Us Marine Faces Execution In Iraq....
 

Captive US marine faces execution in Iraq


Monday 28 June 2004, 1:23 Makka Time, 22:23 GMT


US marine Hassoun Ali is one ot two captives under threat

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdon...41FE8C504C.jpg

A US marine captured by a purported Iraqi resistance group is to be decapitated unless certain prisoners held in occupation prisons are released.


In a video broadcast by Aljazeera on Sunday, the Islamic Retaliation Movement/Armed Resistance Wing said US marine Hassoun Wassef Ali would be beheaded if detainees in US-led occupation prisons were not freed.

The group claims to have taken Ali - of Pakistani origin - captive after "infiltrating a US military base in Iraq".

The video received by Aljazeera shows a kneeling blindfolded moustached man in camouflage military garb. A hand holding a long sword is seen standing behind Ali.

Just hours earlier, an unidentified group of purported Iraqi fighters threatened to behead a Pakistani driver working for a US-occupation contractor within three days.

The captors also urged Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to shut down his country's embassy in Iraq.

Captive details

The second captive was named as Yusuf Amjad, an employee of US contractor Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR).


Video sent to Aljazeera included
proof of marine's identity

KBR is a subsidiary of the giant Halliburton company which was once headed by US Vice President Dick Cheney.

Like other contractors for the US-led occupation, it has suffered mounting attacks on its staff.

"This man was taken after an attack on a US base in Balad," said one of the masked fighters on a tape obtained by Al-Arabiya.

"You must release our prisoners held near the US base in Balad, in Dujail, in Yathrib, in Samarra and near Abu Ghraib. You have three days from the date of this recording and after that we will behead him. We have warned you."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdon...03E97BBEA4.jpg





:( :mad:


i got this off another message board.

If the terrorist go through with this -- and unfortunately, they may -- I can only hope that they are caught by his brother Marines.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there is also a man from Turkey (?) whose 72 hour deadline is over today, and three men from another country who have 48 hours left.


All that the Aljazeera is proving is that they are less than human! My prayers are with all of these men, especially our Marine.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meas....aljazeera.jpg

Terrorists in Iraq claimed to have kidnapped three Turks and threatened to behead them if Turkey does not pull its companies out of Iraq, the Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera reported Saturday. The report came as President Bush headed to Turkey for a NATO summit.




i got this from there, too. i couldnt' find a link to a story, though.

How terrible; this really makes me feel ill :(

It's 3 from Turkey and CNN reported another from Pakistan.

Very sad.

Dee

As of the 10PM news here they won't confirm the Marine in custody is the one that's been missing for nearly a week. There's some dispute as to his descent (Pakistani or another I can't definitely name so I don't want to confuse everyone). The captors are claiming on descent the military another/ I've long since moved beyond being physically ill cause I keep thinking we are just going to have more and more of this until we are out of this "war." Between the bombings and the beheadings this is just getting more and more frustrating. No matter what your feelings are about the war make sure that you go vote in November to have them reflected in the polls.

It's a bad situation, but I hope that Turkey doesn't give into their demands. Giving in will only encourage more of this type of activity.

Turkey has stated they won't be negotiating with terrorists so it's a pretty safe bet they won't be alive very much longer.

Pigs...really fricking pigs. I really hope that once the handover occurs, things will get better.

-Rudey
--I pray for my fellow Americans and humans fighting the war and facing the blades of terrorists every day.

I say what they do to our soldier, we do to their prisoners as well. Behead them do whatever to the corpse is considered the most unholy by standards of Islam.

What people do in the name of God is amazing. Maybe the new government will be samrt and just level Fallujah.

Mutilate it and mix with swine organs? I say behead their mothers, fathers, wifes, and children first.

-Rudey

While I do not always like journalists either, I think that statement is a bit far- obviously we can say that Aljazeera does not have the fabled "liberal bias" that we hear about America's journalists.

*nods*
Look at the millions of Jews and Arabs the Christians murdered in the Crusades, or the millions of native "heathens" the Roman-Catholic Spaniards murdered in Central America.

My philosophy: If Abraham had just kept it in his pants the 3 most violent religions in the world (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) would not have developed.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

You were always good at that kind of stuff. Ever thought about volunteering for psi-ops?

just a thought... but years ago, weren't we in a nuclear arms race? where is everything now... :confused:

We as the taxpayers sure got screwed on that deal, didn't we? What harm would there really be in donating one to the Iraqis to take care of their little insurgency? Maybe a Fission bomb so that we just have to go remove the corpses and don't really have to rebuild infrastructure.

I'm starting to think that the only think the Iraqis will understand are barbaric acts of torture and cruelty.

Lets not give these thugs the dignity of saying they are threatening a Marine with Execution! Only a legitimate government can "Execute" anybody. These guys are not legit, have no authority, and are just a bunch of murdering thugs. This Marine is threatened with cold blooded pre-meditated MURDER.
They just don't get it. If a Marine dies in war it is tragic, but tragic things happen in war. That Marine is an American Fighting Man who volunteered to be a Marine and accepted the risks attendant to his service. BUT, If they MURDER that Marine then its no longer a casualty of war scenario, now its PERSONAL.
I am not a big fan of capital punishment, but I do think that under certain circumstances there is a clear case for retribution. Can you spell VENDETTA? I trust the Marines can!

Just to digress, was the number actually millions during the crusades? I might believe the Spanish conquests but even that is difficult.

-Rudey

Most things I've seen actually have the numbers killed in the 6 digit range.

Not trying to be pessimistic, but it sucks knowing this Marine won't be alive by the end of the week. I still think we need to do what we did for Japan and Germany in WWII. Flatten the damn place and rebuild it. Those two countries seem to be pretty well off these days.

As I read in a Tom Clancy book once -- "Turn the place into a parking lot and then send in the Marines to paint the stripes."

Since we had no legit reason to start this illegal war these people are just defending their homes and families- so I think they have a clear case to attack and/or kill any and all of the occupying enemy.
Just think: if someone invaded where you are at, would you fight back or would you roll over?

Your post shows a serious misunderstanding of the facts here.

#1: You assert that these people are "Defending their homes and families".

-- This is simply NOT the case. They are in fact blowing up more Iraqi civilians (families of other Iraqis) than they are American soldiers. There are also MANY (maybe even the majority) insurgents that are not even from Iraq.

If that in your mind is your opinion on their justification for this behavior, your opinion is grossly misinformed.

As for illegal, Saddam under the last UN Resolution was supposed to make a final accounting for all of his missing WMD (and there are LOTS of WMD missing). He didn't -- the *UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED* Resolution promised serious consequences if this was not done. Therefore, the war is in fact legal.

What, do you think the WMD just vanished into thin air? They're being hidden somewhere. The fact that in one year they haven't surfaced in Iraq doesn't mean they don't exist. It's very likely that they are hidden in another country (probably Syria) which kind of complicates our being able to locate them.

I dont remember any resolution going through giving the US approval to invade Iraq- infact I remember that resolution failing.
Therefore: illegal invasion.

Best to hand Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice over to The Hague and the ICCJ to stand trial and the US save face than continue digging this hole as the world's big bully.

Who cares if you remember something or don't?

-Rudey
--I don't remember anyone letting you speak boy.

Wow, okay then.

Line 13 of UN Resolution 1441:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Here's the full text to help your memory.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Therefore: You have no clue what you're talking about.

As far as I know the war in Iraq never legally ended for it to restart.

-Rudey

That Resolution never said a member of the United Nations may invade the nation of Iraq. Under the Charter of the United Nations a seperate resolution calling for armed force to be used would need to be passed. America's invasion of Iraq was illegal.


UN Charter: Chapter 5: Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

UN Charter: Chapter 7:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

It was not only implied, but according to Colin Powell, before 1441 was passed, he explicitly told the French ambassador that if they failed to comply (again,) there would be an invasion. The French ambassador acknowledged this.

When France voted for 1441, and subsequently attempted to block its enforcement, they undermined what little credibility that the UN had.

Vichy France lives.

So France undermined the resolution and the US violated the UN Charter.
Which seems like a greater mistake?

The war never ended. What don't you understand?

-Rudey

The US violated the UN charted no more than when an ad hoc coalition stopped the genocide in Bosnia.

The Baathists are gone, Iraq has hope, and the rift in the UN will heal.

And France's behavior was the greater mistake. They were using 1441 to attempt a shift in international hegemonic structure, and there actions backfired.

Iraq has hope?
They are now in civil war and will collapse into another Somalia/pre-10-01 Afghanistan when occupying forces leave.
The US removing the authoritarian regime that stabilized the region was a grave mistake.

Right so they should have died under Saddam. Anything else? You really care about the Iraqis don't you? First it's them defending their homes against us by beheading us. Then it's we illegally started a war in Iraq. And now Saddam was a good man.

This know-nothing is amazing.

-Rudey

I never said "Saddam was a good man" so please do not put words in my mouth.
I recognized the legit fact that his authoritarian regime maintained stability in the region.
Much like the authoritarian regime of Tito maintained stability in the Balkans.
Were either dictator good? No.

Iraq stabilized that region? Only with regard to preventing moderates, and democrats from gaining power. Iraq was not just authoritarian. They were totalitarian, and one of the only genocidal regimes on Earth.

The grave mistake would have been to allow Iraq to remain in power. Prior to 9-11, Iraq was 4th or 5th in the world in the financing of radical Palestinian groups. After 9-11, they became #1. They attempted to destabilize the region, so that the US would be preoccupied with other conflicts, particularly in Israel.

Iraq was trying to get a war started. Nice people.

The real reason why we invaded Iraq has nothing to do with oil or WMD. The real reason was geopolitical. By removing the one nation that was proactively trying to derail the War on Terror (Jihadists,) and by installing a democratic government, the region will change.

It is bold, but there is precedence. Comparisons to Somalia are invalid. Iraq has great national wealth, and an educated population.

They do have hope, after a three decade long nightmare under the Baathists has finally ended.

Stability??? Yes when he was building up the Osirak nuclear reactors he was building up stability to the point that Israel had to attack. When he was gassing a couple hundred thousand kurds and shiites and increasing ethnic violence, he was increasing stability. When he was busy hanging mutilated bodies from the lamp posts in kuwait, he was increasing stability. When he shot missiles into Israel, he was increasing stability. When he massacred 1 million Iranians and the bodies are being found every day, he was increasing stability.

When you were talking, you were decreasing intelligence.

-Rudey

Iraq was definitely not a stable country by any stretch of the imagination. Disregarding any threat it posed to its neighbors, Iraq from within was in total chaos. Before Saddam came to power Iraq was one of the wealthier and better educated nations in the region. Infrastructure was more advanced than any other nation in the region. Very rich cultural history as well. Once Saddam came to power things declined. Sadly, the U.S. knew of Saddam's atrocities and neglected to address them. Even worse, the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War did nothing but harm the very people we should have been helping. Obviously Saddam wasn't harmed by them at all.

Were the reasons for the war justified? Some say no. We've so far failed to find any WMD. Thus far we've failed to find a solid link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. But, we've managed to take down a genocidal maniac, which is definitely a good first step.

It is quite unlikely that there was a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam to begin with. They stood for totally different ideologies (secular vs. religious state) and most say they despised each other.

Russ, do you have a link to any articles discussing Iraq's increase of funding for Palestinian terror groups?

No solid link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?? What are you talking about? Do you ever read? Why don't you ever do the research? This isn't an opinion piece...just read. Why do people get facts and opinion mixed up on GC???

-Rudey