IS

[r16]

crossposted , was to follow PhroX immediately . Much the same thing actually . ISIL attacks Jordan in a way that will hurt the "Islamist Cause" now Amman has to step up or shut up and most probably will step up and this hurts Islam and this means ISIL works for the Jews and hence all the Islamists must return to the fold , the good old El Kaide (which as this thread implies) was an American proxy anyhow . They have to change name this year ; even if Barack Hussein can not bomb them to hell all those stuff that "rains" on them hurts ; inevitable that their shock troops will be caught as well . They certainly need an identity crisis right now .

 

[Tigranes]

Jordanian Interior Minister Hussein Majali tells CNN's Becky Anderson that Jordan is the spearhead of the war with ISIS, not the U.S..: "This is our war, not the West's war"

Something I wanted to hear for a very long time! Bravo, Jordan!

 

[Hakim]

It might bring instability to Jordan though. The country has been relatively stable and free compared to its neighbours, it would be sad if this was lost.

 

[Tigranes]

If we only could replace Jordan with Saudi Arabia. ..

 

[gay_Aleks]

That would mean that America has also declared on ISIS, instead of sending pamphlets and condemning them in front of the "international community".

 

[Tigranes]

Well America sends planes and missiles. Fully burdened cost of a new Tomahawk cruise missile is roughly $1.6 million, for example.

Saudi Arabia became involved directly in the war against Iraq during January and February 1991. This conflict marked the first time since its invasion of Yemen in 1934, that Saudi Arabia had fought against another Arab state. Now if Riyadh thinks that Islamic State, is not Islamic, is not State, and many foreigners certainly do not make them Arabic non-state either -- why not lead the coalition against them?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Because war is expensive, and Saudi Arabia is all about profit?

 

[Borachio]

You know that pilot who got burned to death? Barbaric, no?

But is it any worse than bombing people? I'd be willing to guess that a good few of the people who are bombed wind up burning to death. And I've no doubt a great many are badly maimed for the rest of their lives.

So why are the Jordanians absolutely outraged by their pilot being burned alive? It doesn't seem terribly consistent to me.

(Not that I can reasonably expect consistency, of course. I'm just wondering about it, that's all.)

 

[Commodore]

You know that pilot who got burned to death? Barbaric, no?

But is it any worse than bombing people? I'd be willing to guess that a good few of the people who are bombed wind up burning to death. And I've no doubt a great many are badly maimed for the rest of their lives.

So why are the Jordanians absolutely outraged by their pilot being burned alive? It doesn't seem terribly consistent to me.

(Not that I can reasonably expect consistency, of course. I'm just wondering about it, that's all.)

Well for one, bombing raids are usually aimed at military targets so any collateral damage is unintended. That doesn't make it any less horrible, but it does put bombing raids in a different moral category than burning POWs.

Which brings me to my second point. That pilot was a POW. International law guarantees certain protections for POWs to guarantee the basic human decency of the captured is not violated, whether the capturing force is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions or not. So ISIS not only violated international law, but they violated that pilot's basic human decency and rights. That pretty much makes members of ISIS and anyone who supports them just about the worst kind of scum on the planet.

 

[classical_hero]

You know that pilot who got burned to death? Barbaric, no?

But is it any worse than bombing people? I'd be willing to guess that a good few of the people who are bombed wind up burning to death. And I've no doubt a great many are badly maimed for the rest of their lives.

So why are the Jordanians absolutely outraged by their pilot being burned alive? It doesn't seem terribly consistent to me.

(Not that I can reasonably expect consistency, of course. I'm just wondering about it, that's all.)

I do love your moral equivalence you did right there. Wonderful fellow you are comparing murder to legitimate military targets.

 

[Marla_Singer]

But Germany has laws against holocaust denials, so it's okay to behead by sword in the street someone confessing he doesn't believe in God. Same thing. You Westerners are hypocritical!

 

[Flying Pig]

I do love your moral equivalence you did right there. Wonderful fellow you are comparing murder to legitimate military targets.

Not everyone who ends up being bombed is either a legitimate or a military target, unfortunately. Eventually justifying war means working out an acceptable exchange rate between primary schools and ISIS camps.

 

[Borachio]

I do love your moral equivalence you did right there. Wonderful fellow you are comparing murder to legitimate military targets.

So you're saying a pilot of a military warplane isn't a legitimate target?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Not everyone who ends up being bombed is either a legitimate or a military target, unfortunately. Eventually justifying war means working out an acceptable exchange rate between primary schools and ISIS camps.

Flying Pig, let's put that bluntly, I'm far to be convinced any European or North American government involved in the conflict against ISIS is particularly comfortable about it.

We know that it's giving pretext to Salafists to recruit even more against the kufar West killing muslims and that we're losing ground on an ideological level in doing so. However we would lose much more than that if ISIS would take over Damas, Baghdad, Beyruth, Amman. If you believe that letting them do so would make ISIS peaceful towards us, then you're just dreaming.

No matter what is done will necessarily have harmful effects on us. And no solution can come from the West in this conflict. This shouldn't be our war but we've been brought into it by the wackos in front, who do want to make the thing global. 25,000 people coming from 80 different countries (including 7,000 from Europe) have joint ISIS even before any Western country was involved in the civil war in Syria.

We didn't ask for it. And for the matter, France was against the war in Iraq, France always defended the rights for the Palestinians, and this hasn't prevented the country to be the one in Europe from which the largest contingent of citizens went in Syria to fight within ISIS ranks. One thousand and two hundred French citizens are currently there fighting, as we speak.

War is not a solution. Some in the past believed so but they were proven wrong. However indifference is neither a solution. Sometimes crappy situations are just that: crap.

 

[classical_hero]

So you're saying a pilot of a military warplane isn't a legitimate target?

A prisoner of war doesn't get treated like that and you know that, so stop trying to defend your improper comparison.

Flying Pig, let's put that bluntly, I'm far to be convinced any European or North American government involved in the conflict against ISIS is particularly comfortable about it.

We know that it's giving pretext to Salafists to recruit even more against the kufar West killing muslims and that we're losing ground on an ideological level in doing so. However we would lose much more than that if ISIS would take over Damas, Baghdad, Beyruth, Amman. If you believe that letting them do so would make ISIS peaceful towards us, then you're just dreaming.

No matter what is done will necessarily have harmful effects on us. And no solution can come from the West in this conflict. This shouldn't be our war but we've been brought into it by the wackos in front, who do want to make the thing global. 25,000 people coming from 80 different countries (including 7,000 from Europe) have joint ISIS even before any Western country was involved in the civil war in Syria.

We didn't ask for it. And for the matter, France was against the war in Iraq, France always defended the rights for the Palestinians, and this hasn't prevented the country to be the one in Europe from which the largest contingent of citizens went in Syria to fight within ISIS ranks. One thousand and two hundred French citizens are currently there fighting, as we speak.

War is not a solution. Some in the past believed so but they were proven wrong. However indifference is neither a solution. Sometimes crappy situations are just that: crap.

Considering so many ISIS fighters are from the West, they know how weak the West is in their will to fight and you just showed it in your post. We are in a war whether you like it or not. There is only one option in war and that is to fight the enemy.

 

[Borachio]

ISIS aren't going by the Geneva Convention, though. And why should they?

Recognize them as a state and they just might. But without recognition why should they?

edit: anyway, I'm disinclined to accept any lectures on morality from you, Mr Hero.

Fact is, I suggest, a pilot who has intentionally bombed an area (and we all know how indiscriminate bombing is) is in a categorically different position from the school-children (and let's face it, there's always some school or hospital or old people's home that gets bombed) who have died as a result. Never mind that they've all wound up dead, I suppose it must be some comfort to the mothers of those who've died that they were "legitimate military targets". And if the Jordanians choose to think of their pilot as an innocent bystander, I don't suppose anyone can prevent them.

Not that burning him to death wasn't a deplorable act. But it was designed to be deplorable. ISIS want everyone to be outraged.

Bombing people (anyone) is also a deplorable act. But the mealy-mouthed seem to think it's somehow legitimate. As if bombing hadn't led to this situation in the first place.

But we've been here countless times before.

 

[Commodore]

ISIS aren't going by the Geneva Convention, though. And why should they?

Recognize them as a state and they just might. But without recognition why should they?

Funny thing about the Geneva Convention and international law in general is that everyone is bound by it whether they want to be or not. And with good reason too. You can't just have any whacko or group of whackos out there violating basic human decency and being able to avoid any kind of punishment or retaliation by using the excuse "well we never agreed to the Geneva Convention, so we don't have to follow it."

 

[Tahuti]

But Germany has laws against holocaust denials, so it's okay to behead by sword in the street someone confessing he doesn't believe in God. Same thing. You Westerners are hypocritical!

I'm not in favour of laws punishing Holocaust denial either, though it is still false equivalence: No country has ever beheaded people for denying the Holocaust. Besides, most people denying the Holocaust are very often the kind of people that would actually seem to be okay with killing people that disagree with them, so even if I do not degree with Anti-Denialism laws in principle, I also think it is not an issue to worry about too much in practice.

Recognition of the Holocaust is generally perceived as a gold standard on how likely an individual is to believe in Western notions of rule of law. Since those that violate that premise are mainly Neo-Nazis and Radical Muslims, and both deny the Holocaust, it is a fairly way to convict such idiots before they are actually able to do anything that could kill people. Essentially, Holocaust denial laws are bans on the public right of association of Neo-Nazis or Radical Muslims for the propagation of their ideologies. Of course, I have mentioned already that I do not agree with it in principle, though this is pretty much the rationale behind it.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Of course Kaiserguard.

My post wasn't meant as serious. That's actually what I heard from some Arab dudes (not all) on the Internet to delegitimize the support for free speech after Charlie Hebdo's attacks. Of course those guys weren't saying that it's OK to behead for apostasy, even if it is indeed the way Saudi Arabia punishes it. That part was just me being provocative.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do love your moral equivalence you did right there. Wonderful fellow you are comparing murder to legitimate military targets.

You've actually flipped his point, which is why you find it so evil.

He's saying "If burning a pilot in custody is so wrong, isn't 'accidentally' burning people alive also really wrong?"

You can't flip it, though "If 'accidentally' burning people alive is okay, shouldn't be burning a captive alive be okay, too?"

His point is "we shouldn't be okay with burning people from the sky!"

I find people's (I've not seen you do this, but on other right-wing forums) calls for massive, indiscriminate retaliations to be rather hypocritical. They're willing to immolate a dozen civilians for every militant.

Now, this might be the necessary thing to do, sometimes. But the error occurs when we call it the right thing to do.