Why is beheading someone worse than dropping a bomb on someone?

Jimmy Garlic

Both are heinous and evil acts imo. When drone strikes blow up entire families in Afghanistan it is merely a footnote in the news, if it even makes the news.
When a couple of psychopaths behead someone there is massive outrage. Do the lives of people in Afghanistan, Iraq etc have far less value in the eyes of most people in the west? It sure seems that way.

A Primal Nut

The difference is whether someone targeted civilians or military targets.

dodderangler

Beheadings are worse as it takes a pretty sick individual to perform a beheading and usually leads to the person being a lot more than a murderer
Phsycotic is one word to describe them
Anyone can shoot someone. Stabbing is worse but to behead someone? That's just over the top

youreadthat

IBTL!

Grayson

Sometimes. But it's also the political climate we're in. During the troubles in the north the UK government never convened a COBRA meeting. But last weeks attack elicited one.

Wacker The Attacker

Clear double standard.

Why is anyone surprised by this?

Wacker The Attacker

dodderangler wrote: »

Beheadings are worse as it takes a pretty sick individual to perform a beheading and usually leads to the person being a lot more than a murderer
Phsycotic is one word to describe them
Anyone can shoot someone. Stabbing is worse but to behead someone? That's just over the top

Different means of achieving the same end result

Grayson

To be honest, I wonder why this is called a terrorist attack. Am I the only one who thinks that it should be treated as a criminal act? Throw the book at them by all means. But calling it a terrorist act seems to imply is part of a grander plan.

Antar Bolaeisk

People may be outraged by a group blown up in Afghanistan but really we all accept it as being normal at this stage, one person beheaded in England is far from normal and hence causes much more outrage.

In the words of the Joker: Nobody panics when things go "according to plan".

Jimmy Garlic

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The difference is whether someone targeted civilians or military targets.

Wedding parties in Afghanistan have been blown up because an alleged terrorist might have been in attendance. That is targeting civilians in my book. Add to that the fact that the west is perfectly happy to support terrorists when it suits them. Syria and Libya for example.

WellThen?

Because it happened in England. Because it is an out of the ordinary crazy act. The brutalities in Afghanistan are now ever day events. The news grow tired of repeating themselves.

Dartz

Bombings are easier. We can all push a button and send a missile to people we'll never see or know or ever have to give a **** about as anything more than a statistic on an after action report.

Beheadings take a certain level of psychopathy to get someone's blood on your hands.

bus_driver

Grayson wrote: »

To be honest, I wonder why this is called a terrorist attack. Am I the only one who thinks that it should be treated as a criminal act? Throw the book at them by all means. But calling it a terrorist act seems to imply is part of a grander plan.

the attackers were idealogically and politically motivated , al qaeeda members don't carry membership cards , its a mindset , a universal ideal

it was a terrorist attack

endacl

They beheading in London were more (possibly wrong word, but ye get what I mean..) shocking as they were the work of two extremely ill individuals, who targeted an entirely innocent individual and butchered him in the middle of a perfectly normal day. It could have been anybody. It could have been me.

I'm not interested in getting into the political relativism of them v us, or middle east v west. These were two extremely sick individuals, who latched on to both a medieval tribalism and a modern myth to justify the horrific violence that was in need only of an outlet. They didn't grow up oppressed on the West Bank. They didn't suffer at the hands of the 'great satan'. In fact, the were in a position to benefit from all the 'great satan' had to offer.

It could have been you too OP. That's what shocks me.

bus_driver

endacl wrote: »

They beheading in London were more (possibly wrong word, but ye get what I mean..) shocking as they were the work of two extremely ill individuals, who targeted an entirely innocent individual and butchered him in the middle of a perfectly normal day. It could have been anybody. It could have been me.

I'm not interested in getting into the political relativism of them v us, or middle east v west. These were two extremely sick individuals, who latched on to both a medieval tribalism and a modern myth to justify the horrific violence that was in need only of an outlet. They didn't grow up oppressed on the West Bank. They didn't suffer at the hands of the 'great satan'. In fact, the were in a position to benefit from all the 'great satan' had to offer.

It could have been you too OP. That's what shocks me.

very few catholics in Ireland felt kinship with the people suffering in various latin American nations during the seventies and eighties , muslims tend to think differently , regardless of where they grow up , they often feel a deep kinship with who they see as their brothers and sisters in various troubled part of the world , muslim are more connected by religion than Christians , of that their is no doubt whatsoever

Play To Kill

Define massive outrage? I live in the UK and its all over the news but I haven't seen any massive outrage. It's a big story because it's not every day that something like this happens. Political people and the media have a lot to say about it along with small racist groups, but it's hardly even been mentioned in work or by anybody I know. Maybe it's just me but I can't see any massive outrage.

endacl

bus_driver wrote: »

very few catholics in Ireland felt kinship with the people suffering in various latin American nations during the seventies and eighties , muslims tend to think differently , regardless of where they grow up , they often feel a deep kinship with who they see as their brothers and sisters in various troubled part of the world , muslim are more connected by religion than Christians , of that their is no doubt whatsoever

I don't accept that they were Muslims. Islam was a flag of convenience for their psychosis. It could have been anything.

bus_driver

endacl wrote: »

I don't accept that they were Muslims. Islam was a flag of convenience for their psychosis. It could have been anything.

what do you mean you don't accept they were muslims

you might aswell say martin mc Guinness wasn't - isn't a catholic

Augmerson

It's a gruesome and very bloody act. Attacking with UAV's or Drone's is different. It's much cleaner, no pilot gets shot down, only some collateral damage and hopefully a terrorist or two.

People get beheaded all the time in Iraq. But that is happening OVER THERE. When mad stuff happens OVER HERE (or nearby) then people start going "ah lads wtf?" and worry.

Prodigious

bus_driver wrote: »

what do you mean you don't accept they were muslims

you might aswell say martin mc Guinness wasn't - isn't a catholic

I love how, because its a "terrorist attack", you drag McGuinness into it. Idiot.

endacl

bus_driver wrote: »

what do you mean you don't accept they were muslims

you might aswell say martin mc Guinness wasn't - isn't a catholic

I accept they identified themselves as such. What I'm saying is that if there was no such thing as Islam, they would have found another channel for rage. I'm not saying that they would have been even remotely aware of this themselves. It doesn't take an angry muslim to hack somebody to death in the middle of Woolwich. Plenty of extremely (and justifyably) angry muslims don't. It does take a psychopath with overwhelming narcissistic personality traits and a bottomless pit of rage. If it wasn't Islam, it would have been a gang, or a football club, or just the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

bus_driver

Prodigious wrote: »

I love how, because its a "terrorist attack", you drag McGuinness into it. Idiot.

your the idiot

I was making the point that martin mc Guinness is a catholic

the guys who beheaded that guy were muslims and would be offended if they were called anything else

Karl Stein

endacl wrote: »

They beheading in London were more (possibly wrong word, but ye get what I mean..) shocking as they were the work of two extremely ill individuals, who targeted an entirely innocent individual and butchered him

What a comforting fairy tale. Tell it again so the children at the back can hear.

anncoates

You may as well say that about any aspect of your privileged so called First World life

Why can you eat well, use a computer and be free from disease when others live lives of unparalleled misery because of an unfortunate lottery of birth?

The thing about your smart student analogies are not thst they're wrong but that you don't apply them to yourself.

Son Of A Vidic

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Why is beheading someone worse than dropping a bomb on someone?

Just looking at the thread title from a pain/terror persepctive. You're walking down the street and the next thing you know, a Hellfire missile lands within feet of you. You more than likely won't have a clue about what just happened. Now, imagine having you're head hacked off while you're still alive. Straight away you are going to experience a whole lot of pain and terror. Now if we had to choose from either of these two methods to die. I'd say most would choose the missile option. Simple because of the high probability that you won't know what just happened and thus feel nothing. Beheadings strike fear into most people on so many levels and for so many reasons. Hence the reson why people tend to react more to such hoffific attacks.

bus_driver

those guys planned what they did to the last detail , they hit him with the car first in order to immobilise him , attacked him , then hung around to make recorded political speeches

a deranged person doesn't do that

endacl

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

What a comforting fairy tale. Tell it again so the children at the back can hear.

Contradict, or is that beyond you?

Read this first. It may help. Get back to me if you need help with the big words.

http://www.dspp.com/papers/fonagy4.htm

bus_driver

endacl wrote: »

Contradict, or is that beyond you?

Read this first. It may help. Get back to me if you need help with the big words.

http://www.dspp.com/papers/fonagy4.htm

that psychology essay could explain the actions of countless acts of murder but what happened the other day was political in nature , that's the key difference , you want to ignore the political nature of the act , most murderers and especially deranged killers are not politically motivated

Micky Dolenz

Mod


Please stop with the name calling.

Joshua J

Because if people were to consider, even for a moment, that the "good guys" are anything but then their heads would likely implode.

Karl Stein

endacl wrote: »

Contradict, or is that beyond you?

It reads like a Fox News report and isn't worth it.

endacl

bus_driver wrote: »

that psychology essay could explain the actions of countless acts of murder but what happened the other day was political in nature , that's the key difference , you want to ignore the political nature of the act , most murderers and especially deranged killers are not politically motivated

You're ignoring my point. It takes a particular personality type to commit acts of extreme violence. I'm not contradicting what you said. I'm just observing that it takes more than the 'switch' of political outrage to butcher a young man in broad daylight.

Politics was the outlet, not the reason, and its comforting for people to have a relatively simple way to explain the event, even if they can't understand it.

You tore through that Fonagy paper fairly sharpish, by the way. Kudos on your speed reading skills!

endacl

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

It reads like a Fox News report and isn't worth it.

It clearly doesnt. It was written by the foremost thinker in the modern field, in one of the most highly respected universities in Europe.

Didn't read it, did you?

Karl Stein

endacl wrote: »

It clearly doesnt. It was written by the foremost thinker in the modern field, in one of the most highly respected universities in Europe.

I'm talking about your 'Cowboys and Indians' interpretation of events.

Didn't read it, did you?

The article you posted? No.

I'll wait to see if someone with actual credibility and impartiality diagnoses the killers as 'mentally ill' and then consider it - I won't hold my breath though.

If a professional consensus on whether Anders Brevik is mentally ill or not cannot be reached I'm pretty confident that there won't be one for these two.

samboNo9

Augmerson wrote: »

People get beheaded all the time in Iraq. But that is happening OVER THERE. When mad stuff happens OVER HERE (or nearby) then people start going "ah lads wtf?" and worry.

Well, thank you for that. Nowwww I get it..?

B.A._Baracus

I can see where the op is coming from.
We all know local news is going to get picked more than somewhere else... but it's the media's mentality too. Take the uk media. They'll crap on about things that happen in america. But if something more tragic was to happen in the middle east - "that's different and unimportant"

lightspeed

Im sick of this nonsense. The people getting bombed and killed are mostly brutal islamist terrorists who despise democracy and demand that people live under devout islamic law. The innocent muslim civilians killed are mostly killed from bombs and attacks from the islamist terrorists themselves and the rest are caught in the crossfire of this Jihad that these animals continue to pursue.

Did you see when the islamists took over Mali a few months ago and the videos of them cutting peoples arms off who they felt had not been abiding by islamic law?

These people have vowed to continue to bomb and slaughter anybody who opposes adopting islamic law and will accept nothing else in the middle east and will also continue to unleash war upon israel and any other western allies.

So as these islamist groups continue to spread like a disease and bomb places like pakistan as they try and establish democracy, and occupy Afghanistan and elsewhere should the western world standby and watch?

So they could get massacred like people during the Bosnian war?

This idea that such a brutal murder can be rationalised because Britain has opposed such rule in the middle east is ridiculous.

hatrickpatrick

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal" - possibly the most trampled upon value of the American Dream. The modern translation should be "We hold these truths to be self evident: that the life of someone on our 'team' is far more important than a thousand lives of those who aren't."

:mad:

Marsden

lightspeed wrote: »

Im sick of this nonsense. The people getting bombed and killed are mostly brutal islamist terrorists who despise democracy and demand that people live under devout islamic law.

On what evidence is this statement based ? I can only assume your being sarcastic.

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf

Grayson

bus_driver wrote: »

the attackers were idealogically and politically motivated , al qaeeda members don't carry membership cards , its a mindset , a universal ideal

it was a terrorist attack

But these guys weren't Al-Qaeda members. To be so they would have to have contact with some others or have a membership card
Seriously though, stating that they were violent muslims and there fore Al-Qaeda is a bit of a streach.

They were just nutjobs who had an islamic agenda.

Honestly, I think classifying it as a "terrorist" attack and convening a cobra meeting is giving it more power than it had. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The mumbai shootings were a terrorist attack. warrington was a terrorish attack. Each was designed to strike terror into the public at large.
This was two psychotic individuals.

hatrickpatrick

lightspeed wrote: »

Im sick of this nonsense. The people getting bombed and killed are mostly brutal islamist terrorists who despise democracy and demand that people live under devout islamic law. The innocent muslim civilians killed are mostly killed from bombs and attacks from the islamist terrorists themselves and the rest are caught in the crossfire of this Jihad that these animals continue to pursue.

Sure, because babies and toddlers are clearly terrorist masterminds.
This is one of the most delusional posts I've seen in a long time.

alchemist33

Look, if we all just admit that we're racist b@stards who don't care about brown people, will these threads and posts go away? Because that's what they're always implying.

hatrickpatrick

alchemist33 wrote: »

Look, if we all just admit that we're racist b@stards who don't care about brown people, will these threads and posts go away? Because that's what they're always implying.

It's not "us", it's politicians and our news media.

Manic Moran

I am not entirely sure where the dividing line exists. There are multiple treaties governing nice ways of killing people vs not so nice. In war, you can stab someone with a two sided bayonet, but three sided are banned. Expanding ammunition is specifically banned in war, but a preferred type for police. You can try to blow someone up, but if you miss and there is a long, bleeding death, so be it. But you can't kill someone with the specific intent of bleeding them out.

Basically it's an arbitrary distinction based on our morals of what is unnecessary pain and suffering. We generally feel that a sawing off of a head is on the far side of that line.

Marsden

Grayson wrote: »

Honestly, I think classifying it as a "terrorist" attack and convening a cobra meeting is giving it more power than it had.

Maybe they're afraid it could inspire sympathisers to become activists(for want of a better word). Or it could be the MI5 recruitment approach that made them to decide to have a COBRA meeting.

Fr_Dougal

Simple answer: near, far away.

Andersonisgod

It depends on who is being beheaded and who is dropping the bomb.

Of course that isn't how it should be.

alchemist33

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not "us", it's politicians and our news media.

It's "us" on boards.ie who can't seem to discuss a single topic without comparing it to another and searching for bias.

Antar Bolaeisk

Grayson wrote: »

To be honest, I wonder why this is called a terrorist attack. Am I the only one who thinks that it should be treated as a criminal act? Throw the book at them by all means. But calling it a terrorist act seems to imply is part of a grander plan.

By labelling it a terror act are they able to revoke certain rights and privileges of the prisoners or is that just in America? Anyway, the act itself is very much an act of terror, had it just been a regular shooting it would be a stretch to call it an act of terrorism but the beheading someone in front of a crowd in broad daylight could only have been done to invoke terror.

RustyNut

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The difference is whether someone targeted civilians or military targets.

Is what your saying that the beheading was ok because he was a military target ?

_Myg

They are both as bad.

To lay it out piece by piece would to expose the hypocracy, joint/communal responsibility of our society in such acts and inability to face the truth of murder by using layers of adapted logic/emotion to hide behind: While simultaneously exposing Islam's issues with their "us and them" foundations of belief, lack of central control and lack of "excommunication" functions/needs and identity as a whole.

The first will make you enemies of the higher ups in this social order and the latter will probably get you hunted down outside your house with a knife by a collective of people who will live longer then you and never forget your name or face (when they find it).

These are the things those of us who do know better are unwilling to say; meanwhile, everyone else just seems to confer airs and rhertoric between themselves in order to seek comfort and stability in the box that they have built to hide in (wether it be social structure or some other conflict or something that is just all in their heads).

If you are completely oblivious on this manner; It might be best if you just accepted the simplicity that is, murder is murder, and that there are no excuses, reasons or justifications of any kind: It will do better on your soul. :-)