Why do people want to watch videos of other people being beheaded?

LorMal

ordinary_girl wrote: »

This. Or even the ransom. The CEO of Global Post was giving an interview the other day where he said the ransom demands for the release of James Foley were excessive in comparison to ransom demands for Europeans in the same situation, and that they had been trying to raise something more in line with the European rates that had been paid. However, unlike Europe it's illegal in America for a person or company to pay a ransom to a terrorist organisation. Washington doesn't negotiate with terrorists, but why would they allow this to happen to another one of their citizens? They need to negotiate on a ransom.

I am sorry - I don't agree. I think it encourages more kidnapping. The French paid to release their hostages so they set the precedent.

FloatingVoter

The only ransom figure I heard mentioned on the news was €100,000,000. Even a murderous twat in a tent in the desert knows that is not a realistic figure for any backchannel deal. Its not even a realistic opener.

ordinary_girl

LorMal wrote: »

I am sorry - I don't agree. I think it encourages more kidnapping. The French paid to release their hostages so they set the precedent.

Honestly, I'm in two minds about it. In theory, they could pay a negotiated ransom, get the citizens free, and then pursue the captors. But you're right, it's also flawed, because it will show them that kidnapping works. They already have thousands of dollars from ransoms, so they know this. I'm just being (admittedly naively) ideological about this in hoping that Sotloff, and of course other hostages, are freed and that somehow (though impossible) warfare can be carried out with the minimum amount of innocent civilian deaths.

FloatingVoter wrote: »

The only ransom figure I heard mentioned on the news was €100,000,000. Even a murderous twat in a tent in the desert knows that is not a realistic figure for any backchannel deal. Its not even a realistic opener.

Yep, that's the one. The Global Post CEO said they were trying to get a sum of money nearer to the European amounts paid, but that ISIS did not respond to them after giving that figure.

sbsquarepants

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Well washington does not negotiate with terrorists, so they will not pay the ransom, he's a dead man. Unless they release some terrorists in exchange for Sotloff?

Well to be more accurate Washington will negotiate with whoever they are liking at the moment, then when they get too strong and become a threat they'll flip flop and negotiate with their enemies. The mujahideen, the iran contras, saddam before they fell out and heaps and heaps of others I'm sure. Terrorists is a bit of a misnomer, what the hell is a terrorist? What war doesn't cause terror? No army either conventional or guerrilla sneaks up quietly and tickles their enemies into submission. America has armed and supported some of the worst dictators and despots in history, bin laden was a great lad when he was fighting the russians, saddam was just a bit of a buzzer when he was keeping the ayatollah in line. They will continue to do this once it advances Americas self interest. It's only when it doesn't they become terrorists, up until then they are rebels, or freedom fighters or something more heroic sounding than terrorists.
I think it was Charles DeGaul who said countries don't have friends, countries only have interests.

LorMal

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well to be more accurate Washington will negotiate with whoever they are liking at the moment, then when they get too strong and become a threat they'll flip flop and negotiate with their enemies. The mujahideen, the iran contras, saddam before they fell out and heaps and heaps of others I'm sure. Terrorists is a bit of a misnomer, what the hell is a terrorist, what war doesn't cause terror - no army either conventional or guerrilla sneaks up quietly and tickles their enemies into submission. America has armed and supported some of the worst dictators and despots in history, bin laden was a great lad when he was fighting the russians, saddam was just a bit of a buzzer when he was keeping the ayatollah in line. They will continue to do this once it advances Americas self interest. It's only when it doesn't they become terrorists, up until then they are rebels, or freedom fighters or something more heroic sounding than terrorists.
I think it was Charles DeGaul who said countries don't have friends, countries only have interests.

Again this anti- American diatribe.
Blame the ****ers doing the beheading!

sbsquarepants

LorMal wrote: »

Again this anti- American diatribe.
Blame the ****ers doing the beheading!

I do - for the beheading. America is largely responsible for the rest of the mess the region is in. Some people seem to view the USA as Mary Poppins with nuclear weapons. Yes I'd rather live in a world dominated by America than by ISIS but that doesn't make them benign - they've killed literally millions of innocent people for financial reasons. I just can't believe people buy into this freedom and democracy shít - did the free democratic election of hamas matter one iota to America? Did it fúck, we don't like you so screw your democratic elections. The house of saud - we do like you, so never mind your human rights abuses and barbaric oppression of your citizens, you don't need democracy, it's over rated anyway.

LorMal

Easy to blame America. What about the people in these countries, have they no responsibility for the way they treat each other?

Bang_Bang

LorMal wrote: »

Easy to blame America. What about the people in these countries, have they no responsibility for the way they treat each other?

Oh dear!

LorMal

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Oh dear!

Good point.

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

Easy to blame America. What about the people in these countries, have they no responsibility for the way they treat each other?

That's bordering on a racist comment tbh. They are human beings just like you or me. Living in Iraq isnt like here you know. You think they have not been interfered with by the Americans? Are you saying America has no responsibility for the current situation?

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

That's bordering on a racist comment tbh. They are human beings just like you or me. Living in Iraq isnt like here you know. You think they have not been interfered with by the Americans? Are you saying America has no responsibility for the current situation?

Racist??? On what grounds exactly? Do you know anything about the Middle East? Please explain how on earth you got racism from my post?

Galwayguy35

Peist2007 wrote: »

That's bordering on a racist comment tbh. They are human beings just like you or me. Living in Iraq isnt like here you know. You think they have not been interfered with by the Americans? Are you saying America has no responsibility for the current situation?

Rubbish, the people living in the Middle East take brutality to a different level and have been doing it to each other for well over a thousand years, the different factions there hated each other and were killing long before any European set foot in the place.

LorMal

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Rubbish, the people living in the Middle East take brutality to a different level and have been doing it to each other for well over a thousand years, the different factions there hated each other and were killing long before any European set foot in the place.

Agreed. How patronising to assume that individual people in the Middle East have absolutely no ability to choose their own destiny. No, it's all the fault of the West.....

pablomakaveli

LorMal wrote: »

Agreed. How patronising to assume that individual people in the Middle East have absolutely no ability to choose their own destiny. No, it's all the fault of the West.....

This is a common problem with some people in the West. There seems to be an unintentional assumption that these people can't think or act for themselves.

If they rise up against a leader it's America/the West making it happen.If they start killing each other it's Americas/the Wests fault. They never consider that these people may be unhappy or pissed off with how they are treated.

For example one reason why some Iraqi sunni's are flocking to the banner of ISIS is because they've been treated like crap by Maliki's government.

UCDVet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I do - for the beheading. America is largely responsible for the rest of the mess the region is in. Some people seem to view the USA as Mary Poppins with nuclear weapons. Yes I'd rather live in a world dominated by America than by ISIS but that doesn't make them benign - they've killed literally millions of innocent people for financial reasons. I just can't believe people buy into this freedom and democracy shít - did the free democratic election of hamas matter one iota to America? Did it fúck, we don't like you so screw your democratic elections. The house of saud - we do like you, so never mind your human rights abuses and barbaric oppression of your citizens, you don't need democracy, it's over rated anyway.

The US used to keep to itself. It wasn't until after the cooler heads in Europe had WWI and WWII that the US started acting like a 'world power' and playing world police to stop the spread of communism (and, what they felt would be, WWIII).

Post WWII the US backed Israel and the USSR backed the Arab countries.

Before that, France and the UK were carving up the middle east for their own devices and the locals were busy fighting an endless battle of wars with themselves.

This is Wikipedia's list of 'MODERN' conflicts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

It's pretty much a never ending list of overlapping wars. Some that span decades. And it starts in 1902 (that's the MODERN part). That was long before the US had any meaningful role to play, and they haven't stopped fighting in any meaningful way since.

The Ottoman Empire kept the region mostly stable for a good 400+ years but started to lose control. It's worth noting that the British played a pivotal role in helping the Arabs break apart the Empire. The unstable middle east is thanks to the Arabs and Brits in the early 1900s.

The US didn't start messing with things until the last 1940s. And they've been on-again, off-again ever since. It's also worth noting that much of their (and others) intervention is at the request of the local governments.

I think it's safe to say the people in the middle east are responsible for their own actions. They are not children, even if they act like it (okay, in fairness, that's not really an appropriate thing to say. It might seem like they are acting childish from a distant, outsiders view. But you know what I mean...)

Playboy

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You seem to have a shaky grasp of the meaning of certain words. Wrong does not mean the same thing as bad. So no, it's is not an attack on you as a person. It's an attack on the reasons you gave for viewing. That's an important distinction and your error explains why you are so defensive.

So my reasons for viewing the video are wrong? My personal reasons you think are wrong. So what am I supposed to infer from that statement? There are only one of two possible answers (a) intentional dishonesty or (b) delusion. To try and undermine someone's subjective experience as you are doing is offensive in the extreme. If you cant grasp that simple concept then you are really struggling on the social intelligence scale.

sbsquarepants wrote:

A

From Wikipedia

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
A: We should relax the laws on beer.B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.
A: Sunny days are good.B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.In this case, B falsely frames A's claim to imply that A believes only sunny days are good, and B argues against that assertion. A actually asserts that sunny days are good and, in fact, says nothing about rainy days

I hope you can see now, it's not a straw man, it's a comparison and a valid comparison at that.

Wtf? You have to go to wikipedia to understand what a strawman is? I make an argument in relation to a certain point, you then argue against the false comparison you made in order to refute my point. Introducing something like child pornography into the debate is an underhand way of trying to undermine my argument. Its a strawman and I have already explained why the two are incomparable.

sbsquarepants wrote:

To repeat it, why do you need to watch this stuff to remember it's bad
(especially considering your personal connections to the region) but you can remember other things, like child porn, are bad without having to view them. If I remember correctly you said it had something to do with foreign policy, that didn't clarify the matter too much for me I'm afraid.

Do you see a lot of activism around child pornography? Do we need to change the laws to deal with it? Are the government making decisions that exacerbate the child pornography issue but telling us we need to do it for the good of country? Are child sex offenders threatening the people and governments of western nations? It is an absolutely ridiculous comparison by any measure.

I don't watch brutal videos to remind me that something is bad, you try to twist words to suit your argument. Watching is one of the ways I inform myself, I inform myself because it motivates me to remain active and not slip into a selfish disinterested life. How active are you? Do you protest, donate to charity, organise fund raisers, campaign your politicians and try to raise awareness? I presume, because there is no way of proving you don't, you will probably claim you do but in reality not many people do and you are likely one of those people. What would get you and other people off their backsides to do all of the above since most are not doing it today? And if you dont have answer then who are you to criticise my reasons.

An apt comparison was made earlier, charities often make use of extreme imagery or videos in order to effect behaviour? Have you ever seen an extreme ad for drink driving, starvation in 3rd world countries, animal neglect? Same principal, images and videos are used because they appeal to the emotions of the viewer and that emotional impact can change behaviour. That you are questioning something so straightforward is really quite odd.

sbsquarepants wrote:

I'm not doubting your reasons, I'm just pointing out that they don't have any basis in fact. Some people wear lucky charms to ward off evil. That's the reason they wear it, that's not in dispute, but just because that's why they do it, doesn't mean to say it makes any sense.

Most debates are pointless when your mind is closed to the facts.

Lol! So tell me how you distinguish between what is fact and isnt fact when it comes to another persons subjective experience. If you answer me one thing just answer me that. All I have claimed is that I do things for certain reasons, you have contested that my reasons are either dishonest or delusional. I want you tell me how you can make that claim as fact.

There is no fact, there is just one person making arrogant assumptions as they believe their own limited experience of the world is the only truth, everyone thinks the same as I do and if they claim different then they are lying or delusional. Naivety and arrogance in the extreme.

Gael23

I watched the one that only showed the first few seconds when the knife was being put to his throat. You can sort of see the terror in his face as he approaches the last seconds of his life.
This in no way makes his slaughter by ISIS better but I imagine he would have died rather instantly from blood loss before he was fully beheaded but not before enduring unimaginable physical pain and mental torture.

takamichinoku

Well... I was in a bit of a crappy flat mood, succumbed to curiousity just there to see how I'd react, downloaded the video and all. No clue whether there's loads of different versions out there but there was some kind of message at the start that immediately had me changing my mind, then there was this bit of editing to splice in Obama saying something and I just went "...what the **** am I watching this for?"

Turned it off and deleted the file. Have never actually watched any of these murder video things (think the most shocking thing I've ever seen was actually aired on the BBC, like) despite being, imo at least, very willing to tackle really bleak stuff. I don't think it's necessarily worthless for the viewer but I'm not going to watch one in the context that the murderers wish to present it to me if I can absolutely avoid it (it's not really of any value to James Foley at all, highly negative for his family).

Would I have watched the video I downloaded if it was just the actual act?
Absolutely. Part of me nearly thinks the most effective response to this stuff would be to get a version that shows that part circulating faster than the murderer-approved version ...it is 2am though and I have been drinking.

What would've been the point of watching it?
To see how I'd respond, to see if I'm wrong in regards to getting nothing from it, to see how a human being even deals with that kind of situation ...could be plenty of reasons but there all about testing myself and other things along those lines. To be honest, I strongly suspect I'd've learned nothing from it that I didn't already learn from seeing a loved one die. I wonder whether the types of people who watch these things a lot have never seen a person die, can understand how that would significantly ramp up the curiosity levels, it's something I had no grasp on at all until I actually saw it so.



I know there's things in the world that are far worse than I can comprehend, and what's effectively a promotional spot for some batch of lunatics funded by the life of a man is apparently beyond my limits.

sbsquarepants

Playboy wrote: »

There is no fact, there is just one person making arrogant assumptions as they believe their own limited experience of the world is the only truth, everyone thinks the same as I do and if they claim different then they are lying or delusional. Naivety and arrogance in the extreme.

There are precious few facts in your nonsensical waffle justification anyway. This is a pointless argument, at the end of the day I don't give a fúck what you watch or why you watch it. But you can sell your bullshít elsewhere, I'm not buying.

monkeysnapper

I used to be a butcher and I would take head off pigs , plus people would buy heads but ask that the eyes be taken out , the 1st time I did it I almost threw up, but over time got used to it, same as skinning rabbits ect .

About 6 months ago I clicked on a video of a Mexican man about to behead his wife , she was on her knees and he pulled knife out ready . I couldn't watch any more . Absolutely sickening !!

Egginacup

LorMal wrote: »

Again this anti- American diatribe.
Blame the ****ers doing the beheading!

I'd like to know when Foley's remains are to be returned.

The alleged decapitation is one thing but when can we expect to have his body repatriated.

I doubt that those who cut his head off are just going to throw his corpse in an undisclosed location so it could never be found.

Have the alleged killers made contact in order to have his remains buried?

If they are adamant to broadcast his murder then they are hardly going to NOT show his remains...and give them back.

No?

Egginacup

[QUOTE=LorMal;91858

Easy to blame America. What about the people in these countries, have they no responsibility for the way they treat each other?

[/quote]

Is that for you to decide?

Since rulers pushed around their subjects, going back thousands of years, one of two things have happened. Either the oppressed have sat and taken it or they have risen and put their overlords to the sword.

It's one of two ways. The Russians took control and then sent a message by swiftly killing off the entire Romanov Dynasty. It happened in France, it happened in Iran, Viet Nam.

IF people are fuced with they will eventually kick back. Ferguson, Missouri ought to have shown you a smidgen of that. Nobody needs a big gob****e claiming to own the planet to come and help them....especially when that huge oafish gob****e says "I helped you....you owe me!" (If it wasn't for Washington we'd all be speaking German!) ... I do anyway.

Who fought their own fights before a bunch of self-righteous flabby assholes in America said "we help everyone. If it wasn't for us and Oscar Meyer hotdogs you'd all be dead!!!"?

Gael23

Egginacup wrote: »

I'd like to know when Foley's remains are to be returned.

The alleged decapitation is one thing but when can we expect to have his body repatriated.

I doubt that those who cut his head off are just going to throw his corpse in an undisclosed location so it could never be found.

Have the alleged killers made contact in order to have his remains buried?

If they are adamant to broadcast his murder then they are hardly going to NOT show his remains...and give them back.

No?

I don't think that's ever going to happen. For the family's sake I hope I'm wrong but my guess his bosy has already been disposed of in some way. I can't think of many murdered hostages in those countries whose corpses were repatriated.

pablomakaveli

ryanf1 wrote: »

I don't think that's ever going to happen. For the family's sake I hope I'm wrong but my guess his bosy has already been disposed of in some way. I can't think of many murdered hostages in those countries whose corpses were repatriated.

I know Margaret Hassan and Ken Bigleys remains were never found. Wouldn't be surprised if this lot do the same to Foley's. Hopefully i'm wrong.

Tinyh

Where are the protests against this slaughter of an innocent man doing his job taking place in Dublin? We had them for Gaza and the GAA supporters are waving their flags at matches even though the majority of them couldn't tell you where Palestine is on the map. Why aren't more of the Muslim Clerics speaking out this disgusting act and why aren't their Ambassadors (if they have any) being recalled. After all, if they want to live in a western society, they have to abide by western rules. James Foley was a journalist, had no political affiliations and was butchered by a scumbag who was brought up and benefited by the British State and who should have been left to rot in his own cesspool wherever that was. I hope they get this bastard, drag him through the streets of London, who gave him what education he has, and if there is a Hell, I hope he has a first class ticket to it. They want to bring us all back into the Dark Ages. Well guess what? I'm female, own my own home, drive my own car and do pretty much what I like. Suck that you backward, retarded gob****es and the next time I encounter one of your women with her face covered, expecting me to move off the footpath, I'm gonna give her two very stiff fingers. This is my country and if you don't like it Fatima, go back to the cesspool you came from and leave us Europeans and Americans to live in our civilised way.

Witcher

Tinyh wrote: »

Where are the protests against this slaughter of an innocent man doing his job taking place in Dublin? We had them for Gaza and the GAA supporters are waving their flags at matches even though the majority of them couldn't tell you where Palestine is on the map. Why aren't more of the Muslim Clerics speaking out this disgusting act and why aren't their Ambassadors (if they have any) being recalled. After all, if they want to live in a western society, they have to abide by western rules. James Foley was a journalist, had no political affiliations and was butchered by a scumbag who was brought up and benefited by the British State and who should have been left to rot in his own cesspool wherever that was. I hope they get this bastard, drag him through the streets of London, who gave him what education he has, and if there is a Hell, I hope he has a first class ticket to it. They want to bring us all back into the Dark Ages. Well guess what? I'm female, own my own home, drive my own car and do pretty much what I like. Suck that you backward, retarded gob****es and the next time I encounter one of your women with her face covered, expecting me to move off the footpath, I'm gonna give her two very stiff fingers. This is my country and if you don't like it Fatima, go back to the cesspool you came from and leave us Europeans and Americans to live in our civilised way.

Niiiiice, that's the way to go.

You would be hard pushed to cram more ignorance into a post.

Tinyh

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There are precious few facts in your nonsensical waffle justification anyway. This is a pointless argument, at the end of the day I don't give a fúck what you watch or why you watch it. But you can sell your bullshít elsewhere, I'm not buying.

If you don't care why respond?

sbsquarepants

Tinyh wrote: »

If you don't care why respond?

Touché:D

Ok, correction - I don't care enough to continue arguing.

Tinyh

What do you suggest?