Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · May 28, 2005, 03:38 pm

Japanese Man Says Brother Killed in Iraq

By KENJI HALL
TOKYO (AP) - A Japanese man confirmed Saturday that his older brother, a security worker kidnapped in Iraq, was the dead man shown on an extremist Islamic militant group's Web site, an official said. Iraqi authorities immediately condemned the killing.

A three-minute video posted Friday on the Web site of Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sunnah Army showed footage of a bloodied Asian man lying on his back with arms outstretched, as well as documents with his name and photographs of his face. A statement, accompanied by Quranic verses, identified the dead man as Japanese hostage Akihiko Saito.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...s_iraq_hostage

Folks, those of you who say he deserved to die, please say 'Aye' and state why.

fedfem · May 28, 2005, 04:02 pm

Pearl Harbor????

Just kidding. War is hell. Nobody deserves to die.

Charles · May 28, 2005, 07:02 pm

On a more philosophical note : Dont we all deserve to die - purely for living?

Zeebadee · May 28, 2005, 08:10 pm

How would you view a foreigner actively working in your country against what you perceived to be your own best interests? Would you consider him to be an enemy?

BTW, there's no mention in the article you linked to that claimed he had been beheaded.

tinybear · May 29, 2005, 01:06 am

Ok, maybe beheaded; maybe not. But he certainly didn't die of natural causes.

In answer to your first question: no, I won't consider him my 'enemy' and I certainly won't kill him. I won't even hate him. The worst I may do is probably not to invite him home for dinner.

Zeebadee · May 29, 2005, 02:44 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Ok, maybe beheaded; maybe not. But he certainly didn't die of natural causes.

In answer to your first question: no, I won't consider him my 'enemy' and I certainly won't kill him. I won't even hate him. The worst I may do is probably not to invite him home for dinner.

Your country has been invaded, there are foreigners coming in at the invitation of the occupation forces to help them maintain control, they are working directly at odds with what you consider to be your own best interests, and yet you wouldn't consider them to be your enemies?? You must be French.

rmnunez · May 29, 2005, 03:43 am

The Japanese are not there to help the united statians maintain control, they deploy unarmed to assist in water infrastructure rehabilitation and hospital work for humanitarian reasons.

tinybear · May 29, 2005, 04:00 am

Yeah. Thanks rmnunez for saying what I wanted to say.

rmnunez · May 29, 2005, 04:24 am

Decapitation is a particularly cruel way to kill someone as they invariably know what is about to come, struggle and are in fear. The executioner is acting intentionally deliberately and in cold blood takes the life of a defenseless bound person who is literally overwhelmed. The broadcast publication of such acts seems particularly depraved, it makes me wonder how any could sympathise with the perpetrators of such acts, justify their conduct.

Zeebadee · May 29, 2005, 10:13 am

Since he wasn't decapitated, what has this to do with the topic?

tinybear · May 29, 2005, 11:52 am

Many others like him have though. Do you support those decapitations?

rmnunez · May 29, 2005, 04:15 pm

I oppose murder generally, when its in cold blood as well as by decapitation, which I find particularly cruel.

When at war there are intentional killings by members of the armed forces of parties recognized at conflict. Those acts would be murders absent confrontation in a war. These homicides are excusable and justifiable, no guilt attaches when they conform to rules of war including the famous Geneva Conventions. Irregular forces which formally cannot be recognized, where they lack rankings, a chain of command, organizational structure or a standardized decision-making process, dubiously can claim excusable and justifiable homicide in their attacks on members of regular armed forces, never when on civilians.

The argument those in supporting roles to the occupying forces can be legitimately targetted is not sensible. If collaborators could be legitimately targetted by terrorists, how about the parents, brothers and sisters of terrorists who unwittingly provide shelter and material support to the terrorist? Wouldn't their counterparts from the Coalitioneer's forces also be "legitimate" targets, this would mean anyone with a relative in Coalitioneer armed forces (even those not deployed in Iraq) as well as all Coalitioneer security guards at hospitals would become legitimate targets of anyone somehow associated with ending the military ccupation of Iraq.

Zeebadee · May 29, 2005, 05:05 pm

Saito was evidently seriously wounded and captured during an attack on a truck convoy that he was acting as a security guard for. (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content...at=2&id=337300) He wasn't individually targetted and deliberately killed. He was in no way "unwittingly" providing anything to the "coalitioneer's", he knew exactly what he was being paid to do. He was directly supporting the invaders, therefore he was either a legitimate target, or else he was collateral damage, something you don't seem to mind when it's Iraqi civilians that are casualties.

According to your rules, individual citizens aren't allowed to do anything to defend their country. It's a great advantage to be able to make all the definitions, everyone that doesn't fight exactly as we demand is simply a terrorist.

rmnunez · May 29, 2005, 05:17 pm

My quarrel is not with the victim's role, its with the perpetrator's. You see the perpetrator as an individual citizen defending his country, I thought he was a terrorist. You say he wasn't individually targetted and deliberately killed, I was discussing a decapitation of a hostage held captive. I would note ambushing a convoy requires some planning and assignment of roles among conspirators, this involves deliberation and someone killed thereby would be the victim of planned (deliberated) murder.

fedfem · May 29, 2005, 05:42 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

My quarrel is not with the victim's role, its with the perpetrator's. You see the perpetrator as an individual citizen defending his country, I thought he was a terrorist. You say he wasn't individually targetted and deliberately killed, I was discussing a decapitation of a hostage held captive. I would note ambushing a convoy requires some planning and assignment of roles among conspirators, this involves deliberation and someone killed thereby would be the victim of planned (deliberated) murder.

I for one do not believe all the beheadings are being done by the Iraqis. In particular the beheadings of humanitarians and reporters that have been kidnapped and shown on video.

I still think the Nick Berg incident was too convenient to be coincidental. The fact he was tied in with 9/11 and got a contract in Iraq is questionable in itself. Being held by the US authorities and then being the first beheaded by so-called terrorists boggles the mind.

rmnunez · May 29, 2005, 05:47 pm

You think the decapitees are secretely held by the CIA at a remote location, that the CIA posed as hooded terrorists and actually decapitated these victims? Are the claims of "responsibility" broadcast from Al Jazeerah phony CIA inserts? The websites posting the videos secretely hosted and artificially crafted by their famous "echelon" server too?

fedfem · May 29, 2005, 07:56 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

You think the decapitees are secretely held by the CIA at a remote location, that the CIA posed as hooded terrorists and actually decapitated these victims? Are the claims of "responsibility" broadcast from Al Jazeerah phony CIA inserts? The websites posting the videos secretely hosted and artificially crafted by their famous "echelon" server too?

Oh brother!

No, that is not what I think.

Zeebadee · May 29, 2005, 08:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

I would note ambushing a convoy requires some planning and assignment of roles among conspirators, this involves deliberation and someone killed thereby would be the victim of planned (deliberated) murder.

And this is somehow different than calling in an air strike on an apartment building in a residential area because one person in it is a sniper? Doesn't rationalizing away "collateral damage" as an acceptable cost of bombing involve deliberation and planning?

rmnunez · May 30, 2005, 01:41 am

Regular Coalitioneer forces ambush convoys all the time, they would do it at checkpoints too. This involves planning and deliberation, but if the order to do so was lawfully made and the applicable standards of conduct and rules of war upheld, when perpetrated by a member of regular armed forces exempts the perpetrator from liability -this is true even if the order was unlawful, if the perpetrator was unaware of this. The difference is in the perpetrator, not the conduct.

castille · May 30, 2005, 01:45 am

If Japan wasn't working with the US in the Iraq war, their citizens wouldn't be targeted.

You don't see Swiss or Chinese hostages being executed. Stay neutral, stay safe.

May 28, 2005, 03:38 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Another Japanese Hostage Beheaded In Iraq Japanese Man Says Brother Killed in Iraq By KENJI HALL TOKYO (AP) - A Japanese man confirmed Saturday that his older brother, a security worker kidnapped in Iraq, was the dead man shown on an extremist Islamic militant group's Web site, an official said. Iraqi authorities immediately condemned the killing. A three-minute video posted Friday on the Web site of Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sunnah Army showed footage of a bloodied Asian man lying on his back with arms outstretched, as well as documents with his name and photographs of his face. A statement, accompanied by Quranic verses, identified the dead man as Japanese hostage Akihiko Saito. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...s_iraq_hostage Folks, those of you who say he deserved to die, please say 'Aye' and state why.

May 28, 2005, 08:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,713	How would you view a foreigner actively working in your country against what you perceived to be your own best interests? Would you consider him to be an enemy? BTW, there's no mention in the article you linked to that claimed he had been beheaded. "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

May 29, 2005, 10:13 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,713	Since he wasn't decapitated, what has this to do with the topic? "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

May 29, 2005, 04:15 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	I oppose murder generally, when its in cold blood as well as by decapitation, which I find particularly cruel. When at war there are intentional killings by members of the armed forces of parties recognized at conflict. Those acts would be murders absent confrontation in a war. These homicides are excusable and justifiable, no guilt attaches when they conform to rules of war including the famous Geneva Conventions. Irregular forces which formally cannot be recognized, where they lack rankings, a chain of command, organizational structure or a standardized decision-making process, dubiously can claim excusable and justifiable homicide in their attacks on members of regular armed forces, never when on civilians. The argument those in supporting roles to the occupying forces can be legitimately targetted is not sensible. If collaborators could be legitimately targetted by terrorists, how about the parents, brothers and sisters of terrorists who unwittingly provide shelter and material support to the terrorist? Wouldn't their counterparts from the Coalitioneer's forces also be "legitimate" targets, this would mean anyone with a relative in Coalitioneer armed forces (even those not deployed in Iraq) as well as all Coalitioneer security guards at hospitals would become legitimate targets of anyone somehow associated with ending the military ccupation of Iraq. Last edited by rmnunez; May 29, 2005 at 04:21 pm.

May 29, 2005, 05:05 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,713	Saito was evidently seriously wounded and captured during an attack on a truck convoy that he was acting as a security guard for. (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content...at=2&id=337300) He wasn't individually targetted and deliberately killed. He was in no way "unwittingly" providing anything to the "coalitioneer's", he knew exactly what he was being paid to do. He was directly supporting the invaders, therefore he was either a legitimate target, or else he was collateral damage, something you don't seem to mind when it's Iraqi civilians that are casualties. According to your rules, individual citizens aren't allowed to do anything to defend their country. It's a great advantage to be able to make all the definitions, everyone that doesn't fight exactly as we demand is simply a terrorist. "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

May 28, 2005, 04:02 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Pearl Harbor???? Just kidding. War is hell. Nobody deserves to die.

May 28, 2005, 07:02 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Charles Molten Ash Location: London Posts: 59	On a more philosophical note : Dont we all deserve to die - purely for living?

May 29, 2005, 01:06 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Ok, maybe beheaded; maybe not. But he certainly didn't die of natural causes. In answer to your first question: no, I won't consider him my 'enemy' and I certainly won't kill him. I won't even hate him. The worst I may do is probably not to invite him home for dinner.

May 29, 2005, 03:43 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The Japanese are not there to help the united statians maintain control, they deploy unarmed to assist in water infrastructure rehabilitation and hospital work for humanitarian reasons.

May 29, 2005, 04:00 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Yeah. Thanks rmnunez for saying what I wanted to say.

May 29, 2005, 04:24 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Decapitation is a particularly cruel way to kill someone as they invariably know what is about to come, struggle and are in fear. The executioner is acting intentionally deliberately and in cold blood takes the life of a defenseless bound person who is literally overwhelmed. The broadcast publication of such acts seems particularly depraved, it makes me wonder how any could sympathise with the perpetrators of such acts, justify their conduct.

May 29, 2005, 11:52 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Many others like him have though. Do you support those decapitations?

May 29, 2005, 05:17 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	My quarrel is not with the victim's role, its with the perpetrator's. You see the perpetrator as an individual citizen defending his country, I thought he was a terrorist. You say he wasn't individually targetted and deliberately killed, I was discussing a decapitation of a hostage held captive. I would note ambushing a convoy requires some planning and assignment of roles among conspirators, this involves deliberation and someone killed thereby would be the victim of planned (deliberated) murder.

May 29, 2005, 05:47 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	You think the decapitees are secretely held by the CIA at a remote location, that the CIA posed as hooded terrorists and actually decapitated these victims? Are the claims of "responsibility" broadcast from Al Jazeerah phony CIA inserts? The websites posting the videos secretely hosted and artificially crafted by their famous "echelon" server too? Last edited by rmnunez; May 29, 2005 at 05:49 pm.

May 30, 2005, 01:41 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Regular Coalitioneer forces ambush convoys all the time, they would do it at checkpoints too. This involves planning and deliberation, but if the order to do so was lawfully made and the applicable standards of conduct and rules of war upheld, when perpetrated by a member of regular armed forces exempts the perpetrator from liability -this is true even if the order was unlawful, if the perpetrator was unaware of this. The difference is in the perpetrator, not the conduct.

May 30, 2005, 01:45 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	If Japan wasn't working with the US in the Iraq war, their citizens wouldn't be targeted. You don't see Swiss or Chinese hostages being executed. Stay neutral, stay safe. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.