Beheading horrifies us when done by ISIS. Not so much when done by Saudi Arabia

[cali]

Is it because ISIS so publicly and humiliatingly beheaded Americans and a Brit? The images of the men kneeling in orange jumpsuits with a black robed figure looming over them about to cut their throats? A picture is more powerful than words are regards such things, but nevertheless, one of our key allies against ISIS is a fundamentalist regime that is as oppressive as ISIS. Yes, there are some key differences. The Saudis aren't trying to take over swaths of the middle east, for example. SA has much more in common with ISIS than we'd like to acknowledge. The irony couldn't be clearer.

The U.N. says this about beheading:

"Beheading as a form of execution is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and prohibited under international law under all circumstances," said Juan Méndez, a U.N. special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, at a news conference in Geneva on Tuesday.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/11/saudi-arabia-key-to-obamas-strategy-beheaded-at-least-8-people-last-month/

More from the same article:

The active cooperation of Saudi Arabia, with its vast oil wealth, its well-equipped military and its broader influence among the Middle East's Sunni states, is key to any extended U.S. war effort in Iraq and Syria, as The Post's Anne Gearan reports from Jiddah. Though long an incubator of the Salafist ideology that now inflames the Islamic State and militant groups of its ilk, the kingdom has grown increasingly concerned with the destabilizing chaos the Islamic State has wrought in the region.

But that doesn't mean its state ideology is necessarily changing. The country is notorious for its draconian laws, which are derived from a strict Wahhabist interpretation of Islamic doctrine. In the space of two weeks last month, according to the rights group Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia executed as many as 22 people. At least eight of those executed were beheaded, U.N. observers say.

<snip>

"The execution of people accused of petty crimes and on the basis of ‘confessions’ extracted through torture has become shamefully common in Saudi Arabia. It is absolutely shocking to witness the Kingdom’s authorities' callous disregard to fundamental human rights," Amnesty's Said Boumedouha said in a statement circulated last week.

In violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Saudi Arabia executed at least one person under the age of 18 this year, according to Amnesty International. At least half of all executions in Saudi Arabia since 1985 have involved foreign nationals, including domestic workers, whose harsh treatment under Saudi law has riled rights groups in the past.

[hlthe2b]

1. Fridays at the clock tower near the gold souks in Riyadh.

While there is no tourism in S. Arabia, there are sufficient oil-involved westerners and other foreigners that the crowds delight in identifying an unknowing target to bring closer to the front for a full view. There is a story that makes the rounds there of a Japanese diplomat's wife made to view the happenings. She was on a plane, heavily sedated,, heading home the next day.

I was assigned there years ago and fortunately was tipped off ahead of time. They supposedly sedate most prior, unless they are particularly "notorious".... Surely not something most would get over. I can not, for the life of me, understand those who seek out beheading videos (Daniel Pearl and others) on the internet. I truly can not.

[DrDan]

15. Not true during my 4 year assignment there

I have been at two at that very location. There was NO interest in pushing me to the front. Quite the contrary, there was a rush by locals to get to the front.

Also I doubt that story about the diplomats wife. No women attend.

[hlthe2b]

16. It was true when I was there and you REALLY need to step back from acccusing other DUers

with personal experience of speaking "untruths". SHAME ON YOU, DrDan. I do NOT deserve that nor does any other DUer. Shame on you!

If you persist in suggesting I or any other DUer is lying, then YOU will deserve your time out.

[DrDan]

18. Certainly not my experience and you stated you did not attend

[hlthe2b]

22. I was forewarned and avoided that site on Fridays. That does not believe I did not experience the

aftermath from those who were

AGAIN, YOU APPARENTLY HAVE NO SHAME. I am not going to alert, because this kind of behavior needs to be seen and your ugly behavior exposed.

[DrDan]

24. So you weren't there

As I said, I was actually there twice

[hlthe2b]

26. Stop it. I lived/worked there, was proximal to the location and you can

share your own "stories" all you wish.

I think other DUers are smart enough to know what you are all about.

[Pisces]

45. Shame? Someone has the drama turned up to 11.

[hlthe2b]

50. Perhaps when someone calls YOU a liar for no reason...

you might understand.

[DrDan]

20. I will change my post to reflect the 4 years I lived there

[MADem]

36. Who was this diplomat's wife, or the diplomat, himself?

If we knew that, and the timeframe, we might be able to sort this out.

This could easily be cleared up with a name--I'm sure there will be more than one report of the event. People do talk, and they do it on the internet, too.

I have never heard of women attending those executions, either, though I don't presume to speak authoritatively.

[hlthe2b]

51. I do not lie, have never given anyone a reason to suspect so

This was more than two decades ago and I am not fluent on my Japanese diplomats. Or YOU can FOIA the embassy in Riyadh going back for all such incidents.

Of course you can join in and call Hassin a liar as well, I suppose, who likewise acknowledges what I experienced.

[MADem]

54. No one--save you--is even talking about LYING. Get off that horse.

You are inventing a charge that NO ONE has made against you, and crying that you're being unfairly convicted of it, when no one--save your own self--has accused you of anything.

If you were not physically present, though, you can't be speaking as a first person witness. That's just simple fact. People do hear and repeat reports, and they can sometimes get convoluted in the retelling. Sometimes, people like to embellish a tale, to make it more interesting. It's not your fault if a tale you heard while living in KSA was embellished, and you wouldn't be the first person to hear or repeat such a story.

If you knew the name of the diplomat, or his wife, I am sure we could find some commentary on the allegation to perhaps clear up any inconsistencies--that is ALL I am saying. If you don't know the name, well, you don't know the name.

It's not nice to accuse people of name calling, you know. I never "called you a liar" and it's uncivil to suggest that I did.

[hlthe2b]

55. The very first response to me (that drew YOU in) had as subject line: NOT TRUE!

See his edits, MADAM

So now you can go where I intend to send DrDan. Much deserved oblivion.

[MADem]

56. When I joined the conversation the subject line said "during my four year assignment there."

He was simply--as I read it--recounting his OWN experience.

I don't understand why you are being so hyper-sensitive about this.

If you can't prove it, you can't prove it. It is something that you heard while you were living in KSA. There is NOTHING wrong with couching your comments in that fashion--so why don't you do that, instead of calling people names and suggesting that we're all "calling you a liar" when all we're asking for is some reasonable detail?

Look, no one in their right mind thinks KSA is a model of dignity, virtue and fair play. You want to see a beheading? You don't have to head for the square or the car park--you can go to the INTERNET if you like that sort of thing. Film of those events are posted on LIVELEAK all the time.

The fact that you're "sending me to oblivion" over such a trivial request says way more about you than me. I think you're protesting far too much, frankly.

FWIW, it's MADem--Massachusetts Democrat, but I'm not insulted by your error (nor will I call you a "liar" because you got my name wrong) in any event.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. It was absolutely true.

I received first hand reports from my uncle telling about pushing Americans to the front.

He spent 10 plus years in Riyadh as retired Air Force and then contractor working for Northrop (later other firms iirc).

My uncle lived there in the mid 80s to mid 90s. My aunt joined him later in his stay. I don't recall my aunt mentioning witnessing beheadings ( not saying she didn't witness any) but she did see a decapitated body they left out on display to ripen.

[hlthe2b]

52. Yes Hassin it is...

[hlthe2b]

23. She was shopping at the nearby gold souks and got caught up with the crowd.

[DrDan]

29. Very familiar with those souks

I don't remember them opening until after afternoon prayers on Friday.

[hlthe2b]

33. And as a fellow woman, your experience with the limited areas drivers would take foreign women

is of course, the same as mine? Oh, yeah, you are not a woman.

Your arrogance, suggesting your knowledge is all-encompassing--pariticularly given there were probably years between my time there and yours is on display for all to see. Enjoy your pomposity. If you have to try THIS hard, I doubt ANYONE is buying it.

[CBGLuthier]

2. and when America blows men, women, and children to bits

with arms, legs, head and torso flying in many different directions Americans light a sparkler, toast marshmallows, and say, "God bless America."

[intaglio]

3. Actually most Americans don't do that

but (no) thanks for the disruptive generalisation.

[malaise]

19. He did not say Americans

He said America. You missed the point. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.

[MADem]

35. Yeah he did...

...Americans light a sparkler, toast marshmallows, and say, "God bless America."

The point he was making is that "Americans" all cheer this kind of thing. It was broad-brushing, to be kind about it.

[sabrina 1]

43. Did he say 'all Americans' or just 'Americans'? Because that is absolutely true.

Americans DO cheer for the droning and bombing of people from the ME. As Gen. Miller himself said: 'Treat the Iraqis like dogs'. And as we've seen over and over again, his sentiment is shared by far too many Americans.

[MADem]

49. He didn't say "some Americans" or "just a few Americans."

When someone says "Americans" to me, and doesn't qualify it with any sort of minimizer, I will assume--as will most people doing a reading of that sentence--that he is talking about the vast majority of Americans, a preponderance of Americans--otherwise, he'd use the qualifier.

I don't happen to think that "most Americans" or even "many Americans" cheer carnage. I think most regret it, dislike it, even loathe it, even if some find it necessary.

[sabrina 1]

57. A preponderance of Americans DO support bombing and killing people in the ME. Are you ignoring

the polls we continually are told represent a 'majority' of Americans? Do YOU support this latest bombing of Syria eg? I do not, which puts me with the MINORITY of Americans. Same thing last time, drones, Iraq invasion, Afghanistan, bombings in Yemen, Pakistan etc., a MAJORITY of Americans supported all of these illegal incursions.

So the poster is correct, unless you think we are being lied to about the polls.

[intaglio]

58. Support is not celebration

I support the imprisonment of criminals but I do not celebrate it.

[sabrina 1]

64. No, it isn't. But it's hard to ignore the celebrations of a large part of the American

population when we illegally invaded Iraq, which led, predictably, to where we are today. I remember the celebrations, the cheering each time a bomb was dropped on Iraq, on 'those ragheads and camel jockies' never mind that many of those victims WERE CHILDREN. Can't erase the celebratory atmosphere I encountered in this country, sorry.

The jokes about torture after it was revealed, not just a 'small portion of the population'. I received disgusting emails from people I thought I knew eg. I no longer know them but they ARE Americans.

Which would be bad enough it was just part of the population, but it wasn't. It was our 'leaders', a good portion of our media, yes, you can say it was the 'right wing' media, but they ARE Americans who managed to gain a whole lot of power in this country.

[MADem]

67. +1 nt

[MADem]

60. "Most Americans" don't care for terrorists hacking off the heads of journalists and aid workers.

If we could hit them three times with a naughty stick, and say "No, No, NO!" and they'd promise to never do it again, I'm sure "most Americans" would be delighted to leave it at that.

Your caricature of "bloodthirsty" Americans is just not reality. You do like to get confrontational with people, though and claim that you are the way and the light on any complex issue, as though you are the only moral arbiter, here, and then get all exhortative and demand YES OR NO answers to issues that can't be dealt with in such a simple fashion.

I could play the same game with you, then, and suggest, cravenly and quite obtusely, that since you don't support an allied response to these terrorists, that clearly, that can ONLY mean you SUPPORT the beheading of journalists and aid workers. Clearly, you MUST, since you don't think that conduct should be stopped...?

See how the shoe cramps on the other foot? Don't go all "simplistic" when the realities are so complex. No one "likes" killing, unless they are sick fucks. Most Americans are NOT that. Sometimes, though, people refuse to be reasonable, and there are no options left. You might not care for the options, and that's fine and dandy. But don't pretend that people are getting all joyful over a situation they'd as soon avoid.

This thread, which was locked as META, unfairly, IMO--because it wasn't disruptive Meta, it was CONSTRUCTIVE Meta--had some good ideas in it. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025582683

Worth a read.

[sabrina 1]

63. Most Americans haven't expressed much concern about our Coalition of Dictatorships

including Saudi Arabia where beheadings are legal.

How do you feel about the medieval practices of our allies in this latest foreign adventure?

I abhor these atrocities and always have. But 'most Americans' appear to be very selective as to which atrocities they need to be outraged about.

IF you do not object to the Saudis doing it, or demand that we go bomb that medieval and brutal regime because we simply cannot tolerate such atrocities, then I can't for the life of me understand why you object to ISIS, who are merely doing what some of our closest allies and partners in these wars, are doing. Can you explain why someone in Saudi Arabia, teenagers even, is not worthy of the same kind of outrage as someone from the West?

Just for the record, I personally am equally and always have been, outraged by both.

[MADem]

66. Have you surveyed most Americans and determined their level of concern?

Stop putting yourself out there as the moral arbiter for "most Americans." Look at your post! You're judge, jury and executioner with your "if" this, "then" that--you've already made up YOUR mind, and everyone--save you--is wanting, because you own all the "outrage."

If you seriously think that ANY group of people doesn't care more about "their own" than "those others" you simply do not understand human nature. Humans are tribal. Do you think that most people in the greater middle east give two shits about those beheaded westerners, save for the difficulty the agents that murdered them are causing in their own back yard as they rumble through, burning and looting and murdering? If they'd done this on a desert island, far from their neighborhood, they wouldn't even find it worthy of more than a few minutes' discussion.

I'll repeat--these issues are complex. You're simplifying them down to the point where you think that if we go away from the fray, no one will die and all will be lovely and rosy. That's not what will happen, and "most Americans" are astute enough to know that, even as they lament loss of life.

[sabrina 1]

69. So many 'you's in your comment. But to take the focus OFF me, though I am flattered

that you consider my opinions so important, the issue is consistency in our foreign policies.

Long before this, many people around the world, human rights activists have TRIED to get the US to stop supporting all these dictators, would you like a list?

Then WE go into Iraq and perpetrate unspeakable atrocities on the population there with the assistance of some of the most brutal regimes that exist today.

Eg, I remember Rummy, representing this country, visiting one of the most infamous dictators still operating, thanks to our support, in Uzbekistan. Rummy was there to hand him some of our Tax Dollars. This despite the knowledge of his brutal and barbaric practices towards his own people.

We are judged by our actions, not our speech. The US has lost the moral authority to preach morality to the rest of the world.

As for ISIS or ISIL or whatever we are calling them today, they must be the stupidest morons on the planet. To do something designed to get support for their own demise makes it obvious we have nothing to fear from them at all. Either that, or nothing is as it seems which we won't know for quite a while.

'Come and get me' to the world's super power who they, assuming they have ANY brains at all, know is just itching to have an excuse to do that, seems to me to the most stupid, suicidal move to make when all they had to do was continue to ignore the West. It's almost as if someone was pulling their strings. But that would be just too awful to think about.

So, I'm going with 'they are far too stupid to be any threat to us'. That seems the most logical conclusion.

[MADem]

78. Whatever.

You put the focus ON "you" with your outrage that "you" touted. There's a load of "I" in your post 63, along with a bit of "you" directed at me.

Don't invite it if it's not wanted. And don't lump me in with the GWB/Rummy "we," any more than I want to be lumped with the gleeful and bloodthirsty "most Americans" you've been talking about.

To respond to your question, I don't know the hearts or minds of DAESH, but if I were forced to guess, I'd wager they think they're the "one true Islamic" (in their minds, alone) group determined to realize their manifest destiny as proclaimed to them by God through his Prophet. Militarily, they regard themselves as a version of the North Vietnamese, skilled in asymmetric warfare and with the added bennie that they--not those "other guys"--have God on their side. Further, that they believe their cause is so just that they can overcome not just us, but the House of Saud, the Ayatullahs of Iran, the Sheikhs and kings and other rulers of satellite states, and anyone else who doesn't subscribe to their brand of Islam.

They don't quite have Qu'rans on the tips of their spears, but they have the 21st Century version of same, with their shameless misappropriation of the Seal of the Prophet. All a few smart guys need are a few unsophisticated followers who believe that this seal will protect them from harm, and if they are harmed, why, they will be martyrs anyway, and what awaits them in Paradise is a zillion times better than this lousy old waystation that is earth.

The culture mitigates a great deal of what other societies would regard as "healthy fear." It's not "stupidity," it's the way they've been inculcated. Their leadership envisions a Muslim WORLD, the same way that unsavory jerk during the 2nd WW saw himself as the leader of a Reich lasting a thousand years. It's possible to be certifiable but at the same time, not "stupid."

And, as far as DAESH is concerned, anyone who doesn't subscribe not just to Islam, but to their BRAND of Islam, will die, if they have their way--and even if they do subscribe, they still might die.

I think you make an enormous error when you confuse mendacity with stupidity. Not all of these fellows (and they are all fellows, silly little propaganda fluffs about a cadre of women to "enforce the rules" as a claim in contravention to blunt the reality of those squads of Kurdish women--who really are fighting--notwithstanding) are terribly worldly or sophisticated, but they aren't stupid. It's not an easy trick to memorize the Qu'ran, and most of them have enough discipline and stick-to-it-ive-ness to have put the bulk of that book to memory. It's an effort involving INTENSE drudgery over the course of years, and requires a dedication unknown to most people in the west. To portray these people as "stupid" is frankly, naive. They are capable of remarkable ingenuity in the face of scarcity, and they're willing to put in the time and drudgery to accomplish goals we wouldn't even want to attempt.

What they are, to put very fine points on it, is sexist, woefully misguided, religiously discriminatory to the point of sociopathy, and a little bit racist, too (I think there are some groups they'd just wipe out, rather than give them the chance to convert, if it were up to them). They are also stubborn, and they will NOT be moved from their POV. They're past the point of reason. Their attitude is "My way, or the highway."

[sabrina 1]

79. I don't aknow nything about this latest, more evil than Hitler group. Never heard of them

until a few weeks ago. They do sound a lot like the last most evil group ever to threaten the world with their enormous power however. Same rhetoric, beheadings at strategic moments, remember Nick Berg and a few others? And then we heard no more, AFTER the torture hearings were overshadowed by those grotesque videos of beheadings.
In describing this latest iteration of the biggest threat ever to our National Security you have described George Bush who, I don't know about you, imo was one of the stupidest men ever to manage to take over the WH.

He too believed he was on a Mission from God. He didn't talk to his earthly father for advice about invading a Muslim country, he talked to his Heavenly Father, who he was certain, was on OUR side. A good Christian nation going on a crusade. So he told us.

The stupidity of THAT man is evident in the results of his fanatical beliefs in the ME. HE, as John Kerry pointed out to Cheney, CREATED ISIS.

'There is nothing so dangerous as stupidity in action'

Of course you could be right and they may not be stupid at all. But that would mean having to believe they, or whoever is advising them, WANTED us to invade Syria. Then the question is, why would do what such a horrible group of murderers WANT us to do?

Thanks for the lecture on how I should behave. But I've done quite well just by being honest up to now.

[MADem]

81. I think that Sykes and Picot created this mess, if you really want to get down to brass tacks.

"W" just made an already bad situation that relied on the creation of false tensions worse, because he wanted to a) Avenge his "deddy" or b) Show his "deddy" that he was a tougher Bushie than CIA George was. Either way, it was a dumbass thing to do, but that horse has long left the barn.

As for Daesh, they sense a great vacuum. The normal "three pillars" strategy that pre-dated Nixon; the "Keep Iran and Iraq at each other's throats" strategy that lasted even after Shah left, all that is gone. There is room for a new Badass in the region, as the House of Saud ages and the oil revenues decline, placing a more urgent reliance on investment as a source of income, as Syria swirls in unrest, as Iran grapples between looking outward as their young population presses for change, and staying fiercely fundamentalist, as the satellite nations look at KSA and say to themselves "Hmmm--what's OUR back-up, here?" and Daesh has the idea that they are "The Ones." There are a shitload of influences at play, and we're not pulling the strings. We're reacting as much as anyone is.

FWIW, I don't presume to tell you or anyone else how to behave. That's your prerogative. But you came after me, so I just told you how I, and I alone, perceive your remarks.

[sabrina 1]

82. Disagreeing with you isn't 'coming after you'.

Syria wasn't swirling in unrest until, as in Libya, it was provoked by outsiders. Libya has now gone from what was once the most developed nation in Africa to a completely failed state. I guess NATO forgot about the 'civilians we have to rescue' once Regime Change was accomplished and the Oil controlled by the 'proper people'.

No more free HC or Education or Housing or provisions for the mentally ill in Libya provided by their own oil revenues.

Now they are lucky of the brutal terrorists who helped us accomplish that disaster, roam the country torturing and killing those citizens we supposedly wanted to protect.

Your description of our policies in the ME are fair enough, a continuation of those of the British Empire. We took over when that Empire began to fade and began the process of installing Dictators to keep the people from controlling their own resources. Saddam was one of our favorites, the Shah whose secret police were among the most brutal of that kind of regime.

I've met victims of the Shah's era, wonderful people who were lucky enough to escape.

I don't believe ISIS thinks they are the Ones. I think they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Just as AQ, another of our creations, played their role well enough to accomplish what was needed to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Put it this way, when people have been lied to by their own government and their media arm to the extent we have been lied to, and then we see the same familiar tactics all over again, just with a different name, or NAMES, we are not going to be easily fooled. Some of us were not the first time, others were but now realize they were lied to.

The ME doesn't belong to us nor did it belong to the British Empire. We have no right to be there. No RIGHT to be there.

But as Rove said, 'we are an Empire now' and it's time for us to recognize that and then decide what we the people want to do about it before it goes the way of all Empires.

[MADem]

84. Well, Libya and Iraq were very brutal dictatorships, with all the ugliness tucked away and

Syria still is one of those. In Iraq, life was great so long as you weren't shi'a. If you were shi'a, you watched your shit, and if you were poor and shi'a, you REALLY watched your shit. Now, the situation is somewhat reversed--if you're sunni, you watch your shit. If you're shi'a, you're large and in charge.


It's a fiction that because the shells weren't bursting all round that all was happy families. People lived in a perpetual state of fear, it was just constant and low level. You weren't going to get blown up, but you could end up "disappeared." Your religious sect determined your future and your place in society. If you came from Takrit, life was brilliant. If you came from Sadr City, not so swift.

Same deal in Iran--if you were "in the club," life was good. If you weren't, life could be ugly. The main issues in Iran now are religious repression of free expression, subjugation of women as their very basic rights under Shah's regime were stripped away in 1979, and a simple lack of competence--all the good economists who kept the corruption down to a dull roar left, and now the place is a hotbed of blatant thievery. But really, from a macro perspective, if you ignore the women's rights bit, it's all down to one set of thieves has taken over for another.


I certainly don't think "W" helped the situation in the ME in the slightest, but that's water under the bridge. Powell was right about the "Pottery Barn" aspect. Porgie broke the terra cotta, and left Barack to clean up the mess. There's no sense saying IF we did or didn't do X/THEN this would or would not have happened...it's a done deal and we have to move forward with the cards Bush dealt as our reality.


Like I said, you can trace this back to Sykes - Picot if we want to be honest. It's been nothing but tinkering with a bad model ever since then. And we have every right to have "interests" over there so long as the putative leaders of the respective nations want to take our cash. Money, as it always does, talks. We're there only because they have something for sale that powers the world and it is in our interests to ensure that the stuff keeps flowing to keep EVERYONE reasonably happy. As we come off the oil, and onto renewables, the reality is, we'll care less. So will everyone else.


You 'came after me' in post 69, with the assertion that I was "focusing on you" when you were the one trading in outrage and not understanding why I had a problem with Daeshies cutting people's heads off for not being the right type of Muslim to suit them. I don't play "With 'em or agin' em" games but I do object to people killing reporters and aid workers--it's just not a nice thing to do, no matter who does it. I am glad that UAE and KSA and others are doing the bulk of the "harm's way" routine on this evolution, and if we can help them with intel, the odd gung-ho flyer wanting an air medal, or a drone here and there, fine with me.

We continue to draw down the Army. There are a lot of enlisted personnel in uniform who would prefer an escalation to a ground war, but alas for them, the RIF continues full bore and Army remains on track to be the smallest one anyone alive has seen, pretty much, especially if the full results of sequestration are realized.

The Army is already in the middle of cutting 10 brigade combat teams and 80,000 soldiers over two years. The Army drawdown is on schedule to reach 510,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal 2014 on Sept. 30, and it should reach an end-strength of 490,000 by the end of fiscal 2015. It’s set to drop to 450,000 in the years to follow.

If Congress triggers another round of across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, again in 2016 it will mean the Army will have to drop to 420,000.

Anyone who understands how a RIF works knows these things do not turn on a dime. Even civilians are getting the ax, too, to say nothing of other services that have been laboring with much smaller numbers due to end strength limitations and much of the assets going to the Army during the "war years." I wouldn't be surprised if another BRAC round follows.

[liberal N proud]

4. Saudi Arabia - Oil

ISIS - not so much.

Our societies addiction to oil requires a blind eye.

[CincyDem]

5. It's about the who being executed, not just who is doing the executing

When ISIS beheads a western (read that "white guy&quot , it's global news.

When Saudi beheads a local criminal (read that "arab guy&quot , who f'ing cares.

That's the same racist undercurrent that allows us to look the other direction when a black kid gets gunned down in the street while standing in the universal position of surrender. It's the same disregard for justice that allows us to look the other direction when a black kid gets gunned down in a WalMart aisle while carrying and item readily for sale in the store.

As a country, we haven't progressed beyond the value equation of human life codified in the constitution:

White guy = 1
Person of color (any color but "white&quot = 3/5ths.

So yeah - I'm sure there's a lot of oil money driving the invisibility of their barbarian practices but keep in mind that the day the Saudi's lop off a white guy head, all hell will break lose.

PS - let's not forget, however, that it's not like the US can point the finger at anyone over state sanctioned murder just because we have this believe that we do it in a more humane way.

[onenote]

9. It's more specific than that

Americans get outraged and want action when Americans are beheaded.

I guarantee you that while the news services would give play to the beheading (with a video taped message) of a French or British tourist or aid worker, if that is all that was happening, we would not be sending planes into Syria to go after ISIS.

[Chathamization]

62. Not even sure about that. There were a bunch of people including Americans getting beheaded in 2004

and that was around the time a good deal of antiwar sentiment was growing. Though not beheadings per se, there were certainly hostages killed (and their fingers being sent to authorities) when Obama was running the first time and arguing for withdrawal.

My guess is that this is more about the media outrage machine being turned to high to get the public behind a bombing campaign.

[DeadLetterOffice]

6. A few thoughts

(1) Saudi Arabian beheadings don't get air time on American TV. People tend to react differently to things that they SEE rather than HEAR about -- more visceral, harder to ignore/deny, etc.

(2) Saudi Arabia isn't beheading Americans. Kill your own people all you want but you'd better leave ours the fuck alone.

(3) America has a death penalty, so we don't have a lot of high moral ground to work with when it comes to Saudi Arabia having a death penalty. (The fact that SA's death penalty includes crimes that ours doesn't, and includes beheading as a means of execution, doesn't seem to make much of an impression on Americans.)

(4) Lots and lots and lots of "LOOK OVER HERE!" going on by the government and the media.

(5) ISIL isn't selling us oil (see #4).

[cali]

7. I think I addressed your first point

2) I addressed that as well, but I want to point out that the Saudis don't, by any means, just execute their own citizens.

2) agreed.

4) strongly agreed.

5) yep

[JCMach1]

8. I don't see any moral difference between beheading and lethal injection...

Lethal injection just tries to cover the killing with a medical veil.

What it does is paralyze someone while drugs create havoc in someone's body...

A quick beheading may actually be less 'cruel and unusual'...

[cali]

11. I see a difference.

I condemn both, but yeah, I see a difference. Unlike most here, I don't think death is just death no matter how it's delivered or occurs.

[JCMach1]

65. In America we medicalize it and hide it away behind tall prison walls...

From what I have read, it is actually more humane to as swiftly as possible sever a head. It imposes less suffering physically to the person. The difference if 'how it appears' to the onlookers. This is why Monsieur Guillotine became very unpopular after years of use.

[LittleBlue]

74. I would elect for beheading way before being strapped down and injected with those drugs

Make it quick. Even a halfhearted stroke would sever my spinal cord and deprive my brain of the pressure needed to be conscious. Much better than sticking needles in my arm and hoping those dodgy drugs work properly.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/us/oklahoma-botched-execution/

Doctors doing it instead of swordsmen just give the illusion of humanity

[JCMach1]

75. exactly...

morbid to think about, but yes.

[Erose999]

76. +1. Capitol punishment in all forms is barbaric. Beheading just adds shock value.

[Augiedog]

10. Execution vs execution

ISIL executes those whom it deems necessary. The United States of America executes those whom it deems necessary. So what is it we are doing over there? If ISIL used lethal injection would we be willing to risk American lives in combat over there. Or would we applaud their advanced technological status and implore other backward countries who don't execute the people they don't like to get on the bandwagon and join the modern advanced executing ideologies. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

[Orsino]

41. Yep. Due process and juries are supposed to make the difference...

...but I think capital punishment is barbaric no matter the means, so I'm not overly impressed by the alleged distinction.

[raouldukelives]

12. I've never understood it. Too idealistic I suppose.

I was aghast at China butchering people in Tienanmen Square and at our flippant, uncaring attitude towards a people struggling towards freedom. I felt like we should be sympathetic to the cause and instead we work with the Chinese government to keep them enslaved for corporate profits.

It seems anywhere in the world we stick our necks into is not to create democracy but to curtail freedom. It makes me sick to think about it. The wasted power of the American and its people. Instead of working to lower wages and environmental regulations the world over we could be demanding they match our demands to have access to our consumer base. You want to sell to America? Pay your workers the same as us. You want open trade? Meet our regulations. You want to be free? We are all ears. But, people don't care. Whatever makes them most cash. Everything else is just history. Faded words by forgotten people struggling for freedom on a scrap of hemp paper.

We could have been that shining beacon on the hill I heard so much about in my youth. Talk about rainbows and ponies.

[SomethingFishy]

83. Well said..

and yeah, being an idealist sucks at this point in time. As a nation, we go where we are not wanted and we ignore those who ask for our help. Up is down, and if you think too much about it, you could go nuts.

[Helen Borg]

13. I'm horrified by both. And not just beheadings. Any type of killing.

[Nye Bevan]

14. I would much prefer to be beheaded by an expert swordsman, like the Saudis use,

than writhe in pain on a gurney for a couple of hours, then have them attempt to revive me (so that I could be executed again) and then suffer a heart attack and die anyway.

Sadly, the US is really not in much of a position to lecture other countries about this issue. I really wish we could abolish the medieval relic that is the death penalty.

[Fred Sanders]

28. Beheading is an international crime, per the UN, so does not matter how it is done...perhaps one

prefers the writhing hours long death of a botched American drug execution?

And Saudi is way ahead on the, cough, head count.

[Erose999]

77. Don't tell that to Prick Erry, He prides himself on Texas being 1st in executions.

[sybylla]

17. I've noticed this too.

The Saudis with their morality police aren't any different. The stonings, choppings, whippings and beheadings are disgusting.

The difference here, I suppose, is that old conundrum. As long as they are brutal to their own people, we don't care. It's when they turn brutal against our people that it matters.

[thesquanderer]

21. One more difference

I think the Saudi executions are of those who have ostensibly been convicted of a crime. As others here have stated, it may or may not be less humane than American methods of doing the same.

ISIS, on the other hand, appears to be executing people for political purposes, and not people "legitimately" found to have committed a death penalty offense.

So another difference between the countries is that one is beheading "guilty" people and one is beheading "innocent" people.

[stevenleser]

30. That's the critical difference. Due process is involved, even if the result is a barbaric punishment

As you and others have noted we have the death penalty in the US. The issue is not of the killing itself but of the lack of a trial, an attorney or any other semblance of due process.

There are several dozen states that still have the death penalty, including us here.

[redgreenandblue]

86. Ah, but in many ways "due process" makes things worse if the laws are unjust.

Legitimating injustice makes for bigger injustice.

The nazis had "due process" too, and they are widely regarded as the greatest form of evil that humanity has ever achieved. Their brand of "due process" is part of the reason why they are seen as such. They didn't just kill people, they wrote the laws that enabled a bureaucracy to manage the killing.

[stevenleser]

87. "Worse" than what? The war crime of summarily executing captured Iraqi soldiers by ISIS? Worse

than executing journalists who have done absolutely nothing wrong?

I don't think you mean to say that.

[cali]

32. yes, like Sorcery or homosexuality.

How is that better?

[thesquanderer]

34. I am not defending the Saudi criminal "justice" system

but there is still a difference in just how much outrage an execution will generate if it is intentionally aimed at "innocent" people rather than "guilty" ones.

[Thinkingabout]

37. This is an important difference, each nation is entitled to their laws, ISIS

Is not a nation, is not recognized as a nation and passes sentence simply to promote their terror and vicious behavior like the group isolated on the mountain, the had different religious beliefs. One of their desires is to have the world return to seventh religious practices. It should not be compared to Saudi carry out their death penalty, ISIS does not deserve any respect.

[mainer]

25. Because we identify with the American/UK/French victims. They could be us.

Journalists. A relief worker. A tourist hiking in Algeria. We see the possibility that one of those guys could be us, and that's what freaks us out.

[Zorra]

27. Yes, but they are members of the *Gentlemen's World Petroleum Club*, so they

can commit as many heinous human rights violations (beheadings, child trafficking oppression of women and LGBT, etc) as they wish, and the 1% owned US government won't do a thing about it.

[oberliner]

31. Probably because ISIS is beheading American citizens

That generally leads to a stronger reaction by Americans.

[leftyladyfrommo]

38. I hate the idea of beheading whoever and wherever.

Something about it makes it seem so much worse than other forms of execution.

In truth it's probably more humane than the botched executions we do here where the poor guys linger on and on. But it just seems so much worse.

[jwirr]

39. Both are using a terrible form of execution for different reasons. The Saudi use is in the same

manner we use the lethal injection. ISIS is using it as a weapon of terror. According to Rachel they have asked followers all over the world to just pick someone and execute them. Both should be stopped but how is the question.

[Coventina]

40. Don't include me in that "us". I hate the KSA and everything it stands for.

I am as anti-KSA as I am ISIS.

[ieoeja]

42. So what?

They beheaded them because we started bombing them. Given that we were fighting them before the beheadings, we're obviously not fighting them because they behead prisoners.

So what is the point of this OP? If DUers are using the beheadings to justify this action, then they're idiots. Just remind them that we started bombing before the beheadings.

[JEB]

44. We Americans use depleted uranium, cluster bombs, land mines

and a myriad other killing devices to kill thousands and thousands of people. Any outrage is limited to a handful of marginalized fools. Americans love killing. We need to tend our own house before we start cleaning up someone else's.

[librechik]

47. we have a social contract that execution by state is acceptable, by criminals not

It's wrong, but it's deeply rooted in common law.

Just because ISIS clams to be a state, doesn't make it a state. They're just criminals who should be rounded up by the police and taken before a judge.

Conservatives prefer to inflate these scoundrels into state actors so we can use the military against them. They are not as interested in civilian police than the military, because they can make so much more money off a military incursion than they can with police, who traditionally don't drive tanks.

Hey, there's an idea! Let's start giving tanks and artillery to police departments!

see how they do that?

[jeff47]

48. What were the people beheaded by ISIS convicted of?

The difference is the Saudis are beheading people after their (crappy) justice system convicts them.

We can start throwing stones at the Saudis when we move out of our glass house full of executions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The friend of my enemy is my friend or the enemy of my friend is my friend or...never mind.

Let's just say our concept of morality is flexible.

[kwassa]

59. Lynchings used to attract big crowds in the US.

They would even sell commemorative postcards of the event. People would bring picnic lunches.

Public hangings and executions in older times in England would attract crowds, too, as did the guillotine in France.

There is a certain segment of humankind that loves watching these events. Both male and female, not segregated by sex like Saudi Arabia.

[SpartanDem]

61. They keep it in the family

[Kaleva]

68. There's some fine print to read in regards to the UN's position on beheadings

"Independent experts are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48672#.VCRXfRatxLN

The quoted passage in the OP by Juan Méndez is his opinion and not an official UN statement.

"Juan E. Méndez (Argentina) was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council as the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in November 2010. He is independent from any government and serves in his individual capacity."

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15004&LangID=E

[RussBLib]

70. another difference = television

I don't recall ever seeing any televised Saudi beheadings.

Don't underestimate the power of the boob tube.

I think that TV is the reason people get so much more scared these days. Think back to WW1 or WW2 and there was no instant TV communication. People were in the dark, as it were.

Nowadays, everything is on TV and it is much more immediate. That, and the pressure of the 24-hour news cycle to always have something to "grab" the viewer, and you get a lot of people freaking out.

[JI7]

71. it's not just beheadings itself because that has been going on for a long time

plus we have the death penalty here in the US.

[Romulox]

72. The Saudis pay the piper. So they call the tune. The relationship is as crude as that. nt

[Erose999]

73. Beheading is just theatre, really. They'd be just as dead if Rick Perry gave them a lethal injection

with the added benefit of not having to suffer for 2 hours waiting the mystery drugs to work.

The death penalty and capitol / corporal punishment is just as barbaric at home as it is abroad.

[Maedhros]

80. Wars of choice horrified us when launched by a Republican.

Not so much when launched by a Democrat.

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. When the USA has abolished capital punshment? Then you can talk.

Living as I do in a country which abolished capital punishment 50 years ago? I find the USA's continued use of the death penalty to be just as barbaric as Saudi Arabia's. Worse in some ways, even. The bizarre attempts to medicalise executions in the USA have led to things like the recent case of the inmate in Oklahoma who spent over an hour gasping and snorting before he finally died. You can't tell me that beheading wouldn't have been less cruel than that.