Evidently Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the new al-Qaeda honcho in Iraq, is feeling a need to assert himself, and he’s started with the abduction, brutal torture, and despicable beheading of two soldiers:
Two US soldiers, missing for three days since their abduction in an insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad, were found dead, a military spokesman said yesterday. An Iraqi official said the Americans had been tortured and killed in a “barbaric” way.
But wait! There’s more! This studly, shining example of manhood’s group has evidently decided to kill the four Russian hostages it was holding, also:
A militant group led by al-Qaida in Iraq said on Wednesday it has decided to kill four Russian hostages after Moscow failed to meet demands to withdraw from Chechnya and free Muslim prisoners, according to an Internet statement.
“After granting the Russian government 48 hours to meet our demands and their failure to do so … the Islamic court of the Mujahideen Shura Council ruled to kill them (hostages),” said the statement posted on a Web site often used by militants.
But why stop there? Today, apparently, some gentle, well-meaning souls absconded with five buses which were conveniently (for the abductors, not the passengers) filled with about 85 workers:.
Scores of factory workers were seized at gunpoint as they finished their shift at an industrial complex north of Baghdad today, in what appeared to be the latest mass kidnapping by insurgents bent on fomenting sectarian strife.
Yes indeed, these folks have obviously stepped up to the plate with a purpose, haven’t they. No girly men there!
Polimom realizes that the United States is not riding a snow-white horse; somewhere between Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, our halos have gone askew. Some folks have even written that the atrocities being carried out by these al-Qaeda monsters are merely retaliatory, and that in fact the US has tacitly fostered such behavior because of our own actions.
You know what? That’s hogwash.
I’m not at all proud of Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo galls daily, but frankly, any comparison between them and the deliberate abduction and torture — including drilling holes in heads — and beheadings, is like apples to oranges.
These pathetic al-Qaeda excuses for human beings, masquerading as people, are monsters who seem to have some sick need to prove how very tough they are.
I wonder whether they realize that only the most impotent resort to pathological, mindless, animalistic murder…?
* * * * *
Michael Stickings at TMV has more, including at least one commenter that apparently spends a great deal of time lost in the fruit section of the grocery store. (Is this an apple or an orange? Hmmm…..)
I really doubt they are trying to prove how tough they are. I think they probably really believe that these actions help their people. Obviously, I don’t agree, but I’m not sure what your point is trying some long-distance psychoanalysis of a terrorist is.
Which surprises me, because you’re usually so great at cutting through the nonsense and getting to the heart of things.
I’m mad, John. I’m disgusted. I’m overwhelmed by the viciousness.
I’m sick.
And actually, I do think they’re trying to make a statement that they’re still tough and capable after the loss of al-Zarqawi. It was expected and predicted by the “experts” and “analysts”.
I have a different post to run tomorrow on this same subject. Less of a rant, happily. I just have to figure out where to post it. (Probably here, since I often don’t particularly enjoy the “dialogue” on the other blog… which is another source of my grumpiness, I’m afraid.)
(ed) Oh… and the point of the very distant psychoanalysis was basically to throw a metaphorical (verbal) mudball at them. Cuz I don’t think they’re trying to help their people. I think they’re pretty much just trying to kill people and sow the seeds of chaos.
Thanks, btw, for noticing that I was a bit out of sorts. I feel better now (smile…)
They have decided to kill their Russian hostages? Well, now, it seems they also fail to learn from their history.
Back when hostage-taking was the most popular recreational pastime in Lebanon, someone thought it would be a really neat idea to pick up some Soviets to go along with their Western hostages. Within 24 hours one of the leaders’ relatives disappeared, and the next day a package was delivered which contained bodyparts – two of them to be specific – and a note with four words: “you’re next. Love, Spetsnaz.”
No more Soviets were kidnapped.
Now, I know that the old USSR is no more, but Putin is of the “old school” persuasion, and I am sure there are some ex-Spetsnaz types available who wouldn’t mind a bit of work.
~EdT.
PM – concerning the “dialogue” over at PMToo, what burr has gotten under the saddle of the folks over there? I have been trying to figure out just what you did to P them off so, but I quit because it made my head hurt.
~EdT.
EdT – I really dunno what the story is. Some posts are fine, and there’s actually dialogue and discussion. Others just go stupid.
Part of it may stem from the need some folks seem to have to pigeonhole my politics – a difficult and fruitless task, especially when I don’t meet someone’s preconceived view of what I should have said. Or maybe it’s that I’m sometimes difficult to debate with, particularly when one’s position is not well thought out. Whatever it is, it’s blown up (as you know) several times over there, and every time I come away with a bad taste in my mouth…
The most recent hullabaloo kicked up when I commented directly on someone’s comment – something I rarely do (but others do frequently). I think that because I took the issue up in an immediate and direct way, it was too “in your face” for that particular individual.
But I could be totally wrong about that guess.
Sigh…. takes a lot of the fun out of it, though, I have to say.
EdT,
I’ve also noticed that the comments on the Chron blog frequently seem to degenerate into drivel, with posters who seem to think 1) saying something over and over again makes it so, or 2) however reasoned Polimom’s position, and no matter how many supporting (or contradicting links) are provided, it all comes down to the political prism through which Polimom views the world. If the latter is true, then if the commenter can figure out Poli’s prism, then he/she doesn’t have to strain to understand her posts, he/she can just agree with or dismiss them without thinking about them.
Polimom’s blog(s) are an acquired taste, and not everyone has the intellectual equipment to digest and understand many of her posts. Those who do are unlikely to agree with her across the board (I don’t). When Poli posts a piece intended to make the reader think, or question basic assumptions, many readers seem to be afraid of it. Maybe they don’t like their long held beliefs to be challenged. Too bad, ’cause that’s something Poli seems to take tremendous pleasure in doing!
If Poli (for example) posts a piece that suggests that much of the Katrina refugee bashing going on is based on prejudice or racist stereotypes, those who agreed with the bashing are automatically threatened. Are they really prejudiced/racist? Or can they make the discomfort go away by challenging or bashing the post–and Polimom. The track record of those who challenge Poli without facts to back up their challenges is not a good one. And of course, losing out in a public debate with Poli isn’t likely to elevate their tone for the next time.
Rather than require the bloggers to moderate the comments–and thereby require them to provide at least a tacit approval of the commenters’ posts–maybe the Chronicle should take moderation off and let the commenters just have at it, and each other. At least Poli won’t have to feel responsible for the resulting thread. The Chronicle can delete any offensive comments and/or bar any serial offenders from commenting. And Polimom will have more time to write! 🙂
Actually, I suspect the reason that the Chronicle has moderation turned on is to prevent spam blasts – something I wish the blogging s/w I use would do. IIRC, one of the major papers actually tried letting readers post comments on articles (like you can on Slashdot etc.) and the ensuing spam/flamefest took their web server down as effectively as a DDoS!
I also suspect the fact that the comments are moderated has something to do with it – and in this regard I think that all the political/issue bloggers to a good job of allowing diverse viewpoints to go through.
Sometimes (I confess), the moderation gets me into trouble. For instance, I might go ahead and let something through that I think is going to be a potential problem, but I’m anticipating further discussion (which would then hopefully negate and/or rebut the first one). Sometimes, it backfires, either with hostile retort (that I then get stuck having to approve cuz I let the first one through) or having people just go away in disgust.
And The Master — I have to say, “ouch” to being an acquired taste. (lol… ) Am I really writing at too high a level, generally?