View Full Version : Does anybody else understand this logic?
JonJParr 13-09-2005, 10:53 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4240516.stm
The Indonesian man who has been sentenced to death for his part in the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta has said, "I am thankful for being sentenced to death. I am happy because I will die a martyr."
Q: If the above is true why is he then appealing against his death sentence?
Maybe a version of the prayer attributed to St Augustine, about delivering him from sin, but not just yet.
Sort of make me a martyr, but not just yet.
Joe
melbournian 13-09-2005, 11:13 To bring his case more publicity by prolonging it, and therefore ensuring his martyrdom is greater?
Originally posted by JonJParr
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4240516.stm
The Indonesian man who has been sentenced to death for his part in the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta has said, "I am thankful for being sentenced to death. I am happy because I will die a martyr."
Q: If the above is true why is he then appealing against his death sentence?
He may well be more keen to finish himself off, rather than die at the hands of the 'great enemy'*
But he's more than likely a coward. Shame he didn't afford his victims the same priviliege.
*or whatever moniker they use for those of us they 'dislike'
Craig7777 13-09-2005, 11:54 Cus He's a Pr*ck?
Silly boy should have worn a Semtex vest and gotten it over with quicker!
back2basics 13-09-2005, 20:10 Originally posted by JonJParr
Q: If the above is true why is he then appealing against his death sentence?
:hihi:
Don_Kiddick 13-09-2005, 20:12 Hope they use pig sinew for the noose :mad:
One of my great-Grandfathers served on the North West frontier in the debateable land between what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan as a soldier of the King's Royal Rifle Corp. His foes were Pathan [or Pushtun] tribesmen whose refinements of cruelty towards captives beggar belief. Blinding and castration, for example, were signs of forebearance. Like the bomber, they were often fanatical Muslims [or 'Musselmen' as my ancestor doubtless referred to them, dodging the bullets of their jezails], and abhorred all pork products.
Echoing Mr Kiddick's comment, the King's Royal Rifle Corp, sickened by the merciless atrocities committed upon hapless British captives, sowed into pigskins any executed Pathan captives. This did not stop all Pathan aggression, but certainly helped to create a climate of the utmost terror amongst the hawkish warriors, and took a toll upon their morale. No muslim may enter Paradise sewn into the stinking skin of a hog. Some would call this sort of thing barbaric. In the case of the grinning Indonesian fool who is proving such a difficult and contrary little cove, it might not be such a bad idea after all.
bulldog D 13-09-2005, 22:47 This indonesian guy believes that he is allowed to accept a benefit that is available even if it is being delivered by his enemies who he tried to harm, by seeking mercy and yet revoking the right to life he believes that he is completing his role as decreed by God . This may seem hypocritical to those who share the Judeo/Christian monochromatic of right and wrong and accepting the appropriate punishment, but that is what we're up against. This is not just conflict against terrorism but a war against a totally alien mindset of which the majority of us have little or no comprehension.
Bulldog D,
Yes, you are quite correct there, in my view, regarding the 'alien mindset' of those who seek to destroy the 'Infidels' of the West. We need, as your posting seems to suggest, to realise that we are facing a multitude of enemies, whose world-views and conception of history are totally different to those of the secular West. For example, the Arab peoples in general feel a sense of grievance and betrayal towards the British for various historical reasons, of which British people are generally ignorant. 'It is better to be an enemy of the British than to be a friend', is a saying which rolls in Arab circles. Why, one may ask, is it 'better to be an enemy of the British' ? Because, 'the British always shoot their friends in the back'. I am not sure about that , but I do know that Britain has made some terrible mistakes in its dealings with the middle east, such as the Balfour Declaration, our part in the hasty, artificial construction of 'Iraq', and our alliance with the American crusade to spread Hershey Bars and Western liberal democracy to disparate ethnic groups bearing irremediable grudges in the former Mesopotamia.
Some of us simply have no conception of how much the West [or rather, a socially-constructed idea of the West] is hated and despised , particularly in muslim countries. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that there exist groups who would like to destroy our world completely, and lead the captive survivors over the sands in chains. Such is their almost medieval attitude to the 'infidels'. It is far too late now for any ecumenical dialogue, breast-beating contrition for past mistakes etc. The anti-Western culture is firmly embedded in certain muslim countries/communities, and our enemies give no quarter, reinforcing their hatred with semtex. We too must give no quarter, and learn to live in a state of war with 'invisible' enemies.
|
|