ISIS has beheaded British prisoner David Haines

[latinna]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-haines-beheading-recap-updates-4256832

Islamic State militants have released footage claiming to show the beheading of British hostage David Haines.           

The aid worker, 44, was captured by ISIS in Syria in March 2013.           

The plight of the dad-of-two was revealed when he appeared at the end of a video showing the beheading of US journalist Steven Sotloff earlier this month.           

ISIS had threatened to kill Mr Haines if world leaders do not bow to their demands.

Tonight, the extremists posted a new video lasting 2minutes and 30 seconds which appears to show the beheading of David Haines.

At the end of the video, ISIS parade another hostage.           

The militants have not responded to any of the family's attempts to make contact so far, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said.           

[1714614206]

1714614206

[1714614206]

1714614206

[1714614206]

1714614206

[1714614206]

1714614206

[1714614206]

1714614206

[1714614206]

1714614206

[Chef Ramsay]

Here's a piece of advice to any westerners working or hanging out in the vicinity of this madness: GTFO yesterday!

[bryant.coleman]

Obama / Cameron will continue to threaten ISIS (i.e verbally) and the ISIS leaders will ignore their ramblings. The Western leaders are too busy planning for the next round of sanctions against Russia, that they have no time to deal with the ISIS. ISIS will achieve its objectives, i.e publicity from the main stream media in the US and the UK. Other than that, there is not going to be any change at all.

[Lethn]

Here's a piece of advice to any westerners working or hanging out in the vicinity of this madness: GTFO yesterday!

At this point I seriously can't understand why there are any foreigners still hanging around Iraq in the first place, surely when ISIS rolled over they'd have fucked over along time ago, maybe they thought it wouldn't happen to them or something :S.

[Bitcoin12345]

Although I agree that the actions of IS are despicable and cannot be morally justified under any circumstances, the idea that western air strikes on them is going to be of any benefit to western countries whatsoever is utterly absurd. Every time a western country intervenes in other countries (particularly Muslim ones) they end up killing scores of innocent civilians and alienate a large proportion of the population against them. They are creating the next generation of Bin Laden's and they don't seem to care. The only people that benefit from war are large corporations and businesses that sell arms and exploit the population of the conquered country and the people that pay the prices are ordinary citizens. When terrorists attack a country it is ordinary people that are targeted despite the fact that the people responsible for the bloodshed are invariably the rich and powerful who have no regard for the life of any people, even their own countrymen. Until we stop acting as if we have the authority to go around the world deciding how other countries should conduct their affairs and deciding on which dictators are acceptable and which aren't then we will continue to sew the seeds of hatred that give rise to terrorism. We are literally paying in both blood and treasure to alienate people against us and make us hated around the world, I don't know about you but I think this is insanity and I could think of many better ways to spend our money which would not only be better for society but would not cause many of the problems that we face today.

RANT OVER.

[bryant.coleman]

Although I agree that the actions of IS are despicable and cannot be morally justified under any circumstances, the idea that western air strikes on them is going to be of any benefit to western countries whatsoever is utterly absurd. Every time a western country intervenes in other countries (particularly Muslim ones) they end up killing scores of innocent civilians and alienate a large proportion of the population against them.

Bombing the Iraqi army positions (when Saddam was in power) and bombing the military hardware of the ISIS is entirely different. When NATO invaded Iraq, there were no justifiable reasons. All the BS about WMDs and chemical weapons were just made up in order to justify the invasion. But ISIS is posing a great deal of threat to very survival of the Iraqis, especially the minorities.

Also, the NATO has moral responsibility to deal with the ISIS, as the latter had emerged through the vacuum they left after toppling Saddam.

[Bitcoin12345]

Although I agree that the actions of IS are despicable and cannot be morally justified under any circumstances, the idea that western air strikes on them is going to be of any benefit to western countries whatsoever is utterly absurd. Every time a western country intervenes in other countries (particularly Muslim ones) they end up killing scores of innocent civilians and alienate a large proportion of the population against them.

Bombing the Iraqi army positions (when Saddam was in power) and bombing the military hardware of the ISIS is entirely different. When NATO invaded Iraq, there were no justifiable reasons. All the BS about WMDs and chemical weapons were just made up in order to justify the invasion. But ISIS is posing a great deal of threat to very survival of the Iraqis, especially the minorities.

Also, the NATO has moral responsibility to deal with the ISIS, as the latter had emerged through the vacuum they left after toppling Saddam.

It is not different, where do you think IS comes from, they were funded and equipped by western countries for fighting against Assad in Syria. So they are allies whilst in Syria but when they cross the border into Iraq they become enemies. If we didn't want IS, then we shouldn't have funded them in the first place and we certainly shouldn't continue to fund them now. Western countries have done this for decades, funded terrorist groups when it suits them and are then surprised when the terrorists don't care about western countries.

Additionally, the idea that the US actually cares about Iraqi civilians is laughable, they launched an illegal war against them on a pack of lies whereby hundreds of thousands of Iraqis paid with their lives. The US knew this at the time but proceeded anyway so that they could secure Iraq's oil and steal billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth. They had no regard for them then and to assume that they do now is incredibly naiive.

As for the point that NATO has a responsibility to intervene, this is the kind of mentality that causes us these problems in the first place. NATO was set up to be a defensive organisation to defend the territory of member states, not to go around the world acting as the worlds policeman. NATO has become an extension of western foreign policy to enhance US imperialism and implement its will around the world. If anyone should intervene against IS, it should be the Iraqi people themselves or neighbouring countries that face a direct threat from IS, there is more than enough military capability in the middle east to tackle IS. The arrogance of the west that they know better than everyone else has caused us many problems for decades and will continue to be the case into the future unless we seriously change our approach to foreign policy.

[wasserman99]

Although I agree that the actions of IS are despicable and cannot be morally justified under any circumstances, the idea that western air strikes on them is going to be of any benefit to western countries whatsoever is utterly absurd. Every time a western country intervenes in other countries (particularly Muslim ones) they end up killing scores of innocent civilians and alienate a large proportion of the population against them. They are creating the next generation of Bin Laden's and they don't seem to care. The only people that benefit from war are large corporations and businesses that sell arms and exploit the population of the conquered country and the people that pay the prices are ordinary citizens. When terrorists attack a country it is ordinary people that are targeted despite the fact that the people responsible for the bloodshed are invariably the rich and powerful who have no regard for the life of any people, even their own countrymen. Until we stop acting as if we have the authority to go around the world deciding how other countries should conduct their affairs and deciding on which dictators are acceptable and which aren't then we will continue to sew the seeds of hatred that give rise to terrorism. We are literally paying in both blood and treasure to alienate people against us and make us hated around the world, I don't know about you but I think this is insanity and I could think of many better ways to spend our money which would not only be better for society but would not cause many of the problems that we face today.

RANT OVER.

Any time there is war of any kind there will be civilian casualties. This is just an unfortunate fact of war. The US and most western countries will almost always give both the government and civilians fair warning that air strikes are coming so they can act accordingly. The government of the country being bombed is to blame for not giving into the demands of the stronger military power. If the US tells a government that they need to surrender or face military action, and the government does not surrender and the US bombs that country then the government that did not surrender is the only one to blame for the deaths of civilians. These kinds of governments know they do not have any chance of being able to beat the US in battle.

Also these actions are not creating the Bin Ladins. It is embedded in the religion. The religion advocates violence against people who do not follow their beliefs while other religions advocate peace towards everyone. People who follow the muslim religion generally think it is appropriate to kill people who do not follow their religion

[confirmation120]

Here's a piece of advice to any westerners working or hanging out in the vicinity of this madness: GTFO yesterday!

At this point I seriously can't understand why there are any foreigners still hanging around Iraq in the first place, surely when ISIS rolled over they'd have fucked over along time ago, maybe they thought it wouldn't happen to them or something :S.

Journalists are there because they are trying to earn a living and feel it is their duty to report the news. I would somewhat argue that the journalists beheaded by ISIS were not of christian religion but rather of a religion that believes in the importance of reporting the news

[bryant.coleman]

It is not different, where do you think IS comes from, they were funded and equipped by western countries for fighting against Assad in Syria. So they are allies whilst in Syria but when they cross the border into Iraq they become enemies. If we didn't want IS, then we shouldn't have funded them in the first place and we certainly shouldn't continue to fund them now. Western countries have done this for decades, funded terrorist groups when it suits them and are then surprised when the terrorists don't care about western countries.

Yes... if you look at the pro-NATO news sources such as the BBC, it is clear. Before the ISIS committed all those atrocities, media firms such as the BBC were painting them in a good light. ISIS was simply grouped together with the other rebel groups, with a warning that some of the "rebel groups" are affiliated with the Al Qaeda. But at that time, their extremist links were not important. All that was important was to topple Assad (who is the last remaining secular leader in the Middle East) by whatever means possible.

[Divinespark]

The UK needs to play a different tape, nobody is buying the Islam is a religion of peace tune any more
Actions speak louder than words, get serious about crushing ISIS and get serious now

[Bitcoin12345]

Although I agree that the actions of IS are despicable and cannot be morally justified under any circumstances, the idea that western air strikes on them is going to be of any benefit to western countries whatsoever is utterly absurd. Every time a western country intervenes in other countries (particularly Muslim ones) they end up killing scores of innocent civilians and alienate a large proportion of the population against them. They are creating the next generation of Bin Laden's and they don't seem to care. The only people that benefit from war are large corporations and businesses that sell arms and exploit the population of the conquered country and the people that pay the prices are ordinary citizens. When terrorists attack a country it is ordinary people that are targeted despite the fact that the people responsible for the bloodshed are invariably the rich and powerful who have no regard for the life of any people, even their own countrymen. Until we stop acting as if we have the authority to go around the world deciding how other countries should conduct their affairs and deciding on which dictators are acceptable and which aren't then we will continue to sew the seeds of hatred that give rise to terrorism. We are literally paying in both blood and treasure to alienate people against us and make us hated around the world, I don't know about you but I think this is insanity and I could think of many better ways to spend our money which would not only be better for society but would not cause many of the problems that we face today.

RANT OVER.

Any time there is war of any kind there will be civilian casualties. This is just an unfortunate fact of war. The US and most western countries will almost always give both the government and civilians fair warning that air strikes are coming so they can act accordingly. The government of the country being bombed is to blame for not giving into the demands of the stronger military power. If the US tells a government that they need to surrender or face military action, and the government does not surrender and the US bombs that country then the government that did not surrender is the only one to blame for the deaths of civilians. These kinds of governments know they do not have any chance of being able to beat the US in battle.

Also these actions are not creating the Bin Ladins. It is embedded in the religion. The religion advocates violence against people who do not follow their beliefs while other religions advocate peace towards everyone. People who follow the muslim religion generally think it is appropriate to kill people who do not follow their religion

This is one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard. The idea that the government of an invaded country should be blamed for the deaths of civilians caused by western air strikes is ludicrous. That is as stupid as saying that someone that gets shot is to blame for being shot because they didn't dodge the bullet. It is the fact you think that the US has a right to give governments and civilians a warning in the first place that is disturbing, they do not have the right to invade other people's countries whether or not they are kind enough to give a warning beforehand.

As for the point that it is embedded in their religion, you are clearly not well versed in the Quran otherwise you would know how utterly ridiculous and untrue this statement is. Muslim countries have existed peacefully for thousands of years, much longer than any Christian country and it is only in recent history that there have been any significant problems from such countries. Could it be because they are constantly being attacked, misrepresented and undermined by aggressive western nations and they are not prepared to be treated with such disdain. After all, if you look at the wars that have taken place in recent history, almost all of them have had western nations involved in some way or another.