click here to return to the Calico Cat homepage

Paul Johnson beheading: was it justified?

I will begin this post by answering the question with a resounding “no,” in case a reader might suspect that, because of the headline, I somehow support the terrorists.

But I was looking at the Yahoo webpage an hour ago, and I couldn’t help but notice the following headline: al-Qaida Head Justifies Targeting Johnson.

I think it’s certainly worthwhile to spend a little time pondering the motives of our enemies. From the AP article:

You will note that there are two reasons given for this horrific beheading: (1) Paul Johnson was an infidel; and (2) he worked on Apache helicopters, thus was a “warrior of the military.”

One might get caught up in reading the lengthier explanation of the evils of the American military, but it seems to me that the very fact that Paul Johnson was an infidel was reason enough for the terrorists. The name of the website is “Sout al-Jihad.” Al-Qaida leaders believe they are engaged in an Islamic holy war against infidels.

Paul Johnson was actually a civilian employee of Lockheed Martin, but this is a technical distinction that al-Qaida doesn’t care about. If they believe they are at war with the U.S. military, then a guy who fixes Apache helicopters is a natural target.

And what exactly is the beef with the United States military? Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, Abdulaziz al-Moqrin mentions “Palestine,” the Philippines, and Kashmir. These are three regions where the goal of Islamic terrorists is to take the place over and kick out the infidels.

United States has no direct involvement in those three conflicts. Israel, the Philippines, and India are sovereign nations which are naturally going to fight back against terrorists trying to seize their lands in the name of Islam.

The problem with some in the West is that they are reluctant to take sides in these regional conflicts. I sadly admit to not knowing as much as I should about what’s going on in the Philippines, but with respect to India and Israel I will flat out say that those two nations are in the right and the terrorists fighting against them are in the wrong. The Islamists view these regions as conflict points in a jihad, or holy war, whose ultimate goal is converting the entire world to Islam through force.

Israel tried to offer the Palestinians a deal in which both sides would live in peace, but the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat left the negotiating table and started the intifada. Arafat said that with no right of return there would be no deal. A right of return would mean the eventual demographic destruction of Israel, because massive waves of returning Palestinians would make Jews a minority in their own country.

India rightfully owns Kashmir. India is a democracy whose citizens enjoy the freedom of religion. Indians are free to believe in any religion they want. Which is a marked contrast to Islamic nations where disbelieving in Islam can be punished by beheading. That’s right, the beheading of Paul Johnson is not some new invention of al-Qaida, but the standard way that Islamic nations have meted out death sentences. It seems to be a common practice in Saudi Arabia. From a 1999 article I found in the Guardian Observer (Beheadings rise in the desert kingdom):

That’s the kind of government the Islamic terrorists would like to set up in Kashmir, one where people are subject to beheading for not believing in Islam.

I guess this rambling post has no point except to express my dislike for Islamic terrorist organizations, the kind of governments they would like to set up, and those who have even the least bit of sympathy for them. And my first sentence was misleading, too. If the terrorists truly believe that we are their enemy in a holy war, then from their perspective the beheading of Paul Johnson was “justified.” And it’s because of their unwavering and fanatic belief in their Koranic war against us that we have no choice but the fight them until they are destroyed.

posted Sunday, June 20, 2004