Althouse: "Pictures published on ISIS's official al Furqan media site apparently show Jordanian military pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh being burned alive..."

February 3, 2015

"Pictures published on ISIS's official al Furqan media site apparently show Jordanian military pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh being burned alive..."

"... while confined in a cage."

243 comments:

1 – 200 of 243 Newer› Newest»

MAJMike said...: Religion of peace.; 2/3/15, 11:34 AM
jr565 said...: But... but... but... waterboarding. We're no better than them!; 2/3/15, 11:43 AM
furious_a said...: God bless the Kurds, standing up to these monsters.; 2/3/15, 11:43 AM
jr565 said...: If we had the opportunity to waterboard someone from ISIS and it led to the rescue of this guy before he was burnt alive, who would argue (other than complete moral cretins) that it wasn't a moral good.; 2/3/15, 11:44 AM
furious_a said...: But...but...but...according to Mrs. Clinton, we must learn to empathize with our enemies.

Because Root Causes.; 2/3/15, 11:44 AM
walter said...: Found a way to make beheading seem merciful. Just when I thought the apparent reprieve from head shaving the beheaded was a sign of progress.; 2/3/15, 11:47 AM
alan markus said...: At least ISIS supports the cultural values of the locals.

ISIS THROWS ACCUSED GAY MAN FROM ROOF–BUT WHEN HE SURVIVES, TOWN STONES HIM TO DEATH; 2/3/15, 11:50 AM
Robert Cook said...: "But... but... but... waterboarding. We're no better than them!"

We aren't. They kill helpless individuals, which is grotesque; we kill groups of people by bombing them, blowing them to pieces, which is certainly also grotesque. In war, all are savages.

As for waterboarding, it is not the only, or worst, torture we inflicted on our prisoners, and anyone who is willing and able to inflict any sort of phycical punishment on a helpless captive--even just punching or kicking them--or can be trained to be be able and willing to do so, can be made to burn someone alive.; 2/3/15, 11:51 AM
Amichel said...: War is savagery. The only just way to end a war is to wage it with such viciousness that it comes to a speedy and victorious conclusion. Instead we seem to let the wars drag on for years. We should make Eastern Syria and Western Iraq a wasteland, so that not one stone stands upon another. Give the martyrs of ISIS the glorious death they so richly deserve.; 2/3/15, 11:54 AM
n.n said...: They still don't get it. Their clinics need walls to protect the delicate sensibilities of onlookers. Baby steps, I suppose.; 2/3/15, 11:58 AM
William said...: @cook: Is there any tactic that ISIS could adapt that would make them worse than us in your eyes?......If this truly happened, it is horrendous. And they do this shit as a recruitment tactic. Who are they trying to recruit.; 2/3/15, 12:01 PM
Big Mike said...: I thought Jordan told ISIS that unless their flyer is returned alive they'd execute a bunch of ISIS POWs that they have.

If that's true, then now I think they have to do so.; 2/3/15, 12:04 PM
J. Farmer said...: I have to admit, I find some of the comments here a bit bizarre. Regardless of what one's opinion on waterboarding, or torture more generally is, it does not seem like much of an argument in favor to simply point out that even greater evil exists. If a man beats his wife, I would find it a pretty weak defense for him to say, "Hey, at least I didn't lock her in a cage and set her on fire, so who are you to judge?" Similarly, I do not find the existence of sadistic criminals in our society to be an argument for abolishing defense attorneys and legal protections for the accused. Simply saying that you are more moral than a sadistic ISIS executioner seems to be setting the bar awfully low.; 2/3/15, 12:04 PM
Peter said...: They're daring the world to stop them and, when it doesn't, will conclude that its enemies are just little worms.; 2/3/15, 12:14 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: The Jordanian's should execute every single terrorist prisoner they have in custody.

Fuck Isis and their lefty moral equivalency apologists like Robert Cook.; 2/3/15, 12:15 PM
buwaya said...: ISIS has interesting ideological dynamic.
In theory, going by their supposed Wahabi ideology, they are supposed to abide by strict Islamic rules according to the Hanbali school, which seems to be the most textually bound and inflexible of all the Sunni schools of jurisprudence.
That said, the laws of war codified in Islam are, though barbaric in modern European eyes, very detailed and specific. Burning prisoners alive, is, I believe, specifically forbidden, as are many other acts they have publicized. ISIS picks and chooses its religious rules.; 2/3/15, 12:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: See, the Muslims are not only a religion of peace, but of renewable energy sources. The use of infidel human fat as torches also helps stop Global overpopulation of Jews and Christians.

And imagine that shameful Chris kyle between killing sprees called these noble Muslims savages.; 2/3/15, 12:18 PM
buwaya said...: Since humans are fallen creatures, distinctions in morals are a matter of degree. There are a great many things wrong with all of us.

It is perfectly right to say that we are better than they are, even if we are guilty of some crimes, and to prefer our victory to theirs.; 2/3/15, 12:19 PM
Anthony said...: 1) But what's really important here is the backlash against Muslims.

2) As long as they don't come out against gay marriage, who cares!; 2/3/15, 12:25 PM
furious_a said...: That's the sleazy moral equivalence of the JFarmers and RCooks that triggers my gag reflex...

JFarmer and RCook are standing across the street from a bus stop. At the bus stop, a purse snatcher pushes a woman into the path of an oncoming truck. A man standing next to the woman grabs her by the arm and pulls her out of the path of the truck.

RCook turns to JFarmer and says: Look at those two guys pushing that woman around.. JFarmer nods in agreement.; 2/3/15, 12:26 PM
furious_a said...: #StopBurningJordanianPilotsAlive; 2/3/15, 12:27 PM
Brando said...: What we need now is a more effective hashtag campaign. After all, it brought Procol Haram to its needs. Whiter Shade of Kicked Their Asses!; 2/3/15, 12:34 PM
Darcy said...: @J. Farmer

Sure. All easy to say though, when your loved ones aren't getting burned alive. "War is hell" is thrown around a lot and probably has lost it's effect. But it certainly is hell, and when it arrives at your doorstep, developing the stomach for it requires a consensus of wisdom, courage and determination.

No, we shouldn't let monsters turn us into monsters. But there is a difference between the barbaric murder of prisoners of war and the necessary roughness required to make it stop.

Where is the that line?; 2/3/15, 12:35 PM
jr565 said...: "We aren't. They kill helpless individuals, which is grotesque; we kill groups of people by bombing them, blowing them to pieces, which is certainly also grotesque. In war, all are savages."

Well, waterboarding is not as bad as putting someone in a cage and setting them on fire.
Here Robert, I can prove it to you. Lets give you a choice and choose waterboarding or being put in a cage and set on fire. One may be bad but one is Really really really really really really bad.
If I had a choice of a day at the beach or waterboarding I'd certainly choose a day at the beach. But if the choice were waterboarding or being burnt alive, I know which I'd choose.
KSM having undergone waterboarding is still around to talk to. This guy isn't.; 2/3/15, 12:35 PM
Jimmy said...: ah, the moral equivalency bull. Lets not make a judgement here, that would be wrong, I mean, their culture is just as good as ours, who are we to say anything, after all the terrible things we have done to make them mad.
In other words, don't say a culture rooted firmly in the 9th or 10th century is abhorrent
and above all, don't try to defend Western democracy, free speech, etc.
And its not just happening 'over there'. How many 'religion of peace' members have killed spouses,. daughters, for violating islamic 'law'.
the only moral problem we have is people who can't or won't call it what it is-evil.
And you don't reason with, or debate evil. You protect against it anyway you can.; 2/3/15, 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Like the Roman approach to pirates, there are some people in the world that are beyond the pale and deserve killin.

Crucifixion is looking like a pretty good approach, but there may not be enough big trees in Syria. I guess we could look at impalement as an option. It's hard to be thought of as a martyr going to your 72 virgins, when you are on your toes, leaking feces and blood out your A$$...; 2/3/15, 12:36 PM
The Bergall said...: White House Blames the Free Mason's, Illuminati, and the Amish.; 2/3/15, 12:37 PM
Brando said...: "That's the sleazy moral equivalence of the JFarmers and RCooks that triggers my gag reflex..."

There is no moral equivalence between us and ISIS. They target the innocent and commit acts of wanton cruelty to those in their mercy. It is hard to come up with a more barbaric group of thugs in all of history.

But that also doesn't automatically mean that we should have a free pass to do anything, or justify the reckless (if unintentional) killing of innocents. Such killings may be unavoidable, and part of operations that are justified, but we should not be using ISIS as our own moral yardstick.; 2/3/15, 12:38 PM
furious_a said...: Nothing is worth defending if one can't imagine any greater evil than the first-world problems of one's own culture. That's the thought box canyon RCook inhabits.; 2/3/15, 12:39 PM
MadisonMan said...: How to Win Friends and Influence People was apparently never translated into Arabic.; 2/3/15, 12:41 PM
furious_a said...: But that also doesn't automatically mean that we should have a free pass to do anything,

Please show me where I used the word "free pass", or implied such. I'll wait.; 2/3/15, 12:42 PM
Jimmy said...: 'Nothing is worth defending if one can't imagine any greater evil than the first-world problems of one's own culture. That's the thought box canyon RCook inhabits.'
Well said. Had to defend ones own culture if you are focused on your own self absorbed self centered desires.; 2/3/15, 12:43 PM
J. Farmer said...: @furious_a:

It is telling that you had to invent an absurd strawman to rebut instead of addressing any of the actual points I made. Let me see if I can spell this out clearly. It is rather quite easy to oppose torture on moral, intellectual, strategic, and tactical grounds while simultaneously believing that ISIS is a group of backward savages. It is patently absurd to believe that someone who is anti-torture is ipso facto pro-jihadist. That such an elementary logical point even needs to be spelled out is frightening. For example, if I go to a gym, see that someone has left their locker open and their wallet inside, and I take the cash out of the wallet, I have committed theft. Most would consider that an immoral act. It is no defense of that action to point out that there are people who beat up little old ladies and steal their purses.; 2/3/15, 12:43 PM
Sebastian said...: But . . . but . . . not Islamic.

@cook: "We aren't [better]"

The left in a nutshell. Next Dem presidential candidate should run on it.; 2/3/15, 12:45 PM
Brando said...: "Please show me where I used the word "free pass", or implied such. I'll wait."

I wasn't implying that you did--I'm simply making the point that it's possible to be disgusted and infuriated with barbarians like ISIS while at the same time critical of much of the military actions our own country is taking on moral grounds. Likewise, there's no question the Nazis were amoral, vicious killers--but you can still believe this and criticize the Allied Air Forces intentionally targetting civilian areas with their bombing campaigns.; 2/3/15, 12:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Darcy:

"No, we shouldn't let monsters turn us into monsters. But there is a difference between the barbaric murder of prisoners of war and the necessary roughness required to make it stop."

Okay. That does not dispute, or even have much to do with, anything I have said.; 2/3/15, 12:48 PM
furious_a said...: Farmer:

Speaking of missing the point, didn't say you were pro-jihadist, just illustrated how you and cookie can't tell the difference.

That such an elementary reading-skills point even needs to be spelled out...oh, never mind.; 2/3/15, 12:50 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
I have to admit, I find some of the comments here a bit bizarre. Regardless of what one's opinion on waterboarding, or torture more generally is, it does not seem like much of an argument in favor to simply point out that even greater evil exists. If a man beats his wife, I would find it a pretty weak defense for him to say, "Hey, at least I didn't lock her in a cage and set her on fire, so who are you to judge?"

If I saw a man who beat his wife versus one who set his woman on fire while she was stuck in a cage I would certainly say that one was worse than the other.; 2/3/15, 12:50 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Robert Cook said...and anyone who is willing and able to inflict any sort of phycical punishment on a helpless captive--even just punching or kicking them--or can be trained to be be able and willing to do so, can be made to burn someone alive.

*citation needed; 2/3/15, 12:52 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

Again, I think people here seem to be so ready to attack the "moral equivalence" argument, that they are arguing against it even when it is not being made.

Obviously, there is a difference. That was the entire point of my example. I am saying that the man who beat his wife cannot defend his action by pointing to an even greater, more sadistic action.; 2/3/15, 12:54 PM
jr565 said...: Farmer how did we fight the Nazis? Were we fighting them with peace songs and lollipops? WE had to KILL them. Don't see how else you fight people in wars. Doesn't mean we were as bad as Nazis though, does it.; 2/3/15, 12:54 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Obviously, there is a difference. That was the entire point of my example. I am saying that the man who beat his wife cannot defend his action by pointing to an even greater, more sadistic action.

He could say "At least I'm not burning my wife alive".; 2/3/15, 12:55 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/3/15, 12:57 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: When it comes to an action that one takes to advance their chosen agenda, we all seem to have a different line as to what is an acceptable level of violence. This violence can be to reduction in quality of live in the terms of reduced access to resources (sanctions), the killing of combatants, the destruction of infrastructure and the possibility of killing non-combatants. The harm to captured enemies (in varying degrees of torture), and the specific killing of non-combatants.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you think your response is appropriate to the level of action you believe taken against you. This can come from your direct action or from a conflict of values.

We all try and find that sufficient use of force threshold that we think will mitigate sufficiently the threat to our values. That threshold can changes the threat waxes or wanes or our sympathies for the those at risk increase or decrease.

If we don't think Islamo-terror is much of a threat, we might be appalled at certain levels of treatment of prisoners. If we think western culture can destroy one's chance at heavenly bliss, we might be willing to torture little children. Your assessment of the risk and sympathy for the cause will determine your response.; 2/3/15, 12:58 PM
Paco Wové said...: "they are arguing against [the "moral equivalence" argument] even when it is not being made."

But you are making an equivalence argument. You are arguing that all actions in war – all of them – are crimes. Some just happen to be worse than others.; 2/3/15, 12:59 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"He could say 'At least I'm not burning my wife alive'."

And who you consider that a convincing defense of his actions?

My entire point, in response to the first handful of comments, was that it is logically incoherent to say that torture is justified because there are people in the world who commit even more cruel, sadistic actions. Similarly, I would not consider the Parisian attackers of a kosher deli to say that their actions were justified because at least they weren't rounding all Jews up, putting them in cattle cars, and taking them to gas chambers and crematoriums. I consider torture immoral, and I do not consider an argument against my position for someone to say that even greater moral evils exist.; 2/3/15, 1:03 PM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote:As for waterboarding, it is not the only, or worst, torture we inflicted on our prisoners, and anyone who is willing and able to inflict any sort of phycical punishment on a helpless captive--even just punching or kicking them--or can be trained to be be able and willing to do so, can be made to burn someone alive.

Everyone has the capability to commit inhuman acts. But just becauase we have that capability doesn't mean we do. All those waterboarders didn't then go on to chop off peoples heads.; 2/3/15, 1:03 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Paco Wove:

"You are arguing that all actions in war – all of them – are crimes."

Quote me where I have said, implied, or alluded to that. I have not even mentioned war.; 2/3/15, 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Before somebody expresses huge overwrought outrage at my ISIL Impalement Policy, let me assure you that I understand the public health risks of such an approach to the locals and am fully in favor of some more sanitary method of dispatching them from this mortal coil. 2 in the chest and one in the head is simple enough.

/sarc off :); 2/3/15, 1:06 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
And who you consider that a convincing defense of his actions?

I would if you were making a moral equivalency argument about beating up your wife versus burning her alive.

My entire point, in response to the first handful of comments, was that it is logically incoherent to say that torture is justified because there are people in the world who commit even more cruel, sadistic actions.

Do you think war itself is justified? Fighting the Germans, and killing them en masse.
If we said, we didn't gas the jews we still bombed the Germans. We still killed a bunch of them.; 2/3/15, 1:07 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:

Quote me where I have said, implied, or alluded to that. I have not even mentioned war

Well why didn't you? ARe you not opposed to killing people?; 2/3/15, 1:08 PM
Paco Wové said...: "it is logically incoherent to say that torture is justified because there are people in the world who commit even more cruel, sadistic actions."

Is anybody saying that? Or are they saying torture is justified because it will help to stop people who commit more cruel, sadistic actions?

That's a debatable point, but certainly not "incoherent".; 2/3/15, 1:08 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Involvement with ISIS should be an automatic, worldwide death sentence.; 2/3/15, 1:10 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
I consider torture immoral, and I do not consider an argument against my position for someone to say that even greater moral evils exist.

You may be against murder. But would you say a sniper who shoots a woman who is about to throw a grenade at a convoy is wrong? If he didnt' fire and let the woman throw the grenade a lot of people would be suffering from having their limbs blown off. Are you ok with THAT? That's a lot worse than torturing someone by putting them in a stress position, no?
And if you were for a sniper taking out someone who was going to throw a grenade you are essentially saying its ok to shoot them in the head sometimes.; 2/3/15, 1:11 PM
furious_a said...: More Farmer logical fallacies:

I am saying that the man who beat his wife cannot defend his action by pointing to an even greater, more sadistic action.

(1)Assuming a priori that waterboarding is a crime. Even Eric Holder dropped that pretense of bullshit.

(2)Pointing to another, unrelated or hypothetical act that could have instead been committed. The interrogators weren't offering a "we didn't /outrage/ him" excuse, they were trying to prevent future such outrages.

You are familiar with befell Danny Pearl, and what befell the man who had himself filmed murdering and mutilating him?; 2/3/15, 1:14 PM
Unknown said...: "My entire point, in response to the first handful of comments, was that it is logically incoherent to say that torture is justified because there are people in the world who commit even more cruel, sadistic actions."

I think you are missing the point that violence sometimes has the outcome of preventing more (and more abhorrent) violence. I don't know if that's immoral, but failing to stop further and more extreme violence because you don't want to do or see any violence IS immoral, as well as stupid. It's putting your sensibilities on the line for someone else's life.; 2/3/15, 1:17 PM
jr565 said...: Hypothetical. We know there are 4 jihadists from England who joined ISIS. They're dubbed The Beatles. (because they're 4 and brits).
And lets suppose they are involved in the decapitation of journalists they are holding hostage.
And lets say we know they are all working in the same area and we assume at least that they are aware of what the others are doing.
ANd lets say that ISIS has a video of two Japanese journalists and are going to cut off their heads in a few days.

Now lets suppose we captured one of them. ANd lets say he clams up and doesn't want to talk.
IF you don't get that information then two people are going to be murdered in extremely gruesome fashions.
To get that confession as it were would not require us to do anything near as drastic. Only to do what we do to people we train int he military. Which leaves no lasting scars (unlike having someone's head SAWED off).; 2/3/15, 1:21 PM
traditionalguy said...: The coming day when ISIS uses a nuke will mean there is thermal wave created by 30% of the energy released and heat that will literally vaporize its targets.

And Obama says we need to Trust Muslims.; 2/3/15, 1:22 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

I made a vary narrow point about a very narrow topic. There are any number of arguments that can be made about torture, some of which I consider stronger and more difficult to rebut than others. I never made, and do not believe in, a pacifist ideology. Using violence in self-defense, or to protect an innocent person from harm, are obvious things I believe in, and nothing I have said suggests otherwise. But when the torture argument comes up, it is a common refrain on the pro side to argue up the sadism and cruelty of people like ISIS. All I pointed it, and I suspect you would agree with me on this point, is that there are degrees of immorality and that something that is less immoral than another is not necessarily good.

Your very first comment in this thread was "But... but... but... waterboarding. We're no better than them!" My simple point is that it quite easy, and logically consistent, to oppose waterboarding and also believe that we are better than them.; 2/3/15, 1:23 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Looks like King Abdullah of Jordan is not fucking around and is going to execute that terrorist slag tonight.

Barry "King Putt" Hussein will release some more terrorist from Gitmo.; 2/3/15, 1:25 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
But when the torture argument comes up, it is a common refrain on the pro side to argue up the sadism and cruelty of people like ISIS. All I pointed it, and I suspect you would agree with me on this point, is that there are degrees of immorality and that something that is less immoral than another is not necessarily good.

Such resonses are in response to people like Robert Cook who make the equivalency arguemt that we are just as bad. Even more absurdly by suggesting that when we do things that aren't as bad that it proves we are just like them.; 2/3/15, 1:26 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Your very first comment in this thread was "But... but... but... waterboarding. We're no better than them!" My simple point is that it quite easy, and logically consistent, to oppose waterboarding and also believe that we are better than them.
Those opposing waterboarding usually make the argument that we are in fact no better than them. Because we waterboarded people. And they torture people. It may be logically consistent to oppose waterboarding and still say we are better than them but that's not what most people arguing against waterboarding are in fact saying.; 2/3/15, 1:28 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: jr565

Now lets suppose we captured one of them. ANd lets say he clams up and doesn't want to talk.
IF you don't get that information then two people are going to be murdered in extremely gruesome fashions.
To get that confession as it were would not require us to do anything near as drastic. Only to do what we do to people we train int he military. Which leaves no lasting scars (unlike having someone's head SAWED off).

I don't like to use a matter of "degrees", but my initial response would be to treat this based on one's responsibility in a future act. We currently punish criminals for what they do, not what they might do. torturing someone to save another life is a very challenging scenario to justify. Instead we punish the people AFTER they do a particular act. However, if it were a nuke that would kill millions, I am less likely to equivocate and say "by any means."

Where one draws a line can vary and can be justified in many ways. When do we justify proactive action?; 2/3/15, 1:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Those opposing waterboarding usually make the argument that we are in fact no better than them"

Then your beef is with "those" and not with me.; 2/3/15, 1:32 PM
jr565 said...: Wa street blogger wrote:
However, if it were a nuke that would kill millions, I am less likely to equivocate and say "by any means."

how about us dropping nukes on Japan? If we hadn't though we were all set to further invade and get involved in a longer ground war that would have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands war. Because Japan wouldn't stop fighting until it was brought to its knees.; 2/3/15, 1:32 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: If I thought that the US was as wicked as Robert Cook believes that it is, I couldn't stand it. I would either engage in an active conspiracy to overthrow the government or, more likely, leave -- just as thousands of political objectors left the fascist and communist parts of Europe and Asia in the 20th century.
I guess that this means that I am more moral person than Cook, or that even Cook doesn't believe his own bullshit.; 2/3/15, 1:32 PM
J. Farmer said...: The ticking timebomb hypothetical is the one most frequently made because it is has the most salience. How about a hypothetical that is a bit more challenging from a personal point of view.

Anybody here imagine a loved one of yours--a sibling, a child, a parent, a spouse, whatever. Someone you are extremely close to and protective of. If the US government comes to you and said that they know where a group of ISIS commanders are and they are prepared to drop a bomb on them. But your loved one is also in the vicinity and will be blown to pieces as well. They will refrain from doing it if you object. Would you object or tell them go ahead?; 2/3/15, 1:38 PM
Quaestor said...: Robert Cook's convictions makes him more evil than, say, me. Here's why: In Cook World Quaestor is a moral idiot unable to see the equivalencies been the fanatical forces of religious imperialism (i.e. Them) and the cold-blooded legionaries of economic imperialism (i.e. Us). Since Quaestor is constitutionally unequipped to understand the wrongness of America's chosen role of "protector of civilization" -- Western civilization being unworthy of protection -- he must be given consideration as any handicapped person should be. Robert Cook, however is an open-eyed and morally astute judge of nations and history, and therefore by his continued association with this evil republic, his participation in its civic life, and his monetary contributions to the purchase of weapons and the wages paid to this nation's professional murderers, damned more deeply than the simpleminded Quaestor.; 2/3/15, 1:41 PM
Jimmy said...: Jordan may follow thru and kill the ISIS prisoners. The administration may, just may issue a strongly worded tweet on the subject.
the 'elites' cant agree if all this is really war or evil.
It is war, it has been going on for sometime(pre 9-11), and given the chance, the enemy would use a nuke, not on our military, but on any large city in the West.
So I suppose its nice to wrap yourself in morals, ethics etc. I really want to hear that argument while you stand on the ruins of NYC or London. Yeah, that will be great. You didn't have to violate your own 'moral' standards, and now that a few hundred thousand people are dead, you are 'really' mad.
Spare me the bull, please.
And if you think that this is a 'straw man' argument, and hypothetical,then you aren't paying attention at all.
When they get it, they will use it.; 2/3/15, 1:42 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: jr565

how about us dropping nukes on Japan? If we hadn't though we were all set to further invade and get involved in a longer ground war that would have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands war. Because Japan wouldn't stop fighting until it was brought to its knees.

Dropping the nuke may very well have been the least destructive choice compared to invading Japan, so I feel it was a justified response. In war, it is can be a struggle for survival, and Japan certainly did not have a good track record for its treatment of conquered people. Stopping them was paramount.

My previous point was more in the way of saying it is hard to draw a solid line of what is acceptable and what is not. I was not challenging your hypothetical so much as highlighting it even more. What I might be willing to sanction to protect one life might be much less than what I would sanction to protect thousands or millions.

In a sense, we might not go to war over one hostage, but we might for 1,000. 9/11 evoked a response that might not have happened if it were one Cessna crashing into a single family home. Degree seems to matter.; 2/3/15, 1:42 PM
Rusty said...: Well. Comrade Bob. You have to ask yourself, 'What is the end objective of waterboarding?' and then you have to ask yourself,'What is the end objectiuve of burning someone alive?'; 2/3/15, 1:45 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Quaestor:

I don't know anything about the commenter you are describing, but I do want to focus on one small part of your argument. Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?; 2/3/15, 1:45 PM
David said...: If you are attacked by savages, you have entered a different moral plane. When someone comes after you on the street with a machete, moral hesitation is usually fatal. You either kill the attacker, or run like hell and hope to get away.

For the people who live in proximity to ISIS, the "run" option is not very promising. Nor do they have the means to fight back effectively, without our help. If we do not help them, we commit them to the savages. If they do not believe that we will help them, they might even join the savages, as a means of self protection.

It is all very easy to find moral equivalences between America and ISIS from a computer screen in Madison, or New York, or other safe places. The savages are not at your door. It's easy to believe that they never will be, and perhaps that is so. But that safety does not exist for millions now, and potentially for many millions more. Do people really think that we improve our moral standing if, having the power to help, we decline to do so?; 2/3/15, 1:46 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:

I don't know anything about the commenter you are describing, but I do want to focus on one small part of your argument. Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?
no of course not. But not even the state was authorizing doing ANYTHING. It didn't for example authorize putting someone in a cage and setting them on fire. Or chopping off captives heads.; 2/3/15, 1:47 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: Rusty,

Well. Comrade Bob. You have to ask yourself, 'What is the end objective of waterboarding?' and then you have to ask yourself,'What is the end objectiuve of burning someone alive?'

Couldn't the objective be the same? (Devil's advocate, here.) One is to prevent future attacks on America, the other is to prevent future attacks on ISIS. After all, if your captured pilots are subject to being burned alive, it would be a big deterrent to putting them in harms way, and the pilots themselves might be less enthusiastic about their sorties into ISIS controlled space.; 2/3/15, 1:48 PM
jr565 said...: Wa St Blogger wrote:
In a sense, we might not go to war over one hostage, but we might for 1,000. 9/11 evoked a response that might not have happened if it were one Cessna crashing into a single family home. Degree seems to matter.

True, but if we did get information, thorugh waterboarding, on where two captives were who might get murdered it might allow us to conduct an operation that rescues them and/or kills those holding them captive. No nuke would need to be used. Not even a drone.; 2/3/15, 1:50 PM
khesanh0802 said...: @RobertCook Would you defend yourself if attacked? Reading your posts makes me think that to be consistent you might not.

As for the Islamist fanatics; when you think they have hit their peak they manage to perform an even grosser encore.; 2/3/15, 1:52 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

I was addressing my remarks to a different commenter and was not intending them to be a statement in and of themselves. I was working towards a point. But if you would care to engage in a dialogue, I would be interested to hear your response to my hypothetical I gave a few comments back.; 2/3/15, 1:52 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Similarly, I do not find the existence of sadistic criminals in our society to be an argument for abolishing defense attorneys and legal protections for the accused. Simply saying that you are more moral than a sadistic ISIS executioner seems to be setting the bar awfully low.

No one said we should abolish defense attorneys. in civilian society.
But war is not civil society. That's not to say there is no law only that it's not the same as what we'd expect living in the US.
And at any rate, those under ISIS's care are certainly not getting those defense attorneys when they are put in a cage and set on fire.; 2/3/15, 1:53 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: jr565,

I am not critiquing your position. I am more interested in justification of the pre-emptive action.

You raise and interesting point. Would waterboarding be a better choice than bombing the group that killed the hostages, risking collateral damage? If we got actionable intel from an enhanced interrogation and managed to save the hostages and kill their captors, would that be better than blowing them up later, after they killed the hostages and killing other bystanders in the process? How would this dilemma work out if there was only a small chance of getting actionable intel? Do we still do it?; 2/3/15, 1:56 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Anybody here imagine a loved one of yours--a sibling, a child, a parent, a spouse, whatever. Someone you are extremely close to and protective of. If the US government comes to you and said that they know where a group of ISIS commanders are and they are prepared to drop a bomb on them. But your loved one is also in the vicinity and will be blown to pieces as well. They will refrain from doing it if you object. Would you object or tell them go ahead?

Well there is your loved one to consider. but there are also the people who may die, who you don't know, if you DON"T carry out the action. You'd have to weigh the two.; 2/3/15, 1:58 PM
David said...: J. Farmer: "Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?"

Of course everything the state does is not right, just and correct. The state is a mechanism for imperfect humans to act. But what does the answer prove? It tells nothing about what should be done in the face of a threat like ISIS. There are things that are necessary that are also odious and brutal. And passivity can result in great evil. Think Rawandans, Jews, Sudanese, Kurds, Cambodians. The list is long.; 2/3/15, 1:59 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

Let me repost my hypothetical from above. Anyone who wants to respond is welcome to. This is not a debating tactic. I think it's a helpful thought experiment for everybody.

"Anybody here imagine a loved one of yours--a sibling, a child, a parent, a spouse, whatever. Someone you are extremely close to and protective of. If the US government comes to you and said that they know where a group of ISIS commanders are and they are prepared to drop a bomb on them. But your loved one is also in the vicinity and will be blown to pieces as well. They will refrain from doing it if you object. Would you object or tell them go ahead?"; 2/3/15, 1:59 PM
Curious George said...: "You don't think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?"

The looney left.; 2/3/15, 2:00 PM
jr565 said...: Wa Street Blogger wrote:
How would this dilemma work out if there was only a small chance of getting actionable intel? Do we still do it?
It would have to be used in extremely limited cases, and not as a first resort. On people like KSM. he was the operational planner for Al Qaeda. If anyone knew what Al Qaeda had planned after 9/11 and who the key players were it would be him. Versus some low level shmoe who was caught with his goats on the battlefield.
In the case of ISIS, it's why I mentioned capturing one of the 4 "Beatles". They know what's going on, and where the people getting their heads chopped off are. If they arent' talking and there is a small time frame to work with?; 2/3/15, 2:02 PM
J. Farmer said...: @David:

I was directing that question about one small argument another commenter was making. He was criticizing another commenter, and my comment there was not meant to be a standalone argument or point.; 2/3/15, 2:02 PM
Crimso said...: "Involvement with ISIS should be an automatic, worldwide death sentence"

IIRC, there was some discussion prior to the Nuremburg trials of the possibility of designating the Nazi Party as a criminal organization; and that under those circumstances, one would essentially be guilty and have to prove that their membership in the Party was not valid in order to not be thrown in prison.

I vaguely recall something about this from Telford Taylor's book about the organization of the trials (I may have mangled it badly, but that's roughly how I recall it). Apparently, there is legal precedent for doing such a thing, but they ultimately opted not to do so. Of course, they were pretty much making up law as they went along in that enterprise, so I don't think precedents would have really mattered.; 2/3/15, 2:03 PM
I Callahan said...: But that also doesn't automatically mean that we should have a free pass to do anything, or justify the reckless (if unintentional) killing of innocents. Such killings may be unavoidable, and part of operations that are justified, but we should not be using ISIS as our own moral yardstick.

Yeah, but according to Cook, we already are. Remember - in war, all are savages. The only obvious answer, in Cook's eyes, is to never fight at all. If they kill us, let them; if they burn ours in cages, don't do anything to theirs.

That puts us on some moral high cliff, according to Cook's ilk. If so, call me evil. Because the only way to speak to these goat-humping, 8th century savages is to speak to them in a language that they understand clearly.

Guys like Cook are tools when it comes to this subject.; 2/3/15, 2:05 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Well there is your loved one to consider. but there are also the people who may die, who you don't know, if you DON"T carry out the action. You'd have to weigh the two."

Okay, so weight it. Make it even simpler. They can bomb the executioner and stop him from burning the Jordanian pilot alive, but your loved one will die in the process. But you can veto it. What do you say?; 2/3/15, 2:06 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: J.Farmer,

I am not sure how your scenario relates to the topic at hand. You seem to be asking about the anguish of sacrificing a loved one verses use of force on an enemy to prevent a perceived greater threat; 2/3/15, 2:06 PM
Big Mike said...: According to this article in the Daily Mail Jordan is following up with their threat to execute ISIS captives in retaliation.

When you draw a line, you have to follow through with your threats.; 2/3/15, 2:10 PM
I Callahan said...: It is rather quite easy to oppose torture on moral, intellectual, strategic, and tactical grounds while simultaneously believing that ISIS is a group of backward savages. It is patently absurd to believe that someone who is anti-torture is ipso facto pro-jihadist.

Logical, but let's use a hypothetical. You're pretty sure that if you waterboard a particular terrorist, they'll tell you where an ISIS hostage is located, and that hostage is about to be burned alive within a cage.

Do you waterboard or not?; 2/3/15, 2:13 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Wa St Blogger:

At 92 comments and counting, I am not sure there is exactly any specific "topic at hand." I understand that that is the specific line you have been addressing, but I have not engaged with you on that topic. I agree with you that that is an important subject on matters of war, and you're right that my scenario is broader than that. But the specific commenter I am engaging asked me multiple times about my belief in war more generally and made points about how to fight the Nazis. Others have made the point that was is savage and that innocent people die in a war and that that is an acceptable cost to prevent even greater misfortune.

My hypothetical is asking if people here would be willing to sacrifice a close loved one against an enemy that they seem to believe threaten civilization itself. I can only assume that if the US government had to kill that person for the greater good of winning the war against ISIS, then it must be an acceptable thing for them to do. It is always easy to make the cold, rational calculation of "innocents must die to win this war." I am just wondering if that includes innocents that anybody here happens to know, love, cherish, and be close to.; 2/3/15, 2:17 PM
paminwi said...: Freeman Hunt at 1:10pm.

I agree. Short, sweet and to the point!; 2/3/15, 2:19 PM
I Callahan said...: I am just wondering if that includes innocents that anybody here happens to know, love, cherish, and be close to.

Ask any parent of anyone who is currently in the service. They've already faced this dilemma, and have accepted that this is a possibility that they may face.; 2/3/15, 2:20 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Okay, so weight it. Make it even simpler. They can bomb the executioner and stop him from burning the Jordanian pilot alive, but your loved one will die in the process. But you can veto it. What do you say?

I don't know that they would know the outcome of said bombing and guarantee that my loved one would die. Or that there werent' other ways to rescue him/her. Or that my valuing someone should preclude the militarly from carrying out an operation.; 2/3/15, 2:22 PM
J. Farmer said...: I Callahan:

"Logical, but let's use a hypothetical. You're pretty sure that if you waterboard a particular terrorist, they'll tell you where an ISIS hostage is located, and that hostage is about to be burned alive within a cage.

Do you waterboard or not?"

So, basically, another variant of the ticking timebomb scenario. It is not difficult to craft a scenario where one would violate otherwise standard moral principles. That shouldn't be the standard for establishing such principles. If my baby was starving, I could very easily justify to myself stealing baby food off of a grocery shelf. That does not mean I do not believe shoplifting should be illegal. If someone sexually assaulted my child, I would probably want to beat them or possibly even kill them. That doesn't mean I believe cops or prison guards should not be prohibited from beating inmates. If I suspect my business partner is colluding with a competitor, I might go through their computer, cell phone, or personal records looking for evidence. I still believe law enforcement needs to prevent probable cause to a judge and obtain search warrants. We can always create scenarios where would be compelled to act against our normal moral standards.

Do you believe that law enforcement should be allowed to use waterboarding to extract confessions from the accused? Why or why not?; 2/3/15, 2:25 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer, if you were a general in command of men and women in the military would you authorize a mission where you knew that some of them might die carrying out the mission?; 2/3/15, 2:25 PM
Civilis said...: I seriously doubt that Muath al-Kaseasbeh was a Christian. I still pray for his soul, and have no reason to believe he was anything other than an ally against militant Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why should Muslims in the middle east stand up against this savagery when they see the West unable to call it what it is? We don't call out those with the power to change things, the Islamic spiritual and political leaders, nor do we offer them substantial support when things get bad, and then we wonder why things continue to get worse. And what's worse is that the majority of the people killed are Muslim.

If you want to stop people, regardless of religion, from getting blown up (whether by stray US bombs or deliberate killings by terrorists) then the ay to do it is to take the fight to the enemy and win. Will this get rid of all terrorism? No. Will this get rid of most terrorism? Yes.; 2/3/15, 2:26 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
So, basically, another variant of the ticking timebomb scenario. It is not difficult to craft a scenario where one would violate otherwise standard moral principles. That shouldn't be the standard for establishing such principles

its not hard to come up with such hypotheticals. Considering ISIS just executed two Japanese people by decapitating them only days ago, and just burned someone alive.; 2/3/15, 2:27 PM
J. Farmer said...: @I Callahan:

"Ask any parent of anyone who is currently in the service. They've already faced this dilemma, and have accepted that this is a possibility that they may face."

No, I am not talking about risk. There are any number of jobs that people do everyday in which they are at risk of death or great physical injury. Virtually the entire logging industry, for example.

I'll put the same hypothetical to you. The DOD has intel on the location of a group of top ISIS commanders. They are prepared to bomb, but a close loved one of yours will die in the process. You can veto it. Do you or don't you?

@jr565:

"I don't know that they would know the outcome of said bombing and guarantee that my loved one would die."

In my hypothetical, they do. The ISIS commandos would die and so would your loved one. An acceptable price to pay, right? Considering the nature of the enemy and the threat they pose.; 2/3/15, 2:31 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
If my baby was starving, I could very easily justify to myself stealing baby food off of a grocery shelf. That does not mean I do not believe shoplifting should be illegal.

But if you let your baby die because you didn't want to violate the law about shoplifting, woulndn't he be paying the price with his life?
So then I could argue that you are ok with letting babies starve.; 2/3/15, 2:32 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
In my hypothetical, they do. The ISIS commandos would die and so would your loved one. An acceptable price to pay, right? Considering the nature of the enemy and the threat they pose.

How is that a different argument than the military faces all the time? If people get sent into battle some of them are going to die.
If we did nothing the person htat ISIS is going to assassinate will still be assassinated and they will go on to capture more people and assassinate them too. So, it's not as if my not going through an operation leads to an end to killing.
It would just mean my loved one was spared. Would ISIS kill him/her later anyway?; 2/3/15, 2:36 PM
J. Farmer said...: "Considering ISIS just executed two Japanese people by decapitating them only days ago, and just burned someone alive."

What is your point? What does that have to do with anything in my comment you quoted? Throw a dart at a world map, and you have a pretty good chance of landing in a part of the world where horrible, awful, cruel, evil things happen on a daily basis. I accept that the world is full of horrible shit that I am mostly powerless to do much about.; 2/3/15, 2:36 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"But if you let your baby die because you didn't want to violate the law about shoplifting, woulndn't he be paying the price with his life?
So then I could argue that you are ok with letting babies starve."

That is the exact opposite of the point I was making. I, like you I assume, believe that theft should be against the law. That does not mean I cannot think of any number of scenarios in which theft would be justified, and I would have no desire to punish someone for violating that law. Similarly, just because I believe torture should be illegal does not mean that I cannot imagine hypothetical scenarios where torture would be justified, and I would not want to punish the person who carried it out.; 2/3/15, 2:39 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Okay, so weight it. Make it even simpler. They can bomb the executioner and stop him from burning the Jordanian pilot alive, but your loved one will die in the process. But you can veto it. What do you say?

Ok, weight this.
The JOrdanian pilot about to be burned alive is YOUR loved one. And if you send in the bombers he will be spared but at least one innocent person will die in the blast. Do you not pull the trigger?; 2/3/15, 2:40 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
What is your point? What does that have to do with anything in my comment you quoted? Throw a dart at a world map, and you have a pretty good chance of landing in a part of the world where horrible, awful, cruel, evil things happen on a daily basis. I accept that the world is full of horrible shit that I am mostly powerless to do much about.

YOu are fact not powerless to do much about it. You just don't want to. If you declare war on Al Qaeda,and/or ISIS you'd be empowered to do something about it and you'd have a lot in your arsenal to actually do something about it.
We are already bombing ISIS. SO the assumption is we are trying to do something about ISIS. And if we are dropping bombs on ISIS then the assumption is dropping bombs is harming ISIS in some way. Otherwise we're wasting a lot of money on ordinance.
So, we now have a scenario involving a group we are ostensibly doing something about. What would your objection be to doing something about them?; 2/3/15, 2:44 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

So, in other words, you have no real answer and will just turn it around on me. No problem, I can answer that. And the answer is no. Similarly, if my child was about to die, and someone told me that I could save my child's life by shooting another child in the head, I would not do that, either. And I don't think failing to do that makes me a morally cretinous person.; 2/3/15, 2:45 PM
jr565 said...: I would stipulate this. This govt already assumes that ISIS is important enough to deal with by dropping bombs on ISIS. They are touting that there response is "doing something".
Are they providing people with due process. are they making sure that no one's loved ones are being harmed? No.
The mere fact that they are bombing them means they are already doing worse things than waterboarding them.; 2/3/15, 2:47 PM
Quaestor said...: J. Farmer wrote: Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?

Obviously you have missed the point, which is disheartening. However, for the benefit of the less subtle minds, I'll restate it in less artful terms. A citizen of this country who draws a moral equivalency between the motives and means of the so-called Islamic State and the motives and means United States is either correct or mistaken. If mistaken that person is a moral imbecile. If correct then that person is willing collaborator with the sort of evil that a moral person must actively oppose.

My opinions on the whether all that is done by this government is praiseworthy is irrelevant. Governments do a lot of things, but burning captives alive stamps an imprimatur of an entirely different category than public highways and sewage management. For example, Hitler's Germany discouraged smoking and promoted affordable family automobiles, but these otherwise praiseworthy efforts are immaterial to any discussion of the ethics of National Socialism.; 2/3/15, 2:48 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
So, in other words, you have no real answer and will just turn it around on me. No problem, I can answer that. And the answer is no. Similarly, if my child was about to die, and someone told me that I could save my child's life by shooting another child in the head, I would not do that, either. And I don't think failing to do that makes me a morally cretinous person.

We're talking about shooting the person who is going to shoot your child in the head. Suddenly that's a bridge too far? Well then, your child is still going to get shot in the head, and the guy who shot him will then get another person and shoot them in the head. OVer and over until there are no more people to shoot in the head, he dies of a heart attack, has a conversion and realizes that the world needs love and not shooting people in the head. OR, you kill him.; 2/3/15, 2:49 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

I oppose US military operation in Iraq and Syria. I don't think the bombing campaign has that much to accomplish, and I don't think ISIS poses any substantial risk to the US or its citizens. I have for a number of years believed that the threat al Qaeda poses to the US was overblown. Yes, a small group of determined terrorists were able to exploit complacency and security holes to commit a brazen act of violence against US interests. I have always believed that we have overestimated that threat and overreacted to 9/11. I think people broadly on the left made a similar error in the mid-90's when they used Timothy McVeigh's successful bombing of the federal building to argue that white nationalists, militia members, antigovernment activists posed a significant threat to US security and that we needed to empower the FBI/DEA to take more aggressive actions against them.

I am broadly in line with Daniel Larison's writings in the The American Conservative if anyone is interested:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/isis-and-the-administrations-ridiculous-threat-inflation/; 2/3/15, 2:51 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer you're no different than Michael Moore.; 2/3/15, 2:53 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

No, my point was quite simple. You added the innocent person in the hypothetical. I am saying that I am not, in a hypothetical situation, willing to kill innocent people to save my own loved ones. We can obviously play these kinds of rhetorical games all day. If the Jordanian pilot was your loved one, how many innocent people would you be willing to kill to save him? 10? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?; 2/3/15, 2:56 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: JFarmers hypothetical is absurd.
You obviously have a greater duty to protect a loved one than a complete stranger (that's part of the definition of a "loved one").

JFarmer's question "Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?" is absurd as well. No one could possibly answer "yes", so the answer tells you nothing.

"I think everyone should pay their taxes!"

"Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?"

"The government otta tax rich people more and poor people less!"

"Do you agree with everything the state does and consider it right, just, and correct?"

There is no state action that depends on agreeing with the state and considering it right, just, and correct.; 2/3/15, 2:57 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"J Farmer you're no different than Michael Moore."

I am reeling from such a devastating critique. Since you don't know much about my politics on any other topic outside this narrow issue, I am not sure what would you lead you to that conclusion. But if that's kind of taxonomy you need to make sense of the world, go ahead. It certainly saves you the trouble from having to actually engage with any argument I actually make. Yes, you and I disagree on our opinion regarding the threat the Islamic terror poses to the US. What a horror. Different opinions. I must obviously be a dreadful human being!; 2/3/15, 3:00 PM
Paco Wové said...: how many innocent people would you be willing to kill to save him?

Conversely, how many innocent people would you be willing to let die to keep your conscience clear?

As you say, we can play rhetorical games all day.; 2/3/15, 3:01 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
No, my point was quite simple. You added the innocent person in the hypothetical. I am saying that I am not, in a hypothetical situation, willing to kill innocent people to save my own loved ones. We can obviously play these kinds of rhetorical games all day. If the Jordanian pilot was your loved one, how many innocent people would you be willing to kill to save him? 10? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?

But the Jordanian pilot is an innocent person and will die if no one intercedes on his behalf. YOu are apparently ok with that.; 2/3/15, 3:03 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Terry:

As I have said several times already, that question was directed at a single commenter making a single point and was meant to be a jumping off point for a large discussion. I was not trying to make a substantial point with that single comment.

"You obviously have a greater duty to protect a loved one than a complete stranger."

Yes, I agree with that. It's one of the reasons I am not for open borders. But we were discussing a different moral question. So I will put the hypothetical to you. If your child was about to die, and you could save him or her by shooting another innocent child in the head, would you do it? Protecting becomes a more difficult moral question if it involves harming other innocents.; 2/3/15, 3:04 PM
jr565 said...: The Nazis could expunge 20 million Jews from the world. I don't want to have any innocents die to stop Nazis from killing Jews. But, the whole premise is that the jews are being massacred by butchers. YOu can't have THAT much of a problem with innocents dying if you are shrugging your shoulders at mass executions of innocent people.; 2/3/15, 3:05 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
If your child was about to die, and you could save him or her by shooting another innocent child in the head, would you do it? Protecting becomes a more difficult moral question if it involves harming other innocents.

That wasn't the hypothetical you directed at me. In your hypothetical the attack would kill the person trying to kill the pilot. But an innocent person would be caught up in the attack as collateral damage.; 2/3/15, 3:07 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Paco Wove:

"Conversely, how many innocent people would you be willing to let die to keep your conscience clear?

As you say, we can play rhetorical games all day."

Exactly. I am conceding that these kinds of thought experiments quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. It is one of the reasons I don't like the ticking timebomb scenario that is so frequently invoked to justify torture. If we are going to enter the realm of the hypothetical, it is quite easy to craft a scenario that could justify practically any behavior. Therefore, I think the hypotheticals are of limited rhetorical usefulness.

"But the Jordanian pilot is an innocent person and will die if no one intercedes on his behalf. YOu are apparently ok with that."

I would not say that I was "okay" with it, but I could accept it. I am not okay with children being raped or beaten, but I accept that I live in a world where it happens every day. If a child rapist was on a crowded city bus, I wouldn't be willing to blow up that bus to protect his possible future victims.; 2/3/15, 3:08 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
If the Jordanian pilot was your loved one, how many guilty people would you be willing to sacrifice in his place so that you don't have to kill the guy who is going to kill him? 10? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?; 2/3/15, 3:09 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: "I must obviously be a dreadful human being!"

If the shoe fits, you apologist shitbird.; 2/3/15, 3:09 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Exactly. I am conceding that these kinds of thought experiments quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. It is one of the reasons I don't like the ticking timebomb scenario that is so frequently invoked to justify torture. If we are going to enter the realm of the hypothetical, it is quite easy to craft a scenario that could justify practically any behavior. Therefore, I think the hypotheticals are of limited rhetorical usefulness.

Except hypotheticals involving actions which are taking place every day are not in fact reaching the point of diminishing returns.
People and/or govt are going to have to make decisions, real life and death ones about what response to give ISIS. And it may involve going after them militarily.; 2/3/15, 3:11 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"That wasn't the hypothetical you directed at me. In your hypothetical the attack would kill the person trying to kill the pilot. But an innocent person would be caught up in the attack as collateral damage."

I understood your original hypothetical. You told me to imagine that the pilot was a loved one of mine, and I could have his killer killed and save him but doing so would kill an innocent person in the process. I get the point you are trying to make, and I have already said that a certain degree of absurdity is required in all of these hypotheticals. I have no idea how I would react in any real situation where somebody close to me's life was in imminent danger. But I do not blithely accept that innocent people should die for a greater good as I determine that good.; 2/3/15, 3:12 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"That wasn't the hypothetical you directed at me. In your hypothetical the attack would kill the person trying to kill the pilot. But an innocent person would be caught up in the attack as collateral damage."

I understood your original hypothetical. You told me to imagine that the pilot was a loved one of mine, and I could have his killer killed and save him but doing so would kill an innocent person in the process. I get the point you are trying to make, and I have already said that a certain degree of absurdity is required in all of these hypotheticals. I have no idea how I would react in any real situation where somebody close to me's life was in imminent danger. But I do not blithely accept that innocent people should die for a greater good as I determine that good.; 2/3/15, 3:12 PM
Blue Ox said...: Oh good grief.

How's this for simplicity Farmer.

If I were the father of the Jordanian pilot and ISIS was offering him in exchange for a female terrorist, I would beg for the Jordanian government to publicly gut her and feed her entrails to the pigs. Why, because my son was dead the minute he was captured by ISIS and it would give me consolation knowing just maybe his death made the bastards second guess themselves the next time around.

Clear enough for you?; 2/3/15, 3:12 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
I am reeling from such a devastating critique. Since you don't know much about my politics on any other topic outside this narrow issue, I am not sure what would you lead you to that conclusion.
IT was a critique, but only because I think Michael MOore is a scumbag.If you find his rationalizations to be honorable, then more power to you. But I'm not going to break bread with him. And what lead me to that conclusion is that you make the exact same arguments as him.; 2/3/15, 3:14 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Except hypotheticals involving actions which are taking place every day are not in fact reaching the point of diminishing returns."

The ticking timebomb is not one such hypothetical.

@President-Mom-Jeans:

"If the shoe fits, you apologist shitbird."

Get real. So any action that you are not willing to use US military forces against makes you an apologist for that action? Should the US military invade for the purpose of regime change North Korea, Burma, Congo, and Sudan? Obviously if you don't support that, you must be an apologist for those regimes.; 2/3/15, 3:16 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer I don't think my hypothetical involved the death of an innocent person. My hypothetical was, is it ok to waterboard a guilty person to get information to save someone from being murdered gruesomely. and not in civil society, but in a military scenario.; 2/3/15, 3:17 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Get real. So any action that you are not willing to use US military forces against makes you an apologist for that action? Should the US military invade for the purpose of regime change North Korea, Burma, Congo, and Sudan? Obviously if you don't support that, you must be an apologist for those regimes.

Obama is in fact doing something to deal with ISIS> he's dropping bombs. So then we are now at the stage where we are doing something.
If its something occurring in the Congo it may or may not require our involvement.; 2/3/15, 3:18 PM
MadisonMan said...: Questions coming up next from J Farmer: You can save a person, or the Declaration of Independence! Choose! You can save all your pictures or a dog from a fire. Choose!

If tomorrow's news reports on the execution of ISIS prisoners in Jordan, I will be pleased.; 2/3/15, 3:20 PM
Quaestor said...: J. Farmer wrote: Similarly, if my child was about to die, and someone told me that I could save my child's life by shooting another child in the head, I would not do that, either.

And you have conveniently sloughed off your moral responsibility onto to some hypothetical "someone" who may or mayn't be correct in his facts. How about you? Suppose you conclude that to save one child another child must die by violence. Are all children morally equal? History says they are not.

Suppose you are an Allied sniper hiding in a ditch outside Flossenbürg, Germany on 20 April, 1945. Through the lens of your scope you see two 16 year old boys, one uniformed as a member of the SS, the other wearing the striped garb of a Konzentrationslager inmate. The SS child has a pistol leveled at the head of the KZ child. Does Private Farmer shoot? How does the non-morally cretinous J. Farmer reason his way past not shooting? Now suppose that the KZ kid is Farmer's own son, is that morally different from the previous scenario? (Hint: only a moral cretin would say yes.) Now let us up the ante. By some strange twist of fate the SS boy is Private Farmer's own son, is this third situation morally distinct from the first? (Hint: only a moral cretin would say fail to say yes); 2/3/15, 3:20 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Blue Ox:

"If I were the father of the Jordanian pilot and ISIS was offering him in exchange for a female terrorist, I would beg for the Jordanian government to publicly gut her and feed her entrails to the pigs."

Right, because ISIS has already shown such concern for their brethren and co-religionist that doing this would really get them to reconsider their future actions. Interestingly, I do not see you picking up a weapon and flying over to Syria to try to shoot some ISIS bad guys. Is it just cowardice on your part?; 2/3/15, 3:21 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer, in fact it was your hypothetical that brought up the innocent loved one:

"Anybody here imagine a loved one of yours--a sibling, a child, a parent, a spouse, whatever. Someone you are extremely close to and protective of. If the US government comes to you and said that they know where a group of ISIS commanders are and they are prepared to drop a bomb on them. But your loved one is also in the vicinity and will be blown to pieces as well. They will refrain from doing it if you object. Would you object or tell them go ahead?"

Not sure how it's analogous to waterboarding scenarios,but its your hypothetical.; 2/3/15, 3:21 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Right, because ISIS has already shown such concern for their brethren and co-religionist that doing this would really get them to reconsider their future actions. Interestingly, I do not see you picking up a weapon and flying over to Syria to try to shoot some ISIS bad guys. Is it just cowardice on your part?

Chicken hawk arguments? Again, why I said you are like Michael Moore.
But I'm also really big on fighting fires. I have yet to join the fire department. Have you joined the fire department?; 2/3/15, 3:23 PM
jr565 said...: I'm also big on society curing diseases. I have yet to become a doctor. I'm also big on education. I have yet to join the teachers union.; 2/3/15, 3:26 PM
Blue Ox said...: I answered the question you threw out there.

You moved the goalposts.

How surprising.; 2/3/15, 3:28 PM
Quaestor said...: Inescapable Truth No. 21:
The pacifist is always the de facto ally of the more morally unrestrained side of any question.; 2/3/15, 3:31 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"J Farmer I don't think my hypothetical involved the death of an innocent person. My hypothetical was, is it ok to waterboard a guilty person to get information to save someone from being murdered gruesomely. and not in civil society, but in a military scenario."

No, at 2:40pm you wrote this, and this is what I was responding to...

"The JOrdanian pilot about to be burned alive is YOUR loved one. And if you send in the bombers he will be spared but at least one innocent person will die in the blast. Do you not pull the trigger?"

@MadisonMan:

"You can save a person, or the Declaration of Independence! Choose! You can save all your pictures or a dog from a fire. Choose!"

Since my point was to point out that pro-torture hypotheticals are meaningless, it does not put much of a dent in my argument to bring up even more absurd hypotheticals.; 2/3/15, 3:31 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: This is terrible. I'm proud that America would never do something like that...unless it had a really good reason:

"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph...napalm B became a symbol for the Vietnam War...Napalm B became an intrinsic element of U.S. military action during the Vietnam War; as forces increasingly employed its widespread tactical as well as psychological effects.[17] Reportedly about 388,000 tons of U.S. napalm bombs were dropped in the region between 1963 and 1973....; 2/3/15, 3:35 PM
Larry J said...: Perhaps it's time for the Jordanian Air Force to start dropping napalm on ISIS. If they don't have any napalm, I'm sure we can give them the recipe.; 2/3/15, 3:37 PM
Robert Cook said...: "That's the sleazy moral equivalence of the JFarmers and RCooks that triggers my gag reflex...

"JFarmer and RCook are standing across the street from a bus stop. At the bus stop, a purse snatcher pushes a woman into the path of an oncoming truck. A man standing next to the woman grabs her by the arm and pulls her out of the path of the truck.

"RCook turns to JFarmer and says: Look at those two guys pushing that woman around.. JFarmer nods in agreement."

Hey...you ripped off this scenario from the finale of SEINFELD!; 2/3/15, 3:38 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"J Farmer, in fact it was your hypothetical that brought up the innocent loved one:"

Yes, completely unrelated to the specific news item. Instead of saying whether you would or wouldn't allow a loved one to die in order to kill ISIS commanders, you then presented a scenario to me where the executed pilot was a loved one of mine and to stop his killer would require the death of the innocent. We then went back and forth over my response until you eventually said that your scenario did not involve the death of an innocent but was about waterboarding. In fact, the hypothetical you presented to me and that we went back and forth on had nothing to do with waterboarding and did involve the death of an innocent.

"But I'm also really big on fighting fires. I have yet to join the fire department. Have you joined the fire department?"

No, but if my neighbors house caught fire, I'd run over to help. If armed invaders tried to take over my country or community, I'd pick up a weapon and try to stop them. I wouldn't, however, fly around the world to take part in an armed action to topple a dictator.

@Blue Ox:

"I answered the question you threw out there."

No, you didn't.

@Quaestor:

"The pacifist is always the de facto ally of the more morally unrestrained side of any question."

I am not a pacifist. I would have no problem using violence if I believed it was justified. That is not the same thing as using mercenary forces for geostrategic gain. The fact that you may not support a ground war against North Korea does not make you either a pacifist or morally indifferent to the suffering of those people.; 2/3/15, 3:42 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: @J.Farmer,

I can appreciate your commitment to non-violence while reserving it for specific cases, but I think that your attempt to draw distinctions is not working. Few if anyone would be willing to shoot another child in the head to save their own, and so I reject your hypothetical as being relevant to the discussion. More apropos is whether one would risk having a innocent killed if it would prevent your child from being killed. Certainly that creates a realistic hypothetical that we can find reasons to fall on either side of the fence. Given that situation, is there any justification for going to war knowing that in war innocents pretty much are sure to die as a result of your side's actions. To what degree would we accept collateral losses? As I brought earlier, it really depends on degrees of risk and one's tolerance and sympathy for each side.

When you mentioned that ISIS was not a great threat to the US, and that was your justification for not being involved, it is an interesting point to consider. There are threats and threats. ISIS poses specific and palpable threats to Americans and would act on those if given the opportunity. Why do they not do it as often as they would like? It's because of the lack of opportunity because we have the will and the ability, demonstrated, to act with prejudice. If we hand-wrung too much and failed to act, we would be subject to greater threats and attacks. How readily and strongly we react is a signal of our willingness to act again. An aggressor weighs the likelihood of response based on the history of the responder. ISIS is not much of a threat because we have made ourselves unthreatworthy. Failure to act, would make us MORE threatworthy. We can argue where the appropriate response point should be, but that is a matter of philosophy rather than absolutes. We could go all out and pretty much eliminate all radical Islam threats, but we would not accept the cost, or we can do less and risk more 9/11s. Obviously at that time, Al-Qaeda underestimated our willingness to respond in the same way the Emperor of Japan underestimated us. Maybe it was because leading up to those events we projected a strong reluctance to respond, and they felt free to visit violence upon us.; 2/3/15, 3:43 PM
Quaestor said...: J. Farmer wrote: I am not a pacifist.

A famous bleat.; 2/3/15, 3:49 PM
Robert Cook said...: "If I saw a man who beat his wife versus one who set his woman on fire while she was stuck in a cage I would certainly say that one was worse than the other."

If a man is willing to beat his wife, what makes you think he won't eventually reach a point--sooner or later, if not now--where he would be willing to burn her alive?

The impulse is the same, if expressed in lesser and greater degrees: the willingness to inflict physical punishment and pain and terror on another person.; 2/3/15, 3:51 PM
Blue Ox said...: @Farmer

I took the hypothetical you keep asking and applied it to the real world situation at hand.

If my loved one (the pilot) would be killed during an attack on ISIS, would I allow the attack?

Yes. Because I'm able to understand that in this case there is no bargain to be made. To presume otherwise is to be chasing a ghost.

That's the difference between the real world and bull session hypotheticals.; 2/3/15, 3:55 PM
Quaestor said...: J.Farmer wrote: I would have no problem using violence if I believed it was justified.

This is exactly what the ISIS stooge who set fire to that Jordanian pilot would say, or any member of the Waffen SS would say, so what makes you superior to Adolf Eichmann?; 2/3/15, 3:56 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Wa St Blogger:

I think your critique is thoughtful and considered, which is more than I can say for a lot of the commenters posting here.

First, regarding Al Qaeda, I am not sure I agree with your notion that they attacked us because they perceived us as week and unwilling to do much about it. The US military had already bombed training camps and Sudan and was making an effort to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Even after unleashing military power in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, local Islamic factions fighting across North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Oceania have taken up the Al Qaeda brand.

Second, regarding ISIS and your question of "Why do they not do it as often as they would like?" One likely answer is that they don't have the capability. They are geographically limited, and there simply aren't that many Americans in western Iraq or eastern Syria to attack. Their killings of Americans has been opportunistic and not the result of a concerted effort and strategy.; 2/3/15, 3:56 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: Disgusting people who are going to get what they deserve quite soon.

The arguments about waterboarding in this thread leave me cold. They are a digression at best.

The atrocities that the Islamic State of Snuff Movies keeps committing are beyond the pale, a regression, a throwback to utter savagery. They are aggressively trying to extend their realm and the people they control. Because, you know, it's a long way to Thailand and in the Jihadist State of Snuff Movies your sex slave comes free with with your first beheading, and it's even more exciting to get your rocks off with your teen infidel captive as the screams of the gay men thrown off the tallest building in town echo off the walls of your room.

These are used as recruiting tools. We should all look at it as a golden opportunity to remove some of teen psychos that used to be in our midst.

We used to know what to do about such situations. I still do. Anyone who doesn't has lost my respect.; 2/3/15, 3:57 PM
Wince said...: Bring back napalm and cluster bombs.; 2/3/15, 3:59 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Quaestor:

"This is exactly what the ISIS stooge who set fire to that Jordanian pilot would say, or any member of the Waffen SS would say, so what makes you superior to Adolf Eichmann?"

My definition of the word "justified."

@Blue Ox:

"That's the difference between the real world and bull session hypotheticals."

Yes. I brought up hypotheticals to point out that ticking timebomb hypotheticals are unhelpful. I have said this multiple times already.; 2/3/15, 3:59 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: J.Farmer,

They are geographically limited, and there simply aren't that many Americans in western Iraq or eastern Syria to attack. Their killings of Americans has been opportunistic and not the result of a concerted effort and strategy.

And I think there are good arguments for keeping it that way.; 2/3/15, 4:03 PM
Quaestor said...: J. Farmer wrote: That is not the same thing as using mercenary forces for geostrategic gain.

That you are unable to distinguish between a volunteer member of an established national army of a duly constituted nation state and a mercenary strongly suggests you that instead of being morally deluded, a fixable condition, you're just a garden variety lackwit, which is permanent.; 2/3/15, 4:04 PM
Quaestor said...: J. Farmer wrote: My definition of the word "justified."

You're hoist on your own petard. And your feeble attempt to backtrack out of the logical quicksand you have been stirring so relentlessly is merely typical.

Only the desperate fools appeal to idiosyncratic definitions.; 2/3/15, 4:13 PM
Revenant said...: If we had the opportunity to waterboard someone from ISIS and it led to the rescue of this guy before he was burnt alive, who would argue (other than complete moral cretins) that it wasn't a moral good.

And if only Superman was real, he could have swooped in and rescued the guy before the flames got to him.; 2/3/15, 4:15 PM
Quaestor said...: J. Farmer, another adherent of the famous Humpty-Dumpty Theory of Language.; 2/3/15, 4:22 PM
Paco Wové said...: There's that "moral equivalence" argument that no one is making again!; 2/3/15, 4:23 PM
Revenant said...: If a man is willing to beat his wife, what makes you think he won't eventually reach a point--sooner or later, if not now--where he would be willing to burn her alive?

Well, take your pick:
1. The lack of a causal relationship between the two.
2. Statistics on how few abusive spouses later set their spouse on fire.
3. The fact that virtually all moral systems consider murder worse than assault.; 2/3/15, 4:23 PM
Robert Cook said...: Oh, and some lynchings included burning the victims.; 2/3/15, 4:26 PM
Quaestor said...: Robert Cook wrote: "incinerating two cities of Japanese citizens wasn't really that bad...and we had to do it or it would have been the end of the world!"

1) Quoting yourself is bad form.

2) Revealing your ignorance of history is helpful.; 2/3/15, 4:26 PM
Revenant said...: one need only recall fairly recent American history, when it was commonplace in America for lynchings of blacks (and whites) to occur

I try to limit myself to "recalling" things that actually happened.

US lynching statistics can be found here. As you can see, lynching was never a common form of homicide and hasn't even reached double-digit levels in 80 years.

You know why the handful of lynchings during the civil rights era of the 60s received so much attention from the rest of the country? Because lynching was both incredibly rare and considered barbaric, that's why.; 2/3/15, 4:36 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: I'm shocked, SHOCKED! that unrepentant Stalinist Robert Cook is desperate to change the subject from the muslim savages burning people alive today to somehow blaming America.

Shocked, I say.; 2/3/15, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Freeman Hunt said...
Involvement with ISIS should be an automatic, worldwide death sentence.

Like the way the civilized world treated pirates of yesteryear. Outside the rules of civilization and subject to immediate execution whenever found.; 2/3/15, 4:51 PM
Robert Cook said...: @Revenant:

So barbaric that lynchings sometimes were the occasion for large parties, and postcards were made of photographs of lynching victims, and quips about "having a barbecue" were written on them, as in the example I linked to.

These atrocities were committed by American citizens, most of whom were probably thought of as "good citizens, good friend, and good neighbors" by their friends and loved ones, and probably by themselves.

Most Americans surely did not even then harbor desires to lynch blacks, or approve of those who did, but it is just as true to suppose that most who live in the regions where ISIS is active are equally antipathetic to ISIS's atrocities.; 2/3/15, 4:57 PM
Quaestor said...: Hostis humani generis; 2/3/15, 4:57 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/3/15, 5:06 PM
Quaestor said...: Robert Cook wrote: Most Americans surely did not even then harbor desires to lynch blacks, or approve of those who did, but it is just as true to suppose that most who live in the regions where ISIS is active are equally antipathetic to ISIS's atrocities.

Your arguments wax increasingly shabby, Robert Cook. While there is ample evidence to support the truth of your first assertion, there is little evidence to support the second, so your "it is just as true to suppose" is both illogical (one may suppose anything one wants, but that has nothing to do with truth) and contradictory of observed facts.; 2/3/15, 5:09 PM
Robert Cook said...: Quaestor:

My point is simply this: we are no better than any other people, and any savagery of theirs we can point to with righteous fury and dismay is easily matched by our own, just as any civility and hospitality we think unique to us will be as easily found everywhere else.; 2/3/15, 5:20 PM
Quaestor said...: Robert Cook wrote: These atrocities were committed by American citizens, most of whom were probably thought of as "good citizens, good friend, and good neighbors" by their friends and loved ones, and probably by themselves.

This was not your original argument. You claimed that lynching were common in America's recent past. Then Revenant shot down your puerile thesis (whatever it was, perhaps another moral equivalency claim that nobody here keeps on asserting) by showing that lynchings were neither common nor acceptable to the majority.

Now you make the obvious point that evildoers are usually often confident of their own righteousness.

Shabby, shabby, threadbare, and feeble...; 2/3/15, 5:24 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: "Like the way the civilized world treated pirates of yesteryear. Outside the rules of civilization and subject to immediate execution whenever found."

Exactly. ISIS and slave traders: hang them and leave them hanging. Aspirants beware.; 2/3/15, 5:24 PM
Quaestor said...: My point is simply this: we are no better than any other people...

A simple point sprung from a simple mind.; 2/3/15, 5:27 PM
Big Mike said...: My point is simply this: we are no better than any other people, and any savagery of theirs we can point to with righteous fury and dismay is easily matched by our own ...

I'm sure that if you cherry pick history carefully enough that you could make that case. For me, I'll believe that we're as blindly savage as ISIS when the US stops debating humane methods of execution and wardens simply send a guard down to the nearest gas station with an empty 2 gallon can on execution day. Or when we release the GITMO detainees to their next of kin in zipped-up body bags.; 2/3/15, 5:30 PM
Revenant said...: So barbaric that lynchings sometimes were the occasion for large parties, and postcards were made of photographs of lynching victims, and quips about "having a barbecue" were written on them, as in the example I linked to.

Sigh.

Robert, here is what I said:

You know why the handful of lynchings during the civil rights era of the 60s received so much attention from the rest of the country? Because lynching was both incredibly rare and considered barbaric, that's why.

The "example you linked to" is from 1916, numbnuts. As in "two generations before the era I was describing".; 2/3/15, 5:35 PM
Revenant said...: My point is simply this: we are no better than any other people...

If we "are" no better than any other people, why did you have to look 99 years into our country's past to find illustrative example of our barbarity?

Let me try one: America is the smartest, best-educated, most technologically brilliant nation on Earth. The proof of this is that almost all of us have advanced automobiles, while 19th century Europeans and Africans used horses.; 2/3/15, 5:42 PM
jimbino said...: It wasn't that long ago that Jan Hus and Giordano Bruno were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church.

But things progress: we now have six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.

What a country!; 2/3/15, 5:46 PM
Be said...: Snuff Porn Available Beyond a Paywall.

Imagine that.; 2/3/15, 5:47 PM
Be said...: The porn nature of this (and, yes, I watched the video; it interests me to know what we're fighting against in terms of Propaganda), is interesting, as it's rendering Personal all the violence that has been Industrialized / rendered game-like.

Why was he burned alive as he was? How does this relate to all the scores of thousands who've been scorched by bombers in the past?

The Frenchie recounted a story about his father leading American bomber pilots around neighborhoods that the failed bombs had destroyed.

His dad said that the biggest at every missed site statement was, "you have every right to punch me."

Frenchie's Dad's answer was, "You did what you had to do."

***

Maybe some folks aren't thinking in so forgiving terms anymore?; 2/3/15, 5:57 PM
Paul said...: As you roll a stone so shall it be rolled back to you.; 2/3/15, 6:07 PM
Be said...: I was trying to find the cite for having liquid gold or silver poured down the throat of people as a means of execution (by the Khans - Christians at the time, I believe).

All I came up with that was even tangentially related was this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manius_Aquillius_%28consul_101_BC%29; 2/3/15, 6:08 PM
Drago said...: ISIS had to burn the Jordanian pilot to death due to the long history of Jordanian colonialism in Syria.; 2/3/15, 6:11 PM
jr565 said...: "My point is simply this: we are no better than any other people..." If we[re not, there's no reason to beat ourselves up over reacting to people who cut off heads, by, say cutting their heads off in turn.; 2/3/15, 6:18 PM
William said...: Two options can both be bad, but they both cannot be worse. Kerensky was a better choice than Lenin; the Weimar Republic a better deal than Hitler; Chiang was better than Mao; Rhee superior to the Kim family of psychopaths; Lon Nol a better bet than Pol Pot; Pinochet less destructive than Allende, and the Shah a cut above the Ayatollah.......You can look it up. Any regime that favored bourgeoise or western values was not supported and frequently opposed by the left. The opposition: well, we should strive to make peace with our enemies.; 2/3/15, 6:27 PM
Drago said...: jimbino: "It wasn't that long ago that Jan Hus and Giordano Bruno were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church."

Moronic.

Gee, 600 and 400 years ago respectively is practically YESTERDAY!!

Thanks for "keeping it real" jimbino.; 2/3/15, 6:30 PM
Drago said...: Cookie: "My point is simply this: we are no better than any other people..."

Whaddya mean "we" paleface?; 2/3/15, 6:31 PM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote:
If a man is willing to beat his wife, what makes you think he won't eventually reach a point--sooner or later, if not now--where he would be willing to burn her alive?

Well one reason is that the person who only beat his wife hasn't actually burned anyone alive.; 2/3/15, 6:31 PM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote:
Robert Cook wrote: "incinerating two cities of Japanese citizens wasn't really that bad...and we had to do it or it would have been the end of the world!""
We were on the eve of an invasion. If we didn't drop the nukes we'd be involved in a long drawn out and protracted land war that would lead to the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands on both sides.; 2/3/15, 6:33 PM
Be said...: Folks are way over thinking things.

They are giving back Image Wise, what has been thrown to the "collateral damage" parties.

For Better or for Worse, this is what Psy Ops is dealing with. (And they are currently seriously failing.); 2/3/15, 6:37 PM
Titus said...: sad, he was hot.

Waste of nice cock.; 2/3/15, 7:03 PM
Quaestor said...: by the Khans - Christians at the time, I believe

Nestorian Christians, however.; 2/3/15, 7:14 PM
Quaestor said...: Titus wrote: sad, he was hot

Perhaps Lieutenant al-Kasasbeh, wherever he is, can take comfort in the fact that at least for a moment he became even hotter.; 2/3/15, 7:25 PM
Michael K said...: " we kill groups of people by bombing them, "

Some people just need killin'.

We saw some today.; 2/3/15, 7:38 PM
Michael K said...: "@cook: Is there any tactic that ISIS could adapt that would make them worse than us in your eyes?.."

No ! Next question.; 2/3/15, 7:39 PM
Michael said...: In which thread rode the smug on high horses all named Sanctimony. Giddy up.; 2/3/15, 8:53 PM
I Callahan said...: The DOD has intel on the location of a group of top ISIS commanders. They are prepared to bomb, but a close loved one of yours will die in the process. You can veto it. Do you or don't you?

Nothing personal, J Farmer, but this is a classic strawman. It has nothing to do with the crux of the original comments or your original comment that sent this thread in the direction it went.

No one is being killed in the original waterboarding scenario, even if they're being made uncomfortable. The person being waterboarded has the choice to speak then or speak after, and won't be executed for it. In your scenario a death has to happen; in mine, it does not.

So please, answer the question that's been asked a number of times in this thread.; 2/3/15, 8:56 PM
I Callahan said...: Robert Cook's post about lynchings in America is just classic moral equivalence. It's a chickenshit coward's standpoint. He should grow a set and take a stand now and then.; 2/3/15, 9:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: When you see the video, what strikes you the Muslim Pilot dutifully standing still in the igniting cage of gasoline until falling to his knees as a submissive Muslim getting the reward that allah has planned for faithful submissives under Islamic Evil.; 2/3/15, 9:02 PM
David said...: Robert Cook wrote: "incinerating two cities of Japanese citizens wasn't really that bad...and we had to do it or it would have been the end of the world!""

No, Robert, we still would have won the war. and it would not have been the end of the world. However, in a choice between having many more Japanese die or many more Americans die in an invasion, our leaders decided it would be better if the Japanese died. This was a popular decision among American troops and their families, including my family.; 2/3/15, 9:11 PM