Philippines - Two Jehovah's Witnesses hostages decapitated by Abu Sayyaf

AFP via Babelfish translation ^ | August 21, 2002

[HAL9000]

An hostage decapitated in the south of the Philippines

Wednesday August 21, 2002 - 23h40 GMT

ZAMBOANGA (the Philippines), August 22 (AFP) - One of the six Christian hostages Filipinos removed by supposed islamists of the group Abu Sayaf in the south of the Philippines Wednesday was decapitated by its kidnappers, one learned military Thursday of source.

The head of the hostage was found Wednesday evening near the headquarters of the army, in the capital of the island of Jolo, one specified of the same source.

---

A second hostage decapitated in the south of the Philippines

Thursday August 22, 2002 - 0h20 GMT

ZAMBOANGA (the Philippines), August 22 (AFP) - a second hostage among the six Christians Filipinos removed by supposed islamists of the group Abu Sayaf in the south of the Philippines Wednesday was decapitated by his kidnappers, one learned military Thursday of source.

The second head was found, packed in a plastic bag, close to the market of the capital of the island of Jolo, while the first head had been discovered near the headquarters of the army, according to the General Romeo Tolentino.

"Those which do not believe in Allah will undergo the same fate", said a note found close to one of the two heads, specified the Tolentino General.

Six Witnesses of Jéhovah, agents sales in beauty products, had been kidnapped Tuesday in the town of Patikul on the island of Jolo, one of the strongholds of Abu Sayyaf.

The removal was carried out by the men of the gang directed by a local head, Moin Sahiron, nephew of Radulan Sahiron, a veteran of the separatist wars in the Moslem south of the archipelago.

The group Abu Sayyaf, whose last taking of hostages goes back to last October, is specialized in the taking of hostages in order to obtain ransoms.

Jolo is one of the strongholds of Abu Sayyaf which had taken to last year three Americans as hostages. One was released in June and two died. The island was not the target of the American intervention which was completed at the end of July and concentrated on Basilan.

Three Indonésiens kidnapped in June are also held by other Moslem separatists reconverted into the banditism on Jolo.

[andy_card]

Islam is false and a fake.

Agreed! Now lets add to the list:

Judaism is false and a fake.
Christianity is false and a fake.
Hinduism is false and a fake.
Shintoism is false and a fake.
Zororastrianism is false and a fake.
Baha'i is false and a fake.
Classical Paganism is false and a fake.
Animism is false and a fake.
Jainism is false and a fake.
Sihkhism is false and a fake.
Falun Gong is false and a fake.
Budhism is false and a fake.
Taoism is false and a fake.
Scientology is false and a fake.
Confucianism is false and a fake.

This is fun!

[Allrightnow]

Very interesting discussion going on in here. I would argue that it is not a matter of finding evidence but what you accept as evidence that is critical. An atheist can find no evidence of God in the universe, a religious person may see nothing but evidence of God. Both are merely opinions because neither view can be proven or disproved empirically. Hence the term faith.

As for Islam being a religion, I think it's safe to say it is in the same way it one might say a dictatorship is a form of government. The problem is that it is only purports to be a religion of peace if everyone is in perfect submission to Allah. I'll take Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door with literature over Muslims knocking on my building with a plane every time.

[Allrightnow]

Very interesting discussion going on in here. I would argue that it is not a matter of finding evidence but what you accept as evidence that is critical. An atheist can find no evidence of God in the universe, a religious person may see nothing but evidence of God. Both are merely opinions because neither view can be proven or disproved empirically.

As for Islam being a religion, I think it's safe to say it is in the same way it one might say a dictatorship is a form of government. The problem is that it is only purports to be a religion of peace if everyone is in perfect submission to Allah. I'll take Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door with literature over Muslims knocking on my building with a plane every time.

[Diamond]

Unless you can give me a reason, supported by logic or evidence, to believe in anything, I won't believe in it.

Do you have evidence for everything that you believe?

You for example believe either that something comes from absolute nothing, or that the universe is eternal, without the slightest scintilia of evidence or logic to support either belief.

I and billions of other people happen to think there are pleanty of reasons, supported by logic and evidence, to believe in the existence of God.

Cordially,

[Frank_2001]

Turkey is secular, the Islamowackos there are kept on a very tight leash. That's the difference!

[Jeff Chandler]

However, to judge a religion with as much of a following as Islam based on fanatical, violent lunatics isn't fair either.

You will find nothing of the sort in my post. I specifically qualified the term Islam with the adjective radical.

I would also like to amend my previous post. When I wrote moral relativism, I actually meant moral equivalence, but my brain wasn't working properly.

Moral equivalence is frequently practiced by the left. The moral equivalent position vis-a-vis the former Soviet Union was that the United States was equally evil. The moral equivalent position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that deliberately targeting women and children for suicide terror is the same as accidentally killing civilians when attacking terrorists.

Since you didn't mean to paint all Christians with the same brush, and I didn't mean to do the same to Moslems, the moral equivalence point is moot. I will make another point, however.

Look at the reaction in the Islamic world to 9-11. Where is the outrage? The Islamic world is nearly unanimous in its support of all the horrendous, inhuman terror unleashed by their brethren. However, when a single act of criminal terror is committed by a Christian (for example, when an abortionist is murdered), the Christian world is nearly unanimous in its condemnation of the act. It's a difference worth noting, and perhaps a warning to us.

[another cricket]

You are very very good.

a.cricket

[TLBSHOW]

Sure is and it must be sad to be you. Do you believe only in you?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Um, is that wrong?

Um, I'll bet you think using "Um" frequently is clever, don't you?

[snodog]

ITS NOT A RELIGION and anyone that says it is a religion has a few screws loose!!!!!!!!!!

Are you talking about the Jehova Witness, or Abu Sayyaf?

[Prodigal Son]

Thanks for the ping.

[VOA]

I'm sure plenty of "moderate" Muslims think these two folks had a beheading comin'.

Not only are they impertinent infidels for having the temerity for peacefully preaching
a message contrarty to Islam...
these were DECADENT infidels, trying to indoctrinate Muslims into the eeevvviiilll
habit of using Avon cosmetics.

Surely beheading is a compassionate Islamic response to such a bald-faced attempt to
seduce Muslimas into using cosmetics. Even if their husbands would be the only
ones to ever see them.

(end sarcasm)

[ellery]

Many thanks to all of you for an interesting and intelligent discussion. Andy, are you an athiest? Because atheism is no more of a logical conclusion than is theism --atheism is a wholehearted belief in the absence of God or gods. It seems to me that the only logical belief is agnosticism, i.e., I don't have enough information to know whether or not there's a god. How can the organisms in our earth's petri dish possibly know what lies beyond the laboratory?

That said, I believe...but I acknowledge that it's possible I'm wrong.

[andy_card]

Andy, are you an athiest? Because atheism is no more of a logical conclusion than is theism --atheism is a wholehearted belief in the absence of God or gods. It seems to me that the only logical belief is agnosticism, i.e., I don't have enough information to know whether or not there's a god. How can the organisms in our earth's petri dish possibly know what lies beyond the laboratory?

I am an atheist. Can I prove that God doesn't exist? No, just as you cannot prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. But we don't have to. Because the existence of God is entirely unnecessary, and is fully explained by the human desire to explain what cannot be explained.

[Diamond]

It seems to me that the only logical belief is agnosticism, i.e., I don't have enough information to know whether or not there's a god.

To the extent that "I don't have enough information" is a characterization of the external world and not merely an expression of personal doubt, then it is just as much a claim of knowledge about reality as is atheism. But unless one has searched everywhere, one cannot be certain that there really is not enough information to know whether or not there's a God." Thus, the agnostic can never be certain that his self-professed ignorance and skepticism is justified.

Cordially,

[ellery]

One cannot be certain that there really is not enough information to know whether or not there's a God." Thus, the agnostic can never be certain that his self-professed ignorance and skepticism is justified. Agreed. That's why I carefully said "I don't have enough information to logically determine whether god exists," rather than "the information does not exist to determine whether god exists." My personal opinion is that he does, and that forests and babies and happy dogs and cats and big skies are proof of it. It's just that since we're part of the miracle, it's impossible for us to objectively assess other parts of the same miracle -- kinda like one cell doesn't have the capacity to understand the body as a whole.

[ALASKA]

The removal was carried out by the men of the gang directed by a local head.....

Huh?????

[ellery]

Well, you can't prove a negative, that's true. Indeed, one explanation for God is that humans need to believe he exists. But another explanation is that he does exist. How can you be sure that the former is true, but not the latter? There seems to me to be no more scientific (in the way we understand science, anyway) proof against his existence than there is for it.

Nietzsche: God is dead.
God: Nietzsche is dead.

HEEE!

[LurkedLongEnough]

LOL - I saw that too - but had to head out before I could post it.