Mr. Johnson's killing goes beyond politics. Murder is just murder.

[bigtree]

Anyone who wants to tie this sick act to anything political are mindlessly exploiting the sick act of a band of depraved murderers. I don't care what the creeps who beheaded this innocent man have said, or will say to justify this horrible act. Paul Johnson was a friend of Muslims. He was no threat to anyone.

I'm numb to any argument that would equate his killing to our reckless invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would go further and declare that any government or any individual who would support or defend such an act, or would seek to equate or justify the killing, does not deserve a platform to amplify the voice of these terrorist's violence.

Enough with the politics. This act is singularly wrong. Period. I am profoundly unimpressed with any complaints about 'holy land' or sacred ground in Saudi Arabia. No just God would approve of this shallow murder, no matter what passages of the Koran are invoked, or whatever expressions of nationalism are used to bolster this.

I grieve for Paul Johnson's family, and I pray for our humanity as well to ask our Creator to help us heal our angry souls.

[Droopy]

1. I'm afraid your prayers will fall on deaf ears

Because for things like this to happen in the world, either God doesn't care or isn't there.

[StopThief]

2. Well said.

Unfortunately, I predict this thread will quickly sink from the first page.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Beyond politics?

What is beyond politics today?

Every single decision made by this administration is based on politics, and how politics can increase their power and the financial standing of their friends.

I'm impressed with your ability to write off other religions. I vomit at the idea that anyone would kill in the name of God, but for you to slap down the idea that anyone would consider Saudi Arabia holy ground smacks of the kind of narrow scope that has caused a lot of these problems in the first place.

[bigtree]

6. Yeah, well, I don't think that is what I said here

Any argument that uses the argument about holy ground to justify the killing is shallow and barbaric. It seems like this group has taken every political argument that they could dredge up and draped them over this singulary horrendous act. If in fact these killers believe the this act is justified by some religion then they are deceiving themselves and misleading the population there into embracing cold blooded murder.

I acknowledge that the land is considered sacred by Muslims. I would 'write off" and condem any 'religion' that would use such an act as a defense of their religion. The U.S. does not threaten their religion.

[Malva Zebrina]

19. that is the big problem with praying for our troops

it implies that the "other" in this case the Iraqi insurgents who are trying to defend their own homeland from the American takeover, do not have the right god, because, of course, they are praying to win also.

When people say they are praying for the troops, I wonder, actually, what on earth were they praying for--to win the unjust and slaughterhouse that Bush calls a war? That sounds to me like that is it.

That the troops will kill more of these people whose country has been brually assaulted with every high tech weapon ever? That more of them die, than our side and we win? :eyes:Even though they were babies, or children or old men and women or pregnant women?

I have never figured out what people are praying for in this so called war against the people of Iraq.

[bigtree]

28. I am praying for the killings and agressions on all sides to end.

I have appealed since the beginning of the war for our country to end its illegal and immoral occupation. I pray for all of our souls, that we will learn to value peaceful acts of mercy and tolerance, and reject violent postures and acts which just invite more violence.

"We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war," Bush said after 9-11. "The United States bears a disproportionate responsibility for security." His position was in sharp contrast to candidate Bush, who had complained for months about former president Clinton's "nation-building."

There are many reasons why Bush's strategy of preemption is misguided and wrong. It is a licence to release the aggressor nation from their responsibility to pursue - to the rejection of their last reasonable admonition - a peaceful resolution to any perceived threat.

And, with a deft flex of military and political muscle the presumption of innocence, even in the face of a clear absence of proof, is a conquered victim of the tainted consensus of a cabal of purchased adversaries; " either with us or against us."
Lincoln once remarked: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Preemption is a corrosive example for those countries who may feel threatened enough by their neighbors to move to resolve their fears militarily instead of engaging in the long-established enterprise of diplomacy and negotiation.

Indeed, the appointment of Colin Powell as Secretary of State, our nation's top diplomat - the general who's army's killing of Iraqi innocents is rivaled in this century only by the enemy he sought to capture - is a discouraging message for those in the region who had hoped the hunger to divide the region militarily had waned with the end of the first war.

A common mantra coming out of the White House these days was echoed by Vice President Cheney in a speech this October before the Heritage Foundation: "We are fighting this evil in Iraq so that we do not have to fight it in our own cities," he counseled.

This is a dangerous misconception which only serves the narrow administration view that Saddam Hussein was a potential orchestrator of a worldwide Muslim terror offensive against the U.S. and its allies.

A great deal of the information which the White House used to support the link to the 9-11 terrorists was the product of mis-information provided by the very dissident groups which we were funding here in the United States.

The rest of the intelligence, as we have discovered in the aftermath of the invasion, was cobbled together from conflicting sources within the government to reflect the administration's assertions that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the U.S..

Whatever proliferation of weapons that may have occurred in Iraq would have been exacerbated by our invasion, as any WMD's that might have existed would, by now, have been dispersed, perhaps to Syria or Iran.

What is the value in using Iraq as a terror magnet? It has resulted in daily attacks on our soldiers by an Iraqi resistance - possibly aided by some outside terror network; likely no more than remnants of the Republican Guard or the like.

What is it about our operation in Iraq that would support the argument that we won't have to fight them (terrorists) on our shores? Most observers predict another devastating attack in the U.S. is inevitable if not imminent.

Further, by likening Iraq to the worldwide Muslim terror offensive the president does what Hussein could not; he binds Iraqis to the Muslim extremists. He practically invites them to join the battle there and ally with the forces that threaten our soldiers daily.

This will not create a democratic wedge against Muslim extremism in the region. Democracy cannot be imposed. If they don't understand that, they don't understand democracy.

Sadly, American soldiers serve as targets in Iraq, and their lives are no less important than ours here in the states. Inviting attacks on Americans overseas is an amazing retreat from the peaceful influence of a great nation of justice; humbled by bloody, devastating wars; and witnessed to the power of liberty, and to the freedom inherent in the constitution we wisely defend with our peaceful acts of mercy, charity, and tolerance.

"Peace," Herman Wouk wrote, "if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war, but on the love of peace. It will not be the abstaining from an act but the coming of a state of mind."

All else that we pursue should be a means to that peace; and a wholesale rejection of violent postures which just invite more violence.

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on'," Bush spoke to reporters in the White House Roosevelt Room in July.

How then should the American people judge the alarm and outrage that subsequent administrations have expressed about Saddam's murderous aggression against others outside of Iran that he considered a threat to his regime; Or against those who we would regard as enemies of the United States?

Is it moral to support another country's genocide of a people that our own leaders would, if given free reign, commit to slaughter at the whim of their supposedly clean hands, in the name of liberation and justice?

Is it moral for the U.S. to commit slaughter by proxy, and then condemn our accomplices as incarnations of intolerable evil? Does morality manifest itself in our ambitions or in our actions?

This nation will have to make that determination with their votes and with their participation in our political system, in matters that relate to the conduct of America's foreign affairs, by involving themselves in deliberations that intend to determine which course will make our nation most secure; to decide:

Whether it is best to arm ourselves, and the world to follow, with the hollow reasoning of keeping up with perceived threats to our ‘security’; or is it more reasonable and more practical to reach out to the world diplomatically, to lessen the animosity toward America that our military interventions have engendered.

Our aggression resigns the nation to a perpetual global threat against the United States and our interests. Diplomacy provides hope that the killing among all countries would end, by the force of our collective resolve; not at the point of a weapon.

That is where I stand in regard to our illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is consistent with my condemnation of the senseless killing of Paul Johnson.

[Malva Zebrina]

30. wow

We all seem to be so passionate about peace and war.

I am against all of this pre-emptive war, and against the Israel embrace of the same as well as every other country

Unfortunately
Bush the schoolyard bully, has unleashed this monster, even though Sharon thought of it first.

and now

what now? The entire world is on fingernail biting edge,because, well because they could be the next one to be "pre-empted" by the evil cabal of Bush, according to his insane will, and his merry band of neo cons, who , in spite of all their degrees and such, are really stupid assholes who are irresponsible gamblers and out for power and to increase their own treasure chests, and the entire world is willing to pre-empt any threat from the US, because the US is willing to pre-empt them and it will filter down to the US and perhaps even Israel evnetually.

Three thousand were killed in an attack that was masterful from persons having no country, no army, no navy, no air force and no military to speak of and they managed to kill three thousand of their "enemy" while we do not even know how manhy of them we killed.

Could be a hundred or could be ten--we did not kill Bin Laden as far as we know. He , as far as we know lives, in spite of the assnole's bloviating bragging. He LIVES, and he rules our lives and Bush is importent against him.

[wurzel]

4. It could be that some Saudis do not see an "Apache" helicopter

technician as "innocent".

[Carolina]

9. exactly he's part of the 'us against them' war machine

With all due respect and condolences to his family.

When will White men* learn to leave the people of other nations and other cultures alone, learn to stop forcing themselves and their ways on others??!! The "get the hell out of our country" handwriting has been on the wall for some time but it is neither read nor heeded.

America is reaping what it has sown by allowing the likes of BushInc to have the reins of power. Stay the course, my ass. Bring 'em on, my ass. We're good; they're bad, my ass ...

* with all due apologies to my kindred white brethren here at DU. If we're to have an open dialogue about race, I gotta say Black folks continually ask themselves among themselves, what's up with y'all thinking you can conquer the world. History repeatedly shows IT NEVER WORKS because there is always resistence, always more war, always death and always destruction.

[bigtree]

14. Both agressions are wrong.

None of the killings are justified by the rhetoric of either side.

[chiburb]

5. Since you seem to speak to God...

Would you ask him a question for me?

Why is an American life worth more to Him than an Iraqi life? I mean whether Johnson was beheaded by "terrorists" or a wedding party is bombed by "patriots", why does He regard the former to be worse?

Thanks in advance.

[bigtree]

7. All life has worth. I weep and pray for Iraqi lives as well.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. I'm curious what you believe would happen to occupiers of our...

...country. Let's pretend that America was invaded a little over a year ago and that the conquerors now occupy every single city and town. Let's also pretend that they told us before they got here that they were going to free us from a cruel dictator who used torture to keep us in line.

On the day that they invade, the so-called "liberators" bomb EVERY single population center under the pretense that our dictator was hiding military units in all of those locations. During the bombing, hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed, perhaps millions, including women and children. Countless others are maimed.

Then the invaders occupy our land, setting up shoot-to-kill checkpoints everywhere. Americans begin to disappear during night-time raids and rumors begin to circulate about the "liberators" using torture to keep Americans in line.

Do you think we would greet them with open arms?

Do you think we would be happy to throw down our arms and subjugate ourselves to a foreign power that believes in a religion that we don't?

Or, do you think you would be willing to do ANYTHING to rid our country of the invaders?

As far as your belief that any God would approve or not approve of actions taken to liberate us from a foreign power, when was the last time you read anything of note from the Old Testament?

Just curious.

[bigtree]

11. The bible is one interpretation of Man's impressions of God's will

I have given my impression of what I believe is a compassionate God's view. I don't believe I have a lock on the view of God. I just have my impression. I don't believe the killing should be accepted as a legitimate attempt to liberate anyone, except maybe the terrorist's allies from prison. I won't justify the killing of Paul Johnson, and I won't give cover for our illegal, immoral, bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are wrong, and I have condemmed both as unjustified by any political or religious zeal.

BTW, beheading and summary execution of anyone who has "invaded" or attacked our country would not be justified by any doctrine that I would support.

[markses]

10. A case study in the way outrage clouds thought

We ask: What is the definition of "political"? If the definition of "political" is "party politics and elections between Democrats and Republicans in the United States," then of course you are right, although you are laying an injunction against a non-action. But you seem to have more in mind here. Let's witness the extension of the incoherent moralizing:

I'm numb to any argument that would equate his killing to our reckless invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Hmmm. "Equating" is a difficult concept here. Is X the same as Y? Are X and Y of the same "quality"? Clearly not. We are talking about different qualities entirely (the murder of Mr. Johnson is different in quality than the reckless and murderous invasion of Iraq). That's clear enough. But is anyone really "equating" these events? Is anyone "equating" them for the purpose of "justifying" Mr. Johnson's murder? Well, maybe the killers, but I don't see a helluva lot more. What you seem to deplore, however, is not "equating," but contextualizing. You want to isolate Mr. Johnson's murder from the larger network of events and relations that define and determined it. Why? For the purpose of moralizing.

The problem is fairly plain: We want to be outraged and "moral" about Mr. Johnson's murder. That's an understandable response, and probably correct. But in order to do so, we have to forget the complex web of events in which the Johnson murder is woven. Why? First, because the web of events both calls ourt own innocent position of judgment into question. Moreover (and this is the paradox), the complexity of events doesn't yield up SIMPLE MORALISM so easily. You don't get to be the precious and good little lamb in a complex network. You can't attain the easy position of judgment (outside the action). So, your post is not really about politics in the restricted sense. It is about politics in the larger, more complex sense; or rather, it is an attempt to escape politics, to stand outside a complex web of relations. Your post is very disturbing in its petty moralism.

[bigtree]

12. Your attack of my post as petty moralism reveals your own zealous bias.

I would separate the killing of Mr. Johnson from the "larger network of events" in the same manner that I deplore the actions of our own government and it's military agents as unjustified by any political calculations, such as a "war on terror", or any of the other revolving excuses that Bush would invoke for his wars of opportunity. Torture of civilians is deplorable, indiscriminate bombing is deplorable and wrong. The shooting of unarmed civilians, which is a consequence of our illegal occupation is deplorable and wrong, completely unjustified by any political calculation, or any bogus claim that the invasions are in defense of America.

I don't think it is "petty moralism" to suggest that all of these killings are not justified, and therefore amount to simple murder.

[markses]

24. I don't deny bias

I embrace it. I'm part of the network, and so are you. That's the point. Whether you are deploring these jihadists or deploring the US government, you're pretending to choose out of a complex network. Your post is disturbing because it wants to avoid that real complexity at all costs, for the purpose of feeling aggrieved. It's a nice "feel your pain" moment, but not particularly productive, in my estimation. It just replays the cycle.

[Sugarbleus]

13. BRAVO! Bigtree....well said.

This guy was living and working in that land as are many others. About thirty percent of the population in SA are foreigners who help bolster the Saudi's economy.

This man was not part of the war in Iraq. His employment in SA has nothing to do with those kidnappers...they just wanted to get their buddies out of jail.

Hard as it may be for some, we simply have to make the distinction between anti occupation leagues in Iraq and plain thugs/murderers/terrorists/extortionists. (the Phillipines comes to mind)

Let's not forget all the previous terrorist plots from time gone by. The Achille Laurel ship where they threw the disabled body of a passenger off a ship. Lockerbie Scotland had that crash of a huge airplane from a terror plot. Many many hijackings of planes. Bombings of Establishments in England and elsewhere around the globe for years! On and On....this is not new. It's just more intense. These are THUGS, not "freedom fighters". These are the types who agreed to fly planes into OUR buildings on Sept. 11, 2001.

[swag]

15. Why is Paul Johnson in an orange detainee uniform?

[ewagner]

20. Orange detainee uniform?

Is there verification of this?

[swag]

21. sorry for linking drudge

http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm

[ewagner]

22. won't go there......

are the pics showing him in an orange jumpsuit?

[swag]

23. Yes

[swag]

27. A different link

Warning - picture of beheaded man

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1544975,00.html

[ewagner]

29. Thanks...I think

another orange jumpsuit........

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. He and 800 soldiers would be alive if not for Bush's* failure. Period.

That is a fact.

[DrWeird]

17. How do you feel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

A lot of people think it was justified because of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[bigtree]

25. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were murder of innocents

unjustified by the aggression against Pearl Harbor.

From an article published last August in 'Counterpunch':

In the introduction to their book, Hiroshima in America, Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell write, "You cannot understand the twentieth century without Hiroshima." The same may be said of the twenty-first century. The same may be said of the nuclear predicament that confronts humanity. Neither our time nor our future can be adequately understood without understanding what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In their book, Hiroshima in America, Lifton and Mitchell conclude:

"Confronting Hiroshima can be a powerful source of renewal. It can enable us to emerge from nuclear entrapment and rediscover our imaginative capacities on behalf of human good. We can overcome our moral inversion and cease to justify weapons or actions of mass killing. We can condemn and then step back from acts of desecration and recognize what Camus called a 'philosophy of limits.' In that way we can also take steps to cease betraying ourselves, cease harming and deceiving our own people. We can also free our society from its apocalyptic concealment, and in the process enlarge our vision. We can break out of our long-standing numbing in the vitalizing endeavor of learning, or relearning, to feel. And we can divest ourselves of a debilitating sense of futurelessness and once more feel bonded to past and future generations."

[DrWeird]

26. Oh good.

I wasn't sure if you were one of these people who liked to dish it out but not take it .

[MadHound]

18. I'm sorry friend, but in this time and place, Mr Johnson's murder

Will be politicized. The right will politicize it in order whip up frothing at the mouth neo-con patriotism. The thief in chief will use in in order to stay the course in Iraq and get re-elected. The left and anti-war folks will use it to point out just one more reason we need to get out of Iraq. Al-Qaida and others will use it to recruit more fighters.

This is how it has been and how it will always be when you are in a war that is of dubious legality and morality. Nothing happens in a vacumn, ever. The best one can do is mourn for the man and his family, and adapt the politics of the situation that most closely fits your own morality.

[bigtree]

31. You are, sadly, likely correct that this will be politicized.

I would council against that. I will mourn all of the deaths, those at the hand of others, and those committed in our country's name as well.

’cause just like a tree planted - planted by the rivers of water
That bringeth forth fruits - bringeth forth fruits in due season;
Everything in life got it’s purpose,
Find it’s reason in every season,
Forever, yeah!

Bob Marley- Forever Loving Jah