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:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243

David said...: raditionalguy 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.

My impression was that he died with vast courage and pride, facing his murderers and refusing to cower in the fear he undoubtedly felt. I thought he was remarkable.; 2/3/15, 9:15 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Wa St Blogger:

"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."

Sure. My strategy is simple. Stay out of it, and let the Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, and Turks worry about it. Not worth putting American lives in danger.

@Quaestor:

"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."

I didn't say the US; you made that inference. So defensive! But no, really, I was just throwing out some red meat for the chest thumping warmongers in the crowd (i.e. trolling). But you are likely right about my terminal witlessness. It's probably a complete waste of your time to continue engaging with me.

"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."

That's an impressive string of syllables. Logical quicksand, right. I do not believe that ISIS poses a significant threat to the US and we do not need to be wasting our time in Iraq and Syria. So, yeah, I am basically Eichmann. Reductio ad eichmannum, perhaps.

"J. Farmer, another adherent of the famous Humpty-Dumpty Theory of Language."

Three posts to say what an utterly stupid person I am. Relax a bit, my friend. Maybe a period of deep breathing would be helpful. You seem rather worked up over the dreadful prospect of someone having a different opinion than you.

@I Callahan:

"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."

Yes, well, since those original comments, all sorts of other comments and arguments have been made, and the sentence you quote was in reaction to those arguments. Specifically, it was in response to the ticking time bomb hypothetical that is often invoked in defense of torture, and I have explained in several comments now why I do not think hypotheticals like that are particularly illuminating to the debate.

I have tried to make it perfectly simple what my position is on the issue: I believe that the threat from Islamic terror to the US is overblown, and I do not believe that we need to be deploying military force in half a dozen countries to protect ourselves from it.; 2/3/15, 9:35 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: It seems the world may really be spinning out of control.; 2/3/15, 9:45 PM
kcom said...: "Jordan's participation in coalition airstrikes against fellow Muslims has been unpopular within the country."

I read that in a news article. Someone hasn't gotten the memo that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Or is there another explanation?; 2/3/15, 9:49 PM
kcom said...: "Sure. My strategy is simple. Stay out of it, and let the Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, and Turks worry about it. Not worth putting American lives in danger."

That's not a strategy. That's ostrichism. That's stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la". You might not be interested in war but war is interested in you. Do you think that the people who went to work in the World Trade Center on September 11 thought they were involved in Afghanistan? Do you think the people relaxing at Pearl Harbor thought they were involved in Japan? Do you think the people of the Netherlands thought they were involved in Germany when the Wehrmacht came crashing through their back door? Wishful thinking is not a "strategy". It's an abdication of d wise judgment.; 2/3/15, 9:59 PM
kcom said...: Do you think the Jews in Argentina thought they were involved in Syria when their cultural center in Buenos Aires blew up and took the lives of 85 people? Do you think the Japanese civilians kidnapped off the streets of their own communities thought they were involved in North Korea? Do you think the peaceful people of Srebenica thought they were involved in Serbia when the Serbs walked past the U.N. "guards" and began to massacre them? Do you think pretending there is no problem is really a strategy? Did Afghanistan teach you nothing? When someone declares war on you it ought to get your attention. Even if it's a "backwards" group far away. Last time we made that mistake it cost us 3000 dead.; 2/3/15, 10:12 PM
kcom said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/3/15, 10:12 PM
kcom said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/3/15, 10:12 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Kcom:

It has nothing to do with wishful thinking. It has to do with prudential judgment. ISIS does not pose a significant threat to Americans or the United States, and we do not need to be inserting ourselves in the middle of that morass. Any open society is at risk of terrorist attack, and we should do what we can to beef up intelligence operations, some limited covert and special forces action as needed, and domestic security. The notion that we need to "destroy" ISIS is a ridiculous overreaction.

Regarding your question of learning from Afghanistan, I would turn that question on you. Thirteen years in that country, over 2000 dead Americans, almost 20,000 wounded, and it's a chaotic failed state. The Kabul government is seeking a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. Locals in Helmand Province say that the Taliban has never been stronger in that area. The entire COIN strategy has been an abysmal failure.

When 9/11 happened, we were not caught off guard. We had been deeply involved in the region for decades, and that involvement had escalated significantly since the collapse of the USSR. The US was launching airstrikes from the Sudan to the eastern mountains of Afghanistan in the late 1990s.

Jihadists are running rampant in Libya after western powers hastened the collapse of that central government. There are people in the foreign policy community still urging us to arm the "moderate" rebels in Syria to further collapse the Syrian state without really explaining how they will differentiate the moderates from the rebels or how they can ensure that the heavy firepower given to the moderates does not end up in the hands of the jihadists. Recent history has brought me to the conclusion that the incessant drive of do-somethingism often leads us to take impulsive, short-term actions that end up causing us even more problems down the road.; 2/3/15, 10:43 PM
Revenant said...: Do you think the people relaxing at Pearl Harbor thought they were involved in Japan?

Um... kcom... we moved the fleet TO Pearl Harbor specifically to counter the threat from Japan. Up until mid-1940 it was based out of San Diego.

So I'm going to go with "duh, yes" on that one.; 2/3/15, 11:19 PM
kcom said...: Moving troops within your own territory is normal. Making a sneak attack on a country you haven't declared war on and that has not declared war on you is not normal. Read the history. No one at Pearl Harbor thought the Japanese were coming for them. They were worried about Manila. Again, read the history and listen to the stories of the people who were there and enjoying a peaceful Sunday morning.; 2/4/15, 12:21 AM
Revenant said...: Read the history. No one at Pearl Harbor thought the Japanese were coming for them.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Multiple naval officials expressed concerns that placing the fleet at Pearl Harbor made it vulnerable to Japanese attack. The Japanese had pulled similar stunts on other countries before.

Also, on a more topical note: the war on terror has killed more Americans and cost more money than all the terrorist attacks on Americans throughout our entire history, combined.

Your paranoid delusions have real cost in American lives and treasure. Grow up.; 2/4/15, 12:33 AM
kcom said...: I don't think you've refuted my point. Ignoring a problem on the other side of the world does not make it go away.

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."

Tough cookies. You have to play the cards you're dealt. Pretending it's someone else's problem is not a strategy.

The reason we were sending bombs to both Sudan and Afghanistan was the same reason.lllllllllllllllllllll Osama bin Laden had already declared war on us and was using those locations to attack us. You've reversed cause and effect. The mistake was not responding, the mistake was responding ineffectively.; 2/4/15, 12:33 AM
kcom said...: Because of the half-assed response, we lost 3000 people.; 2/4/15, 12:36 AM
kcom said...: Read the stories of those sailors on that Sunday morning. They were relaxing, they were sleeping, they were nursing hangovers. They weren't at their guns, their ships were at anchor, they were unprepared and had a rude awakening.

Wow, "grow up". That's a real sophisticated argument. Maybe next you'll test out "Fuck off." That's a sure winner, too. In the meantime, I think most people would agree with me that allowing 3000 civilians to be killed in their cubicles is a bad idea. And not responding is a worse idea. Weakness breeds further attacks. You do know we lost more people in attacking Japan than we lost when they bombed Pearl Harbor, right? It cost more money, too. I guess those paranoid yahoos, including FDR, should have just grown up.; 2/4/15, 12:50 AM
J. Farmer said...: @kcom:

"I don't think you've refuted my point. Ignoring a problem on the other side of the world does not make it go away."

I do not think it is the responsibility of the US to "make it go away," anymore than it is the responsibility to make any number of cruel, repressive regimes go away. ISIS flourished in the first place because of the vacuum left from the collapse of state power in western Iraq and in Syria. The restoration of such power has the best chance of reversing ISIS' gain, and to the extent that that is in the interest of Iraq, Syria, and its neighbors, those countries should act to make that happen.

"You've reversed cause and effect. The mistake was not responding, the mistake was responding ineffectively."

Your last sentence may be correct, but I doubt it. Nonetheless, your implication was that 9/11 was a result of the US ignoring a problem. It wasn't ignoring a problem. It was actively working against the problem. The problem is that when people tend to agitate loudly for military solutions, and then those solutions are insufficient in fixing the problem, their response is almost always to argue for even more military action. What would need to happen for them to admit that there really isn't much the US military can do and perhaps we should seek alternate approaches? If the only acceptable outcome is that we kill every single person on the planet who may wish to kill Americans, that seems like a recipe for an unending, unwinnable war.; 2/4/15, 12:53 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Really, J. Farmer, do you read yourself?
"The problem is that when people tend to agitate loudly for military solutions, and then those solutions are insufficient in fixing the problem, their response is almost always to argue for even more military action."
this could just as well be written "The problem is that when people tend to agitate loudly for surrender, and then surrender insufficient in fixing the problem, their response is almost always to argue for even more surrender."; 2/4/15, 1:18 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Terry:

"this could just as well be written 'The problem is that when people tend to agitate loudly for surrender, and then surrender insufficient in fixing the problem, their response is almost always to argue for even more surrender.'"

Except nobody is agitating for "surrender" in any meaningful sense of the word. If someone attacks you, and you allow them, perhaps it can be said you have surrendered. If two people get into a fight, and you choose not to get in the middle of it, you have not surrendered. In Libya and Nigeria, jihadist radicals are deploying violence on civilian populations in an effort to gain political control. They, like ISIS, seek to establish political rule with its foundations in a conservative, strict interpretation of Islamic law as they understand it. They have, in other words, roughly the same religious ideals as ISIS. Are we at war with them, as well? Do we need to commence airstrikes in Libya and Nigeria? Have we "surrendered" in these countries?

Everybody who was involved with 9/11 is either dead or in American custody. If we pulled out completely of the Middle East, I do not believe there would be any real increase in the security risk of Americans. That does not mean there would be no risk, but there will always be a risk. Training camps or bases of operation were not required to plan and pull off 9/11. Almost all of its preparation occurred within the United States. Any small group of relatively sophisticated people can exploit systemic weaknesses and inflict mass violence. The notion that tens of thousands of American troops spread out across deserts in the Middle East providing police power to nascent, corrupt, sectarian governments with minimal control of large territories within their borders are necessary to protect ourselves from this kind of violence is absurd.; 2/4/15, 2:22 AM
Rusty said...: 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.

I would have thought it would be obvious.
On the one hand information is needed and the subjects death is not the desired result. In fact the objects ongoing health is vital.It is important to check prisoners information against the information of other prisoners. On the other, as far as we know, no information is desired. The subjects death in the most public and gruesome way is the end game.
To what end is a matter of debate.; 2/4/15, 6:05 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Meanwhile, Our Friends the Saudis...

From today's NYT article about Moussaoui's declaration that senior Saudi officials helped fund al-Qaeda:

"Also filed on Monday in the survivors’ lawsuit were affidavits from former Senators Bob Graham of Florida and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and the former Navy secretary John Lehman, arguing that more investigation was needed into Saudi ties to the 9/11 plot. Mr. Graham was co-chairman of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the attacks, and Mr. Kerrey and Mr. Lehman served on the 9/11 Commission.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” wrote Mr. Graham, who has long demanded the release of 28 pages of the congressional report on the attacks that explore Saudi connections and remain classified.

Mr. Kerrey said in the affidavit that it was “fundamentally inaccurate and misleading” to argue, as lawyers for Saudi Arabia have, that the 9/11 Commission exonerated the Saudi government.; 2/4/15, 6:40 AM
Robert Cook said...: "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?"

Oh...so, because there haven't been lynchings in this country since they tapered off in the 1950s and 60s, we're suddenly beyond reproach? We have advanced to a level of human wisdom and compassion that allows us to smugly and self-righteously point to the barbarities of ISIS as if these acts are beyond comprehension and the perpetrators more savage than can be comprehended?

Don't deceive yourself, my friend. 100 years is but an eyeblink in historical time and only circumstances mitigate against our continuing these ghastly practices which were sometimes even the occasion in their day (I repeat), for festive social gatherings. You might be shocked to find how swiftly Americans could descend again to such behavior if we were to undergo a cataclysmic social disaster, e.g., a devastating and prolonged economic collapse, an invasion by foreign military forces, and so on.

(Of course, that few Americans today give a second's thought to our blowing people into pieces by remote control bombers does not speak well of our present day humanity. We "justify and minimize"--as per my previous remarks--our killings by calling all those killed "terrorists," when we actually don't know who is being killed, other than that that they are "others," and they are "over there."); 2/4/15, 6:48 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I think most people would agree with me that allowing 3000 civilians to be killed in their cubicles is a bad idea."

Of course.

"And not responding is a worse idea."

It depends on the response. Our response to the 9/11 attacks was the worst response we could have mounted: we attacked two nations that had nothing to do with the attacks, and, rather than eliminating the threat of further such attacks against us, we have, in our dozen years of killing masses of people abroad, exceeded the murders committed by those who attacked us on 9/11, and have inflamed greater hatred, among more people, than existed prior to our "response."

In short, our response was vastly disproportionate, inflicted on people who weren't responsible for 9/11, and has made matters worse.; 2/4/15, 6:57 AM
Paul said...: Robert,

No... the LEADERS of Afghanistan at the time, the Taliban, did in fact train Al Queda. Thus it was an ACT OF WAR. Saddam, the head of Iraq, did in fact allow Al Queda to train in Iraq, did in fact produce and use weapons of mass destruction (in violation of the UN resolution he signed) and thus open to another 'Desert Storm'.

Our failing was not staying in Iraq (Obama) and not staying in Afghanistan (Obama).

It takes GENERATIONS to bring peace to an occupied land that is surrounded by hostile nations. Note we are still in Korea and have been there for over FIFTY YEARS.

We left to early in Vietnam... And it fell, we left to early in Iraq, and ISIS is now trying to take over. We are leaving to early in Afghanistan... And both the Taliban and ISIS are starting to move.

You do know we stayed in Germany and Japan for many years after WW2 right? And ex-Nazis killed US soldiers (the werewolves they were called).

And note, Hillary and Obama destabilized Libya and FAILED to fill the power vacuum.. thus the terrorist have now taken over.

The lessons? When you invade a country, it takes generations of occupation to stabilize, especially if there are hostile nations adjacent.

It's not Bush's fault. It's Obama's. He failed to stay.; 2/4/15, 8:33 AM
Jason said...: Cook: You might be shocked to find how swiftly Americans could descend again to such behavior if we were to undergo a cataclysmic social disaster, e.g., a devastating and prolonged economic collapse, an invasion by foreign military forces, and so on.

And left-tard shitbirds like you are doing everything in your power to bring that about.; 2/4/15, 9:26 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...the LEADERS of Afghanistan at the time, the Taliban, did in fact train Al Queda."

This is incorrect.

The Taliban...played no role in the 9/11 attacks, had no prior knowledge of the attacks, publicly condemned the attacks, and provided many different options to the US to try Osama Bin Laden for his crimes."; 2/4/15, 11:04 AM
Robert Cook said...: @Jason,

Your juvenile epithets aside, do you have any pertinent information to support your statement?; 2/4/15, 11:05 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Saddam, the head of Iraq, did in fact allow Al Queda to train in Iraq, did in fact produce and use weapons of mass destruction (in violation of the UN resolution he signed) and thus open to another 'Desert Storm.'"

This, of course, is also not true.

And....; 2/4/15, 11:12 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Paul:

"The lessons? When you invade a country, it takes generations of occupation to stabilize, especially if there are hostile nations adjacent.

It's not Bush's fault. It's Obama's. He failed to stay."

I think this is a recipe for disaster. The occupation of Germany and Japan post-WWII were nothing like the occupations you are suggesting we should maintain in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Japan and Germany were strong nation-states with histories of stable central governance and institutions amenable to democratic governance. Occupation of Germany and Japan did not involve sitting on top of sectarian-driven civil wars among tribalistic factions with large insurgent populations.

In Iraq, the government in Baghdad did not want a status of forces agreement that included continued US troop presence. Are you saying that the US government should have forced a US military presence onto the nominally elected Baghdad government? The US would have been actively in direct defiance of the very authority you are claiming its presence should foster and stabilize.

If Assad falls completely, do you want the US to put boots on the grounds in Syria, occupy that country, and attempt to stretch together a functioning national government that operates despite the deep sectarian divides in that country as well? Islamic radicals are acting with impunity in Nigeria. Do we need to occupy that country as well? How would massive military occupations in countries with millions of people prevent half a dozen Muslims from traveling to this country legally and carrying out a terrorist attack?; 2/4/15, 11:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: @Paul:

"The lessons? When you invade a country, it takes generations of occupation to stabilize, especially if there are hostile nations adjacent.

"It's not Bush's fault. It's Obama's. He failed to stay."

If the first part of your statement above is true, why did Bush negotiate the "premature" withdrawal date of troops from Iraq? (Not so premature, though, for it to happen on his watch, when he could be the one accused of running away)

As to the second part of your statement, Obama--to his discredit--wanted to renegotiate an extension, but he wouldn't agree to the Iraqis' terms, (particularly that American soldiers would be subject to the Iraqi legal system if they violated Iraqi law). In short, the Iraqis would not let us stay on the terms we preferred, so we had to leave.; 2/4/15, 12:25 PM
Blue Ox said...: @ Farmer
@ Robert Cook

You both assert that Iraq forced our hand by denying a SOF agreement.

That's one way of looking at the situation and you may well be correct in the main.

Here's another: Barack Obama campaigns explicitly on removing our troops from Iraq. He promises to right the wrong that was done by those who got us into Iraq (incl. Hillary in the primaries). He receives praise from his supporters for this position.

Given that, do you really think that Obama was a motivated negotiator in FAVOR of finding a way to retain troops in Iraq? Or would any Iraqi demands beyond the most trivial give Obama an easy out? "Don't blame me, I tried by they were unreasonable."

Some things are hard. They require effort. Why would Obama fight for something he clearly didn't want?; 2/4/15, 1:25 PM
Robert Cook said...: If Obama "clearly didn't want" our forces to remain in Iraq, he has a funny way of showing it, e.g., his continuation (and expansion) of our "war of (sic) terror" throughout the middle east.; 2/4/15, 2:36 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Blue Ox:

I agree with your point. I obviously happen to agree that total troop removal was the best strategy. I also think his "surge" in Afghanistan was a foolish policy and has been
a total failure. Who happens to be in political control of western Iraq or various hill regions is largely irrelevant to Americans and trying to micromanage facts on the ground is largely unnecessary for our security.; 2/4/15, 3:51 PM
Blue Ox said...: @ Robert Cook

1) Obama campaigns and wins on getting out of Iraq.
2) Iraq gives him the opportunity to keep this promise by not agreeing to a SOF. This has the added bonus of giving Obama cover from criticism that he is cutting and running.
3) Things quickly go south in Iraq.
4) Obama, never one to blush when advocating the exact opposite of what he said yesterday, reacts by "continuing and expanding" the US role in Iraq.
5) (prediction) When this fails, it will be someone else's fault and Obama will try again to kick the can down the road with a new "strategy".

Your assumption that Obama has principles that outweigh his desire for political self preservation may need rethinking.; 2/4/15, 4:38 PM
Jason said...: Wikipedia and a student research paper, Cookie? Those are your citations?

The cast of Romper Room wasn't available?; 2/4/15, 7:07 PM
Jason said...: In Iraq, the government in Baghdad did not want a status of forces agreement that included continued US troop presence.

That's what the idiot in chief wants you to think. The fact is, it's a contemptible lie.; 2/4/15, 7:09 PM
Jason said...: J. Farmer: I obviously happen to agree that total troop removal was the best strategy.

Well, that just worked out swimmingly, didn't it, fool?; 2/4/15, 7:11 PM
kcom said...: It always amazes me how many people think running away is a strategy. It's not. It could be a policy but that doesn't make it a strategy.; 2/4/15, 8:27 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Wa St Blogger,

Ah, so you're another one who conflates criminal justice/law enforcement with military operations?

Terry,

"..even Cook doesn't believe his own bullshit. "

I would not be surprised if our own dear Cookie were one of the original inspirations for Fen's Law.

Paco Wové,

I appreciate your point, but would just like to mention that you left the scare-quotes off the word 'conscience'.; 2/5/15, 1:46 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Robert Cook,

"we are no better than any other people"

Please play close attention: FOAD!

Quite clearly there are plenty of people in the world whom we are are no better than, but that group does not include the likes of ISIS. How pathetic can you be???; 2/5/15, 1:46 AM
Kirk Parker said...: jimbino,

"It wasn't that long ago that Jan Hus and Giordano Bruno were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church. [emphasis added]"

Whoa! When the girls find out how old you really are, you won't be getting any more action.; 2/5/15, 1:54 AM
Robert Cook said...: "..even Cook doesn't believe his own bullshit."

I am absolutely sincere in everything I post here.; 2/5/15, 7:19 AM
Big Mike said...: I am absolutely sincere in everything I post here.

And you're even proud of it. Alas for your limited intellect.; 2/5/15, 8:47 AM
Robert Cook said...: "And you're even proud of it. Alas for your limited intellect."

Stating a truth about oneself does not imply "pride," necessarily. It may, as in this case, simply be a matter of being...sincere!

I certainly have a limited intellect, as does every human being who has ever lived, no matter how smart. However, relative to many who post here, well...I'm a frigging genius.

(Well, maybe not; maybe I just try to pay attention to reality and am not bamboozled by the dreamworld that so many here inhabit, a dreamworld built of nationalism and propaganda.); 2/5/15, 2:50 PM