man who has our sympathy — the humanitarian — makes the war-averse among us more likely to fight.
"His joy and anticipation for the work he (did) in Syria is, for myself and family, the most important element of this whole sad affair," Mike Haines said. "He was and is loved by all his family and will be missed terribly."
Or so it looks to me. I don't know how it looks to ISIS. I can see that our government and the British government do not ask us to understand ISIS. We're told flatly that this is "pure evil." Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Re: "Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?"
You must mean: did you have the audacity to dream?
Why is that we have to "understand" our enemy? Why can't we see them as what they are? What's this obsession with seeing them thru our cultural "eyes"?
Obama is now getting a lesson in what brought down Bush in the same situation, and what will ultimately taint his legacy.
Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?
The American public have made it very clear that they want no part of this nonsense. We have been killing Iraqi's for 24 years now. What complaint could they possibly have?
The War has gone on so long we are now fighting the sons of the first set of casualties.
I believe ISIS is murdering Americans and Brits abductees for the sole purpose or changing our ransom policies. This won't last long if we stick to our guns and aggressively hunt down and punish ISIS.
Right now, Europeans are more valuable to ISIS and worth the expense or keeping alive for weeks, months or even years. There will be a payoff. Americans and Brits are only useful for this - televised mirder. Their murders maybe indirectly help ISIS financially through jihadist PR/fundraising, but they come with a huge cost if America and Britain don't give in like the Europeans. It is clear now that we have to either punish them or pay ransoms.
I vote punish them.
I do wish we could get more than just sound bite analysis from our leaders.
Obama could have used his prime time speech to go into more detail about who they are and what they want, rather than just the: they are dangerous, maybe not yet ready to attack the homeland, they are not Islamic, they have no real goals.
Was one a mask and the other real?
Or has he changed?
(And will he change--or seem to change--back, once he is out of office and making his money in the non-profit field?)
We have been killing Iraqi's for 24 years now. What complaint could they possibly have?
We've killed fewer Iraqis than other Iraqis or Muslim groups have.
The left wanted us to pull out of Iraq when it was Iraqis who were being suicide bombed on a constant basis. Then we did leave, and now they are being enslaved and beheaded.
You win a war by breaking your enemy's will to fight, say, for example, by burning everything in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864. Or vaporizing cities in Germany and Japan along with all of their inhabitants.
That's war. And we haven't had much trouble from Rebs, Nazis, or the Japanese lately.
If we wanted to, we could annihilate ISIS, but we don't feel as though we're fighting for national survival, so as a result we're toying with them.
Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese see our irresoluteness and will act accordingly.
I believe ISIS is murdering Americans and Brits abductees for the sole purpose or changing our ransom policies.
That makes sense. Also makes the other countries ramp up their ransom paying desires.
Plus, I think they like the sheer thrill of it. Beheaders gotta behead.
The Middle East went to hell when the white colonialists left. All the beheadings are a cry for help: they really want the white man to return and put the land back to order. Is that a valid attempt at understanding them?
We will know they are serious when they behead a gay black man. Help us, they will be saying through their actions.
The problem is NOT ISIS/ISO or Hamas or Boku Harum. It is the basic teachings of Islam which allow, encourage and command the us of such violence.
They can only save face for their embarrassingly child-like situation of tantrums by being soundly decimated: then they can regain their pride and start again.
I am Ambassador Betamax.
“makes the war-averse among us more likely to fight”
For a few weeks anyway. Then the Progressive drumbeat for peace and understanding of the Other will start up again.
“Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?”
No, you didn’t. It was a dream of his father, part of a family of Muslims, as Barry said in his Cairo speech.
Of course, the invitation was issued in bad faith, reflecting the audacity of Progressive anti-Americanism. Even Obama now faces its limits. At least for a few weeks he will adopt a pose of strength.
Sometimes you have to decisively beat a culture in the figurative elevator. Let's everyone know where they stand in the scheme of things.
Remember Dresden in WWII?
Rubble doesn't make trouble.
I think a better statement is made by ISIS by killing the noble vs. say, a soldier. I assume they'd be killing babies if they could.
Evil out there demands attention and I don't think it helps to give into that demand. Unless by attention anyone means targeted bombings.
The American public have made it very clear that they want no part of this nonsense. We have been killing Iraqi's for 24 years now. What complaint could they possibly have?
I do not believe that at all. Our military is made up of people who volunteered to destroy bad guys. America is populated by a majority of people who want to protect and defe3nd the weak and underdog.
If it was common knowledge how Isis is slaughtering unarmed soldiers and civilians the polls would be much different.
"...Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought..."
Maybe Obama has come to understand that these are people who feel most alive when they are killing other people in the name of the cause and they will choose to do that no matter what he says or offers them.
Don't forget...they are not islam!!! The only terrorists in Obamas mind are Tea Party terrorists...I thought he was supposed to be smart????
A CIA spokesman says a new intelligence assessment estimates that the Islamic State group can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, up from a previous figure of 10,000.
As long as Susan Rice and Obama claim ISIL is a terror cell rather than an army we're screwed.
It is just pure evil, but I too have been wondering if the real intent isn't to draw us into war.
Nonetheless, nutcases like this have to be stopped, and history teaches that their insane actions do tend to have initial success and make ignoring them unsafe. If you have to fight this sort of thing, best to do it early. And completely.
I think if ARM flew over and had a talk, a reasonable talk for once, with ISIS they will lay off the beheadings.
I will pay his way.
First class NY-Istanbul. Limo to the Syrian border.
ARM. Chance to get in the movies.
Obama is not going into real war with anyone. If ISIL bombed Pearl Harbor he wouldn't.
Michael said...
First class NY-Istanbul. Limo to the Syrian border.
You are a fool. It is the morons who actually did this who have caused us to pick up the tar baby one more time.
No one is saying that westerners are popular in that region. Get over yourself. You don't have to be loved by everyone.
"I will pay his way."
I don't think you should have to bear this burden alone, Michael. I, too, will step up to the plate.
We should ransom one of these guys, but put a tracking device in the loot. Wait for the signal to stop moving, then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
ARM
LOL. You are one of those hoards of the glifted who can tell us what is wrong. And never offer a solution.
That way, as you have learned, you are never wrong.
LOL
These guys aren't even Iraqis. They're jihadis who show up to fight.
Whites have successfully oppressed blacks for four hundred years and we can't handle some Muslims in the Middle East? What is supremacy good for, anyway?
Bin Laden's ultimate objective was the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy. He could not do that directly, so the chosen weapon was chaos. ISIS might have a similar motivation. Why mount bloody theater to lure America into war? Because it can create the most chaotic opportunity.
Or something like that. Like you, I really have no reliable basis for understanding their thinking. It's just as possible they just enjoy bloody theater.
Obama's own dream has turned into a nightmare.
Maybe Obama has come to understand that these are people who feel most alive when they are killing other people in the name of the cause and they will choose to do that no matter what he says or offers them.
I would love to crawl inside Obama's head to know what he's thinking about the world now vs. when he was running for president.
Back then, he was all about "no country is above another" and "of course I'll meet with our enemies to talk" and the idea that everyone else just reacts to America's bad actions. The speech to Cairo was going to be an achievement. Remember they collected phone numbers so his team could text out updates to people throughout the middle east? They really thought this was how things were going to be done.
And now he's president, and other people don't listen to him, and bad actors use *his* name when they are beheading, and leading from behind in Libya has left a failed state, and nobody knows where we stand with Egygt anymore.
I'd love to know how much that has rocked his world.
Humanitarians in the Middle East are like small children in a pedophile's van: stay away from the van, humanitarians.
"Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?"
Gee, who could have imagined that the foreign policy views of a community organizer from Chicago would be painfully naive?
Did I just dream that you voted for this guy in 2008?
"Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?"
Yes! You and a bunch of lady parts went all dreamy stupid when Swaggy flashed that famous Smile! You just couldn't help but believe that he was the shits. I bet Ray Rice has a hell-of-a-smile.
Michael said...
LOL. You are one of those hoards of the glifted who can tell us what is wrong.
24 years of war and you still can't tell that something is wrong. Maybe your are the problem.
I hope President Obama has come to understand, when choosing sides in these messy foreign conflicts, America should always come to the aide of those who are most likely to build great golf courses if they win.
It is a common misperception amongst many that the average Iraqi doesn't want our military there. This couldn't be further from the truth. Particularly the women. They often told us personally when their owner/husband's weren't looking.
The problem was that the left,like ARM, always view republicans as more of a threat than islamists. They beat the anti war drum fervently. We the soldiers paid the price. They got a dem in the white house. For them mission accomplished.
Now there are no Christians or Jews in Iraq. The Yazidi females between the ages of 12 and 20 are sex slaves. We can let the good times roll. As long as a dem is in the white house all is good.
You people who support this should look in the mirror and feel disgust.
"Death to the unbelievers!"
Tells me pretty much all I need to know.
"I can see that our government and the British government do not ask us to understand ISIS. We're told flatly that this is 'pure evil.' Did I just dream that Barack Obama once invited us to understand how America's enemies thought about what we were doing in the world?"
Understanding is a possible outcome of communication. But "understanding" has a different meaning to progressives.
"Understanding" is one of the oldest progressive con games. When progressives want to get someone to change their behavior, they appeal to a natural human sense of altruism to open communication. Then, when the other person is in the vulnerable state of listening, the progressive tries to convince the other person that the progressive viewpoint is the only reasonable one and that you are ignorant and have no interests that are superior to theirs.
ISIS knows this con game because ISIS plays it well, plus they have the advantage that they can slit the throat of the counterparty if they remain unpersuaded -- something that must make Obama green with envy.
When Obama asks us to "understand" how our enemies think, he asks Americans to be vulnerable to their persuasion. This is massively stupid, and brings into question the President's motivations; or at the very least his common sense.
If a group of people is slitting throats and shooting captive people in the head while shouting praises to God, I don't have to listen to them. I don't have to empathize with them. And to the extent that their behavior is a danger to our citizens, our country is obliged to render these people harmless to us without more than a passing regard to how they think or feel.
Please remember, "I'll stand with the muslims..." speech our president, middle-name Hussein, gave.
Also remember that A. Hitler, after watching the incredibly inept Soviet attempt to conquer Finland in 1940, The Winter War, decided the U.S.S.R. would be no match for his blitzkrieging wehrmacht, which led to the deaths of tens of millions over the next four years.
We have much death and destruction ahead of us, there will be no turning back.
For a group that "the Won" declared to be non-Islamic, the beheadings follow a ritual set by Mohammed himself. During the battle of Badr, a major chief who had opposed Mohammed was knocked to the ground and stood on by one of Mo's minions. The good minion grabbed the "infidel's beard" and proceeded to hack off his head - then they placed the heads in the hands of Mohammed.
So when you see the beheading - the foot on the body - the display of the head - the flag over the body - it's all the ritual from long ago showing the triumph of Islam over wickedness.
Until this ideology is literally burned to the ground, this will never stop. Genghis Khan had the correct idea about Muslims too, maybe we need to use HIS example when we fight.
"No one is saying that westerners are popular in that region. Get over yourself. You don't have to be loved by everyone."
I'll settle for their unreasoning fear.
"AReasonableMan said...
Michael said...
LOL. You are one of those hoards of the glifted who can tell us what is wrong.
24 years of war and you still can't tell that something is wrong. Maybe your are the problem."
24 years of us having our hands tied behind our back, being called murderers, oppressors, having to watch Abuse Ghraib reruns over and over, just so you could feel some moral superiority and mask your own cowardice.
What is wrong is you. You don't care about anyone except yourself. It is always about getting a dem elected. There are women in the world who face real oppression. But for you I am waging a war on women because I don't want to pay for their birth control or abortions.
The world wouldn't miss you.
"24 years of war and you still can't tell that something is wrong. Maybe your are the problem."
A little bit longer than that. Since about AD 800.
When did they hit the breakwater gates of Vienna? 1350 something on September 11.
Until nukes are involved it is all kabuki.
There are no reasonable actors to take the place of a vanquished ISIS. Firmly shake the Etch-a-Sketch.
As long as there is a significant minority of Muslims that believe in subjugating and killing non-Muslims or insufficiently pure Muslims, this will never end. There are two ways to stop it.
1) Muslims voluntarily abandon the religious ideology that drives the behavior.
2) Keep killing the fanatics and their supporters until 1) is reached.
The ultimate question is what percentage are supporters of the barbarians. I feel at this point in history it is a substantial percentage worldwide, but can vary considerably in different countries. We are not at the point yet where 2) is on the table as an option.
Forget it, Jake, it's IS.
"Why is that we have to 'understand' our enemy? Why can't we see them as what they are?"
How one see them as what they are if one doesn't understand them? Without understanding, one sees them through the scrim of one's own ignorance, prejudices, and assumptions as to what motivates them and what their goals are.
What you really mean is: why do we have to understand them? Let's just kill them.
Why not be honest about that?
@MaxedOutMama Email me if you don't know why I had to delete you.
"Our military is made up of people who volunteered to destroy bad guys."
Or by people who had no other options, jobs being scarce, poor-paying, or non-existent in many parts of the country where enlistees come from. The military is hiring all the time.
I blame everyone who voted for this man. And have reached the point where I can't even talk to friends who did so. Look what you've done.
ARM
LOL. You again prove my thesis. So the war was wrong. We are where we are. Do you have a solution?
Of course not. Your solution is to tell us again, it was wrong to get here in the first place.
LOL. You think like a housewife.
"It is a common misperception amongst many that the average Iraqi doesn't want our military there. This couldn't be further from the truth. Particularly the women. They often told us personally when their owner/husband's weren't looking. "
That's not so surprising. After all, we removed that stabilizing force which had previously kept at bay and under control the factionalism that has riven the country apart for more than a decade: Saddam Hussein.
As Colin Powell put it, "if we break it, we buy it." We broke it, and they want us to buy it. Instead, they are paying for it.
I blame everyone who voted for this man.
How is blame useful? I understand it helps you demonstrate your superiority to yourself over your friends, but other than that?
But do please keep cloaking yourself in moral superiority. The Nation needs more of that.
Robert Cook--
"What you really mean is: why do we have to understand them? Let's just kill them."
It's like you're reading my mind. Honestly.
“makes the war-averse among us more likely to fight”
No, it doesn't. It makes the war-averse among you more likely to send those who are willing to fight off to fight while you moan and second-guess and backstab them.
Don't recall seeing any Abraham Lincoln Brigades leaping into action to defend the poor oppressed Iraqis from Bush. You'd figure Kerry at least would have been willing to command the regiment.
"Ruefully.... see?"
My view:
A news story (in the New York Times or elsewhere) should never let ADVERBS carry the story.
Adverbs are the part of speech that deal with interpretation of actions.
How does Mr. Baker know it was "ruefully?" Is he psychic?
The more adverbs in a news story, the less it's news and the more it's advocacy.
"Moral Superiority"? Hah. Or just the ability to see a man who never did anything, couldn't face up to tough decisions, voted present, was sold on a pure platform of propaganda, supported by a muscular activist arm with no morality whatsoever.
Unfortunately for you - and all of us who are now sucked into this mess - he can't defeat ISIS by unsealing their private divorce records, even if he was interested in doing so. Unfortunately for you - and all of us who are now sucked into this mess - he still thinks the real enemy is half of the American people, and the people who once sat across the aisle from the pitiful junior Senator.
"The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Maybe he will get his wish and the beheaders will be in charge. There's your 'moral superiority.'
Good take down of the right wing's 'concern' for middle eastern Christians by Ross Douthat. After a half-hearted attack on leftists he really puts his back into an uncharacteristic attack on his fellow wingers stripping away their pretensions to 'care' for their fellow Christians and their fate.
It is fair to say that Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't waste any effort worrying about how their actions might impact the lives of ME Christians.
Just wait until Obama starts calling ISIS "evildoers."
Anyone trying "to make things better for the people" is clearly anti-ISIL/ISIS.
A simple solution to the problem of middle east Christians would be to declare them all as a class to be entitled to political asylum. Then countries rated acceptable to provide such asylum can offer quotas. There arent a lot of them left in vulnerable places anyway so this is entirely feasible. This is off the table of course, because of overwhelming official PC. It would be very popular among US conservatives, and very likely elsewhere also.
Another likely effect of this would be to massively increase the popularity of Christianity in the ME.
Also a good outcome.
Ah yes ARM, its Cheneys and Rumsfelds and the rights fault that obama has opened the floodgates of murderous islamist rage against ME Christians. Yes, of course it is.
What else could it possibly be?
Gee, any thoughts on Douthats critique of the left?
As for long wars - religious wars take a long time because the real opponent is not a particular leadership but a culture. Cultures are resilient and can survive even heavy population losses. Only total extermination may work quickly, but that is more difficult to arrange than most people assume. Better is population exchange (ethnic cleansing), as achieved in Europe in the 17th century. But even that is difficult, costly and only circumstantially possible. It seems feasible now with respect to ME Christians so it would be a pity if the opportunity is missed. They could be this century's Huguenots.
In my old country we have had an ongoing religious war for at least 400 years, still active. It won't end anytime in the foreseeable future. As the world becomes more accessible to everyone this sort of long term grinding inter cultural conflict will become typical everywhere, not just as in the past where it happened only on the borderlands.
Rose...you GO, girl.
There are about 47% who would wholeheartedly endorse your accurate assessment of the pathic performance of Obama and the mess his administration has made of everything.
Let's hope at least 10% more are disenchanted enough to vote out every "liberal" in 2014 and 2016.
This also goes to illustrate the wisdom of several Spanish governments and the Spanish church, beginning with Ferdinand and Isabella, and Torquemada, in expelling both Jews and Muslims, and in actively suppressing Protestants. Long term this was probably a good thing for Spain and for the expelled Jews and Muslims, and quite mercifully humanitarian as these things go, especially considering the conditions of the time.
ISIL is not Islamic
ISIL is not Islamic.
The Waffen SS was not Germanic.
Don'chall get yourselves
in a Panic.
It's all there
in the Koranic.
940, yo. Peace, out.
Decent people do not give a good goddamn if it is christians, muslims jews or reasonable men being slaughtered. It is about weak, innicent, and defenseless people. But then, I am not smart enough to understand all the nuances involved. Diffrence between me and some more educated is I acknowledge and accept my limitations. I am what I am, and that's all that I am.
"Why select a man like this? Is it in the hope of getting money, a ransom scheme?..."
You should also consider how it looks to other Muslims. Atrocity porn is one of their recruiting tools. Also theater to show that they are the strong horse to rally to, as opposed to those more moderate weak horses. Also theater to terrify other Muslims, not to mention Christians.
" Choosing a man who has our sympathy — the humanitarian — makes the war-averse among us more likely to fight... Or so it looks to me. I don't know how it looks to ISIS."
I say it's a raw power play. They want to appear utterly ruthless. So he's just another western infidel. Plus, being utterly ruthless is what their constituency wants, and what attracts and bonds recruits. With Obama as prez, there really isn't much of a downside to them. Whatever he does will be way too little and way too late. And they know it. And they know what a political joke he is. So, the downside is minimized, and when your goal is a global caliphate, there's a huge potential upside.
Obama in a sense was right, in saying that all things look different to people with different cultural lenses. They do look different, often profoundly different.
The failures come with an inability to actually achieve the feat of seeing through these other cultures eyes. Because the true understanding achieved thereby is likely to violate ones own values. They can't handle the truth.
ARM said: "It is fair to say that Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't waste any effort worrying about how their actions might impact the lives of ME Christians."
And how would you know this?
OTOH, we know team Zero hates US Christians (heretofore labeled as domestic terrorists). It is no stretch that he cares even less about ME Christians.
AReasonableMan said...
"Good take down of the right wing's 'concern' for middle eastern Christians by Ross Douthat. After a half-hearted attack on leftists he really puts his back into an uncharacteristic attack on his fellow wingers stripping away their pretensions to 'care' for their fellow Christians and their fate.
It is fair to say that Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't waste any effort worrying about how their actions might impact the lives of ME Christians."
When Cheney and Rumsfeld were in charge it was our goal to kill Al quaeda. This made everyone better off but especially minorities in Iraq. It was your goal and the goal of the Democratic party to use anything they could to win political power. This included undermining our mission and trashing everything we did.
Now that you are in power the place is going to shit. Maybe that is because you stand for nothing except your own power.
Curious George said...
Remember Dresden in WWII?
Rubble doesn't make trouble.
**********
Yep.
St. George said...
You win a war by breaking your enemy's will to fight,...
That's war. And we haven't had much trouble from Rebs, Nazis, or the Japanese lately.
*******
Also yep.
The Barbary Wars were fought over payment of tribute /ransom. To (hold on to your hat) MUSLIMS! History repeats.
I would like to mention that Carthage also hasn't caused any international problems for a few millenia now. And following Cato the Elders example,
Islam est delenda!
Even though they are totalitarian Islamists they know exactly the right buttons to push for the left. He's essentially making the critique of the war that the left did.
Consider that we have an equaly horrific pre-medidated murder at least once a day somewhere in the U.S. (be it the bad parts of Baltimore, D.C. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or LA). The victim knows they are going to be ended, often with several false starts - torture by another name, and then they are gone. Only half are killed with the mercy of how animals are slaughtered. Many linger in horrid agony for minutes, if not longer.
And yet we set aside the death penalty - and 999 times out of 1000 choose not to deliver on the promise of life-ending imprisonment. For these "pure evil" are less-than-animals, because animals don't know better, they can not at least think in terms of the golden rule as they hunt down, kill and devour their prey. Remember the murder tourism to Beriut during it's worst days? Often bored, wealthy, young adventurers going to Lebenon to play sniper? It's happening again.
The west could end this by making it clear that (1) we pay no ransoms, (2) we hunt down and kill those who commit these crimes, everywhere (treating our own criminals equally, no exceptions, and we understand mistakes will be made but this is one of the costs of civil society, "innocent victim" I'm looking at you - remember "you didn't build that" and you're being sacrificed for the greater good), (3) we give them no visibility beyond simple statements - no "bloody rags," and (4) we hold semi-public wakes for the families of those taken hostage, perhaps paying the victim's family some compensation for not publicising anything. Which wil encourage more ransom victims talk to to the police (fewer and fewer do). When we do capture the murders (and for that matter kidnappers) we hold public hangings to satisfy the press need for pictures that bleed.
But this seems to be too hard. So we're going to pound some (more) sand, again. Strange game.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा