Captured Pilot Burned Alive by ISIS

[Ad Orientem]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worl ... ian-pilot/

Savages.

[Tyler]

Jordan has already threatened to fast-track executions for ISIS prisoners if the pilot was harmed. This may escalate.

[dualstow]

Pilot burnt, and another bridge along with it.

[clacy]

Jordan has already threatened to fast-track executions for ISIS prisoners if the pilot was harmed. This may escalate.

This is the key.  Right now, the entire "Nation/State" system is on the verge of collapse and with a power vacuum, ISIS will be waiting in the wings to take over.  Islamic leaders and their nation's citizens need to get involved and solve this problem in a very direct, and brutal way.

Exterminating ISIS is the only way to stop this scourge.

[Ad Orientem]

This is the key.  Right now, the entire "Nation/State" system is on the verge of collapse and with a power vacuum, ISIS will be waiting in the wings to take over. 

I think that is a pretty extreme exaggeration. That said, the laws of war are not a one way street. I wonder if we have any napalm lying around

[madbean]

"The pilot was captured by the Islamic State in December, after his plane crashed in Syria during a bombing run."

Don't bombing runs burn people alive?

I'm not trying to justify it but what is the difference between doing it from the air or doing it on the ground?

[Ad Orientem]

"The pilot was captured by the Islamic State in December, after his plane crashed in Syria during a bombing run."

Don't bombing runs burn people alive?

Only if you are using napalm or something similar. As far as I am aware that stuff hasn't been employed since Vietnam.

[madbean]

"The pilot was captured by the Islamic State in December, after his plane crashed in Syria during a bombing run."

Don't bombing runs burn people alive?

Only if you are using napalm or something similar. As far as I am aware that stuff hasn't been employed since Vietnam.

You've seen pictures of cities like Dresden and Tokyo from WWII haven't you? Those were only bombs.

[Ad Orientem]

"The pilot was captured by the Islamic State in December, after his plane crashed in Syria during a bombing run."

Don't bombing runs burn people alive?

Only if you are using napalm or something similar. As far as I am aware that stuff hasn't been employed since Vietnam.

You've seen pictures of cities like Dresden and Tokyo from WWII haven't you? Those were only bombs.

Actually those were incendiary bombs including napalm.

[Pointedstick]

To answer the question, I think the difference is that the more personal the murder, the more personally fucked up you have to be to do it. Pressing a button to drop some bombs can be done with a lot more moral detachment than putting a torch to the pyre you've tied some dude to.

These ISIS guys are a real throwback. They show us what war used to look like back in the day, when the only people who were any good at it were the most violent, bloodthirsty, remorseless barbarians in society. But nowadays even nice people can kill easily with modern technology, and it gives them PTSD when they come to terms with what they've done. How many of the hardcore ISIS fighters do you suppose have PTSD, by comparison?

[madbean]

Actually those were incendiary bombs including napalm.

Okay, I'll re-phrase it to ask what is the difference between burning people alive on the ground and blowing them to pieces from the air?

I see Pointedstick has answered it below, but I can still see how people have a tendency to get really pissed off when you drop bombs on them.

[Reub]

Stop equating the savages with the civilized.

Also, its not just ISIS. It's The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Boco Harem, Al Nusra, Hamas, just to name a few. They are all emissaries from the religion of peace.

[madbean]

Stop equating the savages with the civilized.

Also, its not just ISIS. It's The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Boco Harem, Al Nusra, Hamas, just to name a few. They are all emissaries from the religion of peace.

I try not to think like they do.

[moda0306]

Stop equating the savages with the civilized.

Also, its not just ISIS. It's The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Boco Harem, Al Nusra, Hamas, just to name a few. They are all emissaries from the religion of peace.

If you can't articulate a position as to why bombing hundreds-of-thousands is civilized while lighting a pilot on fire is savage, then don't be surprised if people make the comparison.

I do agree with PS... there's something about having an up close view of your killing that makes one's complacence with it more disturbing.  However, if you want more of that hearltess up-close sh!t, then look no further how some of the U.S. soldiers behaved towards Indian, Philippino, and Vietnamese populations during our adventures in their regions.

Is this enough reason to ignore the threat of ISIS?

No.

Is this enough reason to consider calming our nationalist rage when crap like this happens?

Probably.

[dualstow]

I think I have an answer to madbean's question. While it's important to remember the horror that is caused from a safe distance in the skies, it *is* different.

It doesn't take a psychopath to bomb ISIS in order to stop them. There are lessons to be learned from Vietnam, but if it takes a bomb to stop ISIS, I would do it. I would drop it. We are not yet at the point where we can drop some harmless immobilizing jelly that would stop ISIS fighters in their tracks, where allied troops on the ground could safely cuff them and lead them to prison. If that were an option, I'd take it. I'd like to think that others would, too.

ISIS captures people who are not even combatants and then kills them.
1. Not all of their victims are combatants. We are not talking about collateral damage here but the intentional kidnapping of journalists, for example.
2. It's barbaric enough to kill a prisoner who has already been disarmed and poses no threat, but that's what ISIS is doing. Executing them. Barbaric enough, but...
3. The way in which victims are being killed is not humane. From what I've heard, the decapitations are a slow sawing, not a quick "Hassan chop" with a scimitar. And burning someone alive while they're in a cage? That's intentional cruelty which, no matter how you feel about it, was never the intention of incendiary bombing campaigns.

[Libertarian666]

Stop equating the savages with the civilized.

Also, its not just ISIS. It's The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Boco Harem, Al Nusra, Hamas, just to name a few. They are all emissaries from the religion of peace.

If you can't articulate a position as to why bombing hundreds-of-thousands is civilized while lighting a pilot on fire is savage, then don't be surprised if people make the comparison.

I do agree with PS... there's something about having an up close view of your killing that makes one's complacence with it more disturbing.  However, if you want more of that hearltess up-close sh!t, then look no further how some of the U.S. soldiers behaved towards Indian, Philippino, and Vietnamese populations during our adventures in their regions.

Is this enough reason to ignore the threat of ISIS?

No.

Is this enough reason to consider calming our nationalist rage when crap like this happens?

Probably.

But of course WE (the US government's troops) are civilized, and THEY are savages. So whatever we do is good, and whatever they do is bad, even if it is appears to the untrained eye to be very similar.

Hope that helps. 

[Mountaineer]

I think I have an answer to madbean's question. While it's important to remember the horror that is caused from a safe distance in the skies, it *is* different.

It doesn't take a psychopath to bomb ISIS in order to stop them. There are lessons to be learned from Vietnam, but if it takes a bomb to stop ISIS, I would do it. I would drop it. We are not yet at the point where we can drop some harmless immobilizing jelly that would stop ISIS fighters in their tracks, where allied troops on the ground could safely cuff them and lead them to prison. If that were an option, I'd take it. I'd like to think that others would, too.

ISIS captures people who are not even combatants and then kills them.
1. Not all of their victims are combatants. We are not talking about collateral damage here but the intentional kidnapping of journalists, for example.
2. It's barbaric enough to kill a prisoner who has already been disarmed and poses no threat, but that's what ISIS is doing. Executing them. Barbaric enough, but...
3. The way in which victims are being killed is not humane. From what I've heard, the decapitations are a slow sawing, not a quick "Hassan chop" with a scimitar. And burning someone alive while they're in a cage? That's intentional cruelty which, no matter how you feel about it, was never the intention of incendiary bombing campaigns.

Well said. 

I would also add that when soldiers, operating under the authority of an authorized recognized government, kill others that present a clear and present danger, it is not evil.  When individuals, or collections thereof that act like soldiers, are not operating under the authority of an authorized recognized government, then the term "barbaric" or equivalent is appropriate if they commit heinous acts and, they should suffer the consequences of that barbarism.  Basically, humans should treat other humans with humane behavior - but that frequently is one of those in the eyes of the beholder things, especially when the combatants are from different cultures with different ethics.  After having said all that and rereading it, I come away thinking "what a mess"; humans continue to treat each other like the "other" side is a pack of animals.

... Mountaineer

[Tyler]

Jordan will execute the attempted suicide bomber ISIS demanded in exchange for sparing the Jordanian pilot's life (before burning him alive) as well as several other Al-Qaeda prisoners at dawn.

http://news.yahoo.com/jordan-execute-fe ... 36008.html

While the violence doesn't really solve anything, frankly I think this is a good idea.  It lays bare any pretense that ISIS is out for anything other than blood, and establishes serious consequences to playing the public execution game. 

[MachineGhost]

3. The way in which victims are being killed is not humane. From what I've heard, the decapitations are a slow sawing, not a quick "Hassan chop" with a scimitar. And burning someone alive while they're in a cage? That's intentional cruelty which, no matter how you feel about it, was never the intention of incendiary bombing campaigns.

This is the real problem with ISIS, et al..  They are fucking sadists.  And worse, they are enjoying it.  Given enough time, I have no doubt they are going to get more and more sickly creative at inflicting maximum pain and suffering to whoever they execute.

I'm still wondering why the USA -- the largest military in the world -- has not bombed and invaded ISIS.  What the hell is Obama waiting for?  Is he too busy playing basketball or golf again?

[Ad Orientem]

Jordan will execute the attempted suicide bomber ISIS demanded in exchange for sparing the Jordanian pilot's life (before burning him alive) as well as several other Al-Qaeda prisoners at dawn.

http://news.yahoo.com/jordan-execute-fe ... 36008.html

While the violence doesn't really solve anything, frankly I think this is a good idea.  It lays bare any pretense that ISIS is out for anything other than blood, and establishes serious consequences to playing the public execution game.

Agreed. I have no idea if this will influence ISIS or not. But I suspect it is more likely to get their attention than lodging a formal complaint with the International Court in the Hague. Before the Great War the laws of war were respected, or not, with the fairly clear understanding that gross breaches by one side were  likely to lead to retaliation by the other. In other words, it was understood that the laws of war were not a one way street and that very real consequences would almost certainly attend any deliberate abuse.

For some odd reason this seems to have been a more effective system than what we have in place today. Namely a court that could not adjudicate a parking ticket in less than a decade and one that exercises very little real jurisdiction because most war criminals aren't in custody and don't ever expect that to change.

[Ad Orientem]

3. The way in which victims are being killed is not humane. From what I've heard, the decapitations are a slow sawing, not a quick "Hassan chop" with a scimitar. And burning someone alive while they're in a cage? That's intentional cruelty which, no matter how you feel about it, was never the intention of incendiary bombing campaigns.

This is the real problem with ISIS, et al..  They are fucking sadists.  And worse, they are enjoying it.  Given enough time, I have no doubt they are going to get more and more sickly creative at inflicting maximum pain and suffering to whoever they execute.

Indeed. This is why I suggested, semi-seriously, that we roll out some napalm. Or maybe give a little to Jordan and let them play with it. IMHO even the most sadistic bastards, the kind that like to set people on fire for kicks, are likely to lose their enthusiasm when they are the ones being set on fire.

Napalm is a really dreadful weapon and a horrible way to die. But it is also a very effective one against all sorts of targets. And yes, it is terrifying. Even the Viet-Cong were reportedly scared shitless when we started dropping it.

File this under "people who play with fire are asking to get burned."

[GT]

Jordan will execute the attempted suicide bomber ISIS demanded in exchange for sparing the Jordanian pilot's life (before burning him alive) as well as several other Al-Qaeda prisoners at dawn.

The Jordanian government reported the Pilot was killed Jan 6th, before ISIS asked for the prisoner swap. If the report is true, wouldn’t that mean ISIS knew the person that they named in the swap attempt would be kill upon releasing the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive. I wonder if they, ISIS, wanted the attempted suicide bomber killed.  This whole incident seems like a big manipulation if the Jan 6th date is correct.  Or ISIS wanted to increase the pressure on the Jordanian government by creating more unrest in the country.

[Libertarian666]

3. The way in which victims are being killed is not humane. From what I've heard, the decapitations are a slow sawing, not a quick "Hassan chop" with a scimitar. And burning someone alive while they're in a cage? That's intentional cruelty which, no matter how you feel about it, was never the intention of incendiary bombing campaigns.

This is the real problem with ISIS, et al..  They are fucking sadists.  And worse, they are enjoying it.  Given enough time, I have no doubt they are going to get more and more sickly creative at inflicting maximum pain and suffering to whoever they execute.

Indeed. This is why I suggested, semi-seriously, that we roll out some napalm. Or maybe give a little to Jordan and let them play with it. IMHO even the most sadistic bastards, the kind that like to set people on fire for kicks, are likely to lose their enthusiasm when they are the ones being set on fire.

Napalm is a really dreadful weapon and a horrible way to die. But it is also a very effective one against all sorts of targets. And yes, it is terrifying. Even the Viet-Cong were reportedly scared shitless when we started dropping it.

File this under "people who play with fire are asking to get burned."

Yes, and look at the wonderful results we got from using it; Viet Nam is more capitalist every day!
(Note:  )

[dualstow]

Thanks, Mountaineer.

(Libertarian666 wrote:) Yes, and look at the wonderful results we got from using it; Viet Nam is more capitalist every day!
(Note:  )

Hey, that's not napalm's fault.

The Jordanian government reported the Pilot was killed Jan 6th, before ISIS asked for the prisoner swap. If the report is true, wouldn’t that mean ISIS knew the person that they named in the swap attempt would be kill upon releasing the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive.

That is curious, isn't it? It's hard to tell if they assumed the prisoner would be given up or if they were prepared for the female bomber to be executed. Bizarre behavior either way. Maybe they were just taunting the Jordanians and couldn't give up the pilot for any reason.

[Jan Van]

"The pilot was captured by the Islamic State in December, after his plane crashed in Syria during a bombing run."

Don't bombing runs burn people alive?

I'm not trying to justify it but what is the difference between doing it from the air or doing it on the ground?

That is probably why they burned him.

16:126 And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient.