Video of James Foley beheading 'may have been staged'

[arjunadawn]

I don;t pray because I don't believe in God, but I do agree with your comment about the circumstances of his death. Despite the hysterical outrage in Western media I fail to see what is worse about beheading than about dropping bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorus from aeroplanes or artillery on innocents in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or Libya. Innocent women, children and men torn to pieces by shrapnel and debris from the explosion, or burnt to the bone by phosphorus, the result is often the same...the death of an innocent vicitm.

Bombing may be quicker than beheading but also may result in much greater loss of life and what about the ones 'only' injured? They can have a lifetime of suffering. 'Collateral damage' from a bomb or beheading by a jihadi...morally equivalent

From a purely detached, objective point of view, you are correct. Beheadings... bomb dropping... are all relative to the observer. I suppose there is the sterility that is implied with distant modes of war- drop a bomb, the pilot (or drone) returns, mission accomplished. Clearly this gives the false impression of a clean act. The beheading, however, makes no pretense. It is equally as barbaric yet sheds any pretense to sterility. The value it does serve to the west is to shed the false notion that we are dealing with an equal but different culture. Yes, in modes of war all methods of killing are brutal and, perhaps finally, equal. But these "people" practice such a lifestyle (Sharia) and beheadings and executions and crucifixions and dismemberment, evisceration, and burning, etc., on a daily basis, throughout the world, on their own as much as infidels. The comparison of bomb dropping and beheadings aside, videos such as this serve to remind us that inherently, what we are dealing with is barbarism and no amount of equivocating about bombing being equal can change that.

Sophistry! Illogical sophistry. Outrageous biased sophistry. Sophistry that perpetuates a Western myth and a Western propaganda lie.

Firstly, "Beheadings......bomb dropping" are not just "relative to the observer". What does that actually mean, anyway? If you are saying the moral or intestinal fortitude of the observer will change the way the death is perceived, then you are right. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the method of delivery of death is not relative to anything, except in the cruelty factor. A beheading is no more cruel than a bullet to the head, while a white phosphorous burn to the bone can mean a lingering painful death that lasts for days. You did choose to focus on bombs and pass over the mention of white phosphorous that Retarius made. But of course, anyone who supports Israel will not like to prolong any reference to the criminal and dastardly use of the substance that Israel does.

Secondly, your use of the word "people" in inverted commas makes clear your disdain for Islamists. But don't confuse Islamists with Muslims. It's easy to do, and Israel wants us to do it.

Thirdly, you exaggerate unforgivably. If you insist on such a wild claim, you really ought to provide some evidence of daily beheadings, executions, crucifixions, dismemberments, eviscerations, burnings, AND etc. By the way...what, on top of those other gruesome things constitutes "etc"? Or was the "etc" for dramatic effect?

Fourthly, the sophistry....you make out that beheadings are barbaric and bombings (and white phosphorous) are not. Really? White phosphorous poured down indiscriminately on children is, I state, and not offer as an opinion, far more barbaric. Incomparably more barbaric. Bombings, where victims are often not killed outright but lie wounded, sometimes for days while rubble is cleared, is a far more drawn out way of imposing death on a person. Barbaric in the extreme. On top of that, a beheading is perfectly selective, but a bombing is not.

That is not equivocation.

This intellectual fail safe you occasionally employ, "sophistry!" rarely achieves what you aim for, and it's also required to be accurately supported. When you declare early (in regard to the very thing you are writing about) on "what does that actually mean, anyway?" you declare to the world you have no idea what the topic your about to write about actually means- but your... what? gonna have a go at it anyway? In the future if you don't know what an author "actually means" pick it apart slowly, in mouthfuls, as you apparently enumerated, but don't defeat the point you'd seek to make with a declaration of ignorance.

I rather enjoy intelligent debates- yours simply cannot rise to that standard. You've rendered all you'll subsequent post meaningless by the intro. Perhaps you'd edit out this part and resubmit or delete everything that follows your I intro, and resubmit. As it is there can be no constructive exchange.

[Scott]

Any one can make a foolish post; it doesn't make them a fool.

A fool can sometimes make an intelligent post, that doesn't change the fact that he is a fool.

Referring to posters with personal remarks that are negative is flaming and will earn a suspension.

A flame is a flame regardless of how you chose to explain it.

[chuckd]

I don;t pray because I don't believe in God, but I do agree with your comment about the circumstances of his death. Despite the hysterical outrage in Western media I fail to see what is worse about beheading than about dropping bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorus from aeroplanes or artillery on innocents in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or Libya. Innocent women, children and men torn to pieces by shrapnel and debris from the explosion, or burnt to the bone by phosphorus, the result is often the same...the death of an innocent vicitm.

Bombing may be quicker than beheading but also may result in much greater loss of life and what about the ones 'only' injured? They can have a lifetime of suffering. 'Collateral damage' from a bomb or beheading by a jihadi...morally equivalent

From a purely detached, objective point of view, you are correct. Beheadings... bomb dropping... are all relative to the observer. I suppose there is the sterility that is implied with distant modes of war- drop a bomb, the pilot (or drone) returns, mission accomplished. Clearly this gives the false impression of a clean act. The beheading, however, makes no pretense. It is equally as barbaric yet sheds any pretense to sterility. The value it does serve to the west is to shed the false notion that we are dealing with an equal but different culture. Yes, in modes of war all methods of killing are brutal and, perhaps finally, equal. But these "people" practice such a lifestyle (Sharia) and beheadings and executions and crucifixions and dismemberment, evisceration, and burning, etc., on a daily basis, throughout the world, on their own as much as infidels. The comparison of bomb dropping and beheadings aside, videos such as this serve to remind us that inherently, what we are dealing with is barbarism and no amount of equivocating about bombing being equal can change that.

Sophistry! Illogical sophistry. Outrageous biased sophistry. Sophistry that perpetuates a Western myth and a Western propaganda lie.

Firstly, "Beheadings......bomb dropping" are not just "relative to the observer". What does that actually mean, anyway? If you are saying the moral or intestinal fortitude of the observer will change the way the death is perceived, then you are right. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the method of delivery of death is not relative to anything, except in the cruelty factor. A beheading is no more cruel than a bullet to the head, while a white phosphorous burn to the bone can mean a lingering painful death that lasts for days. You did choose to focus on bombs and pass over the mention of white phosphorous that Retarius made. But of course, anyone who supports Israel will not like to prolong any reference to the criminal and dastardly use of the substance that Israel does.

Secondly, your use of the word "people" in inverted commas makes clear your disdain for Islamists. But don't confuse Islamists with Muslims. It's easy to do, and Israel wants us to do it.

Thirdly, you exaggerate unforgivably. If you insist on such a wild claim, you really ought to provide some evidence of daily beheadings, executions, crucifixions, dismemberments, eviscerations, burnings, AND etc. By the way...what, on top of those other gruesome things constitutes "etc"? Or was the "etc" for dramatic effect?

Fourthly, the sophistry....you make out that beheadings are barbaric and bombings (and white phosphorous) are not. Really? White phosphorous poured down indiscriminately on children is, I state, and not offer as an opinion, far more barbaric. Incomparably more barbaric. Bombings, where victims are often not killed outright but lie wounded, sometimes for days while rubble is cleared, is a far more drawn out way of imposing death on a person. Barbaric in the extreme. On top of that, a beheading is perfectly selective, but a bombing is not.

That is not equivocation.

Would something like this qualify for barbaric actions taken by ISIS?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN: ISIS Massacred 700 Turkmen--Including Women, Children, Elderly

August 26, 2014 - 3:18 PM

By Lauretta Brown

(CNSNews.com) – The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) slaughtered about 700 Turkmen civilians last month, including "children, women, and old people," United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Iraq chief Marzio Babille told Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA).

The massacre of members of the country’s Shiite minority occurred in the northern Iraqi village of Beshir between July 11th and 12

The Turkmen ethnic group makes up roughly four percent of Iraq's population, according to the BBC. As members of the Shia Muslim sect, they are directly targeted by Islamic State Sunni extremists, who consider them apostates.

More here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is all this white phosphorous talk coming from in relation to ISIS?

[Seastallion]

From a purely detached, objective point of view, you are correct. Beheadings... bomb dropping... are all relative to the observer. I suppose there is the sterility that is implied with distant modes of war- drop a bomb, the pilot (or drone) returns, mission accomplished. Clearly this gives the false impression of a clean act. The beheading, however, makes no pretense. It is equally as barbaric yet sheds any pretense to sterility. The value it does serve to the west is to shed the false notion that we are dealing with an equal but different culture. Yes, in modes of war all methods of killing are brutal and, perhaps finally, equal. But these "people" practice such a lifestyle (Sharia) and beheadings and executions and crucifixions and dismemberment, evisceration, and burning, etc., on a daily basis, throughout the world, on their own as much as infidels. The comparison of bomb dropping and beheadings aside, videos such as this serve to remind us that inherently, what we are dealing with is barbarism and no amount of equivocating about bombing being equal can change that.

Sophistry! Illogical sophistry. Outrageous biased sophistry. Sophistry that perpetuates a Western myth and a Western propaganda lie.

Firstly, "Beheadings......bomb dropping" are not just "relative to the observer". What does that actually mean, anyway? If you are saying the moral or intestinal fortitude of the observer will change the way the death is perceived, then you are right. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the method of delivery of death is not relative to anything, except in the cruelty factor. A beheading is no more cruel than a bullet to the head, while a white phosphorous burn to the bone can mean a lingering painful death that lasts for days. You did choose to focus on bombs and pass over the mention of white phosphorous that Retarius made. But of course, anyone who supports Israel will not like to prolong any reference to the criminal and dastardly use of the substance that Israel does.

Secondly, your use of the word "people" in inverted commas makes clear your disdain for Islamists. But don't confuse Islamists with Muslims. It's easy to do, and Israel wants us to do it.

Thirdly, you exaggerate unforgivably. If you insist on such a wild claim, you really ought to provide some evidence of daily beheadings, executions, crucifixions, dismemberments, eviscerations, burnings, AND etc. By the way...what, on top of those other gruesome things constitutes "etc"? Or was the "etc" for dramatic effect?

Fourthly, the sophistry....you make out that beheadings are barbaric and bombings (and white phosphorous) are not. Really? White phosphorous poured down indiscriminately on children is, I state, and not offer as an opinion, far more barbaric. Incomparably more barbaric. Bombings, where victims are often not killed outright but lie wounded, sometimes for days while rubble is cleared, is a far more drawn out way of imposing death on a person. Barbaric in the extreme. On top of that, a beheading is perfectly selective, but a bombing is not.

That is not equivocation.

This intellectual fail safe you occasionally employ, "sophistry!" rarely achieves what you aim for, and it's also required to be accurately supported. When you declare early (in regard to the very thing you are writing about) on "what does that actually mean, anyway?" you declare to the world you have no idea what the topic your about to write about actually means- but your... what? gonna have a go at it anyway? In the future if you don't know what an author "actually means" pick it apart slowly, in mouthfuls, as you apparently enumerated, but don't defeat the point you'd seek to make with a declaration of ignorance.

I rather enjoy intelligent debates- yours simply cannot rise to that standard. You've rendered all you'll subsequent post meaningless by the intro. Perhaps you'd edit out this part and resubmit or delete everything that follows your I intro, and resubmit. As it is there can be no constructive exchange.

You know what? I've actually begun to read your post and I realized the sense I have is that your actually really irritating. It's not the kind of irritating that I tend rub on people. Yours is a constant, seething, low level rudeness that infers the motive of deceit and dishonesty in those you interact with. There is a steady stream of vile that does not elaborate your point, nor does it make the other argument seem the better- it just exists as caustic background. You insert ulterior motive and dissembly into the intention of many you interact with. Plus- and this is of less importance- you rarely make the better argument. The nature of your insidious attacks suggest to me that were we debating house plants you'd be equally as rude. I've grown tired of exposing my mind to such poorly controlled rage. Besides the rudeness and endless non sequitur, it's important to be right sometimes, not just tolerated. BTW, your points above can be factually shred, or have no connection with the previously post. (Perhaps if you'd edit out all the ancillary noise and madness from your post...)

I'll reply to both your posts together. First a couple of definitions so we are on the same page;

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.^[1]

Sophistry; The use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.

Equivocate; use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.

What you somewhat snidely call an "intellectual fail safe" I reserve for people that employ it and should know better. Instead of being offended by it, you should be flattered. You did use sophistry and you should know better.

Lets look at what I was referring to; You started your reply to retarius (and instead of me quoting him here, please go back and look at what you were replying to) with " From a purely detached, objective point of view, you are correct. ", That, combined with my next quote from you was your first bit of sophistry; " Beheadings... bomb dropping... are all relative to the observer ". The fallacy is "the argument from authority", you stated it as a matter of fact after implying your impartiality and knowledge.....but it sounded good.

The next bit of sophistry was this; " The comparison of bomb dropping and beheadings aside, videos such as this serve to remind us that inherently, what we are dealing with is barbarism and no amount of equivocating about bombing being equal can change that. ". Sounds compelling but the fallacies you use are two; argumentum baculum and argumentum populum.

You're being very pedantic when you say my rhetorical question ("what does that actually mean") declares my ignorance. Furthermore, you spin my rhetorical question about one phrase you used into accusing me of being ignorant of the entire subject at hand! Add your little bit of sarcasm (" what? gonna have a go at it anyway? ") , and it is me that should be starting to get a little irritated.

Your final paragraph of your first reply to this exchange has two parts. The first and the last sentences are simple prevarication with a touch of snide superiority thrown in. The rest in between (" You've rendered all you'll subsequent post meaningless by the intro. Perhaps you'd edit out this part and resubmit or delete everything that follows your I intro, and resubmit. " ) leaves me confused; Do you want the intro deleted or the rest of my post deleted? You appear to contradict yourself.

So no, I won't edit my introduction, or the rest that followed.

To your second reply. It really reads like the words of a very frustrated person who is not used to dialogue with someone who can call him out. Where is the "vile", the "rudeness", the "insidious attacks"? It is indeed an unforgivable exaggeration what you wrote about daily eviscerations etc. I (did) hold you to a higher standard than I would most, hence "unforgivable" and "wild claim". Are those the vile, the rudeness, and insidious attacks? If not, what?

You accuse me of using non sequitur reasoning, but fail to point out where and why.

The rest of your reply is not worth responding to. I actually dare not say what I think for fear of hurting your so very delicate sensibilities that you have demonstrated here. You have been quite rude yourself.

[Seastallion]

I don;t pray because I don't believe in God, but I do agree with your comment about the circumstances of his death. Despite the hysterical outrage in Western media I fail to see what is worse about beheading than about dropping bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorus from aeroplanes or artillery on innocents in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or Libya. Innocent women, children and men torn to pieces by shrapnel and debris from the explosion, or burnt to the bone by phosphorus, the result is often the same...the death of an innocent vicitm.

Bombing may be quicker than beheading but also may result in much greater loss of life and what about the ones 'only' injured? They can have a lifetime of suffering. 'Collateral damage' from a bomb or beheading by a jihadi...morally equivalent

From a purely detached, objective point of view, you are correct. Beheadings... bomb dropping... are all relative to the observer. I suppose there is the sterility that is implied with distant modes of war- drop a bomb, the pilot (or drone) returns, mission accomplished. Clearly this gives the false impression of a clean act. The beheading, however, makes no pretense. It is equally as barbaric yet sheds any pretense to sterility. The value it does serve to the west is to shed the false notion that we are dealing with an equal but different culture. Yes, in modes of war all methods of killing are brutal and, perhaps finally, equal. But these "people" practice such a lifestyle (Sharia) and beheadings and executions and crucifixions and dismemberment, evisceration, and burning, etc., on a daily basis, throughout the world, on their own as much as infidels. The comparison of bomb dropping and beheadings aside, videos such as this serve to remind us that inherently, what we are dealing with is barbarism and no amount of equivocating about bombing being equal can change that.

Sophistry! Illogical sophistry. Outrageous biased sophistry. Sophistry that perpetuates a Western myth and a Western propaganda lie.

Firstly, "Beheadings......bomb dropping" are not just "relative to the observer". What does that actually mean, anyway? If you are saying the moral or intestinal fortitude of the observer will change the way the death is perceived, then you are right. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the method of delivery of death is not relative to anything, except in the cruelty factor. A beheading is no more cruel than a bullet to the head, while a white phosphorous burn to the bone can mean a lingering painful death that lasts for days. You did choose to focus on bombs and pass over the mention of white phosphorous that Retarius made. But of course, anyone who supports Israel will not like to prolong any reference to the criminal and dastardly use of the substance that Israel does.

Secondly, your use of the word "people" in inverted commas makes clear your disdain for Islamists. But don't confuse Islamists with Muslims. It's easy to do, and Israel wants us to do it.

Thirdly, you exaggerate unforgivably. If you insist on such a wild claim, you really ought to provide some evidence of daily beheadings, executions, crucifixions, dismemberments, eviscerations, burnings, AND etc. By the way...what, on top of those other gruesome things constitutes "etc"? Or was the "etc" for dramatic effect?

Fourthly, the sophistry....you make out that beheadings are barbaric and bombings (and white phosphorous) are not. Really? White phosphorous poured down indiscriminately on children is, I state, and not offer as an opinion, far more barbaric. Incomparably more barbaric. Bombings, where victims are often not killed outright but lie wounded, sometimes for days while rubble is cleared, is a far more drawn out way of imposing death on a person. Barbaric in the extreme. On top of that, a beheading is perfectly selective, but a bombing is not.

That is not equivocation.

Would something like this qualify for barbaric actions taken by ISIS?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN: ISIS Massacred 700 Turkmen--Including Women, Children, Elderly

August 26, 2014 - 3:18 PM

By Lauretta Brown

(CNSNews.com) – The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) slaughtered about 700 Turkmen civilians last month, including "children, women, and old people," United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Iraq chief Marzio Babille told Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA).

The massacre of members of the country’s Shiite minority occurred in the northern Iraqi village of Beshir between July 11th and 12

The Turkmen ethnic group makes up roughly four percent of Iraq's population, according to the BBC. As members of the Shia Muslim sect, they are directly targeted by Islamic State Sunni extremists, who consider them apostates.

More here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is all this white phosphorous talk coming from in relation to ISIS?

Nobody is arguing that beheading isn't barbaric. Some people appear to think bombs and white phosphorous isn't.

The white P was mentioned in a post to which Arjunadawn replied.

Try and keep with the play.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies have been deleted.

[arjunadawn]

Seastallion-
Bravo! Really.

Listen, please, I thought my other poet was a bit hard. It remains a valid point, however, that dead is dead is dead, and relative to the observer, by whatever mechanism, the very final moment of life is the same- expiration. Therefore, retarius is correct, it's equal. Associating quality of death, white phosphorus, is simply not a line of reasoning I was discussing. We can. And your points then be valid. I wasn't ignoring such an issue. It simply wasn't related to my post. And yes, the sterile nature of death has fairly immunized modern people from the horror of war. Therefore, be headings simply do serve to inform the west that, from their perspective (and mine), we are dealing with something quite barbaric. Had their been no evolution in warfare whereby acts became distant and sterilized we'd not note so readily horrific from the common modes of war. My points are sound. They remained in context. I do occasionally overlook things, but I never intentionally disguise a bad opinion as good to avoid self confrontation.
Note: my use of quotations regarding "people" was to capture the essence of multi faceted peoples in the area- Muslim, Arabs, tribal, groups, States, etc. lastly, it's hardly a secret I deeply dislike Islamists. You and I both know this informs all of my considerations regarding this issue, and others.

Edited August 28, 2014 by arjunadawn

[arjunadawn]

I'll reply to both your posts together. First a couple of definitions so we are on the same page;

You know what? I've actually begun to read your post and I realized the sense I have is that your actually really irritating. It's not the kind of irritating that I tend rub on people. Yours is a constant, seething, low level rudeness that infers the motive of deceit and dishonesty in those you interact with. There is a steady stream of vile that does not elaborate your point, nor does it make the other argument seem the better- it just exists as caustic background. You insert ulterior motive and dissembly into the intention of many you interact with. Plus- and this is of less importance- you rarely make the better argument. The nature of your insidious attacks suggest to me that were we debating house plants you'd be equally as rude. I've grown tired of exposing my mind to such poorly controlled rage. Besides the rudeness and endless non sequitur, it's important to be right sometimes, not just tolerated. BTW, your points above can be factually shred, or have no connection with the previously post. (Perhaps if you'd edit out all the ancillary noise and madness from your post...)

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.^[1]

Sophistry; The use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.

Equivocate; use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.

What you somewhat snidely call an "intellectual fail safe" I reserve for people that employ it and should know better. Instead of being offended by it, you should be flattered. You did use sophistry and you should know better.

Lets look at what I was referring to; You started your reply to retarius (and instead of me quoting him here, please go back and look at what you were replying to) with " From a purely detached, objective point of view, you are correct. ", That, combined with my next quote from you was your first bit of sophistry; " Beheadings... bomb dropping... are all relative to the observer ". The fallacy is "the argument from authority", you stated it as a matter of fact after implying your impartiality and knowledge.....but it sounded good.

The next bit of sophistry was this; " The comparison of bomb dropping and beheadings aside, videos such as this serve to remind us that inherently, what we are dealing with is barbarism and no amount of equivocating about bombing being equal can change that. ". Sounds compelling but the fallacies you use are two; argumentum baculum and argumentum populum.

You're being very pedantic when you say my rhetorical question ("what does that actually mean") declares my ignorance. Furthermore, you spin my rhetorical question about one phrase you used into accusing me of being ignorant of the entire subject at hand! Add your little bit of sarcasm (" what? gonna have a go at it anyway? ") , and it is me that should be starting to get a little irritated.

Your final paragraph of your first reply to this exchange has two parts. The first and the last sentences are simple prevarication with a touch of snide superiority thrown in. The rest in between (" You've rendered all you'll subsequent post meaningless by the intro. Perhaps you'd edit out this part and resubmit or delete everything that follows your I intro, and resubmit. " ) leaves me confused; Do you want the intro deleted or the rest of my post deleted? You appear to contradict yourself.

So no, I won't edit my introduction, or the rest that followed.

To your second reply. It really reads like the words of a very frustrated person who is not used to dialogue with someone who can call him out. Where is the "vile", the "rudeness", the "insidious attacks"? It is indeed an unforgivable exaggeration what you wrote about daily eviscerations etc. I (did) hold you to a higher standard than I would most, hence "unforgivable" and "wild claim". Are those the vile, the rudeness, and insidious attacks? If not, what?

You accuse me of using non sequitur reasoning, but fail to point out where and why.

The rest of your reply is not worth responding to. I actually dare not say what I think for fear of hurting your so very delicate sensibilities that you have demonstrated here. You have been quite rude yourself.

Yes, I was rude. I immediately asked a mod to remove my post. I will try a different approach and afford you responses.

When one makes "the worse argument seem the better" it should be evaluated by the body of peers to which it refers.

Beheadings and bombings are not only relative to the observer, the individual, but in a real sense are also relative to those acting out such horrors. I think this is a pretty clear, detached reality. The fallacies you employ are incorrectly cited.

Fallacy of authority, if applicable, applies still. I do seek impartiality but guard that I know I have biases. I do my best. I am keenly aware of the death types I describe. I have folders upon folders of these pictures that, after a while, became horrific and I stopped snapping photos. The equivalency that retarius expressed is an academic and valid perspective. It does not require authority to employ a mind game to note the possible relativity of each mechanism of death. It escapes me that this point cant be conceded.

Yea, I should have skipped the sarcasm.

No, I don't contradict myself. It was a quite clear comment: you indicate you have no idea what I am talking about. You then comment. Either remove the intro, or the comment. Nothing unclear about that.

You realize of course we are now both doing the same thing, and the world watches. Let us agree to miss this point in communication and move on. You are a worthy debater, and I would prefer that relationship then the one we are equally pursuing. If so, thank you. (I dare say this will happen again so let us have this guide us next time).

[Seastallion]

Seastallion-

Bravo! Really.

Listen, please, I thought my other poet was a bit hard. It remains a valid point, however, that dead is dead is dead, and relative to the observer, by whatever mechanism, the very final moment of life is the same- expiration. Therefore, retarius is correct, it's equal. Associating quality of death, white phosphorus, is simply not a line of reasoning I was discussing. We can. And your points then be valid. I wasn't ignoring such an issue. It simply wasn't related to my post. And yes, the sterile nature of death has fairly immunized modern people from the horror of war. Therefore, be headings simply do serve to inform the west that, from their perspective (and mine), we are dealing with something quite barbaric. Had their been no evolution in warfare whereby acts became distant and sterilized we'd not note so readily horrific from the common modes of war. My points are sound. They remained in context. I do occasionally overlook things, but I never intentionally disguise a bad opinion as good to avoid self confrontation.

Note: my use of quotations regarding "people" was to capture the essence of multi faceted peoples in the area- Muslim, Arabs, tribal, groups, States, etc. lastly, it's hardly a secret I deeply dislike Islamists. You and I both know this informs all of my considerations regarding this issue, and others.

The thing is, there is so much fallacy and disingenuous posting here that the villification gets tiresome.

For anybody to claim that daily beheadings, crucifictions, eviscerations, burnings etc occur, to me was one of the vilest ( Unless of course it's true, in which case such an extraordinary claim should be accompanied with some proof. I think that is fair to expect, and in the absence of it, the claim becomes wild.) because it paints Muslims wrongly. There is a continuation of a discussion you and I have been having on the world news forums regarding the West's part in fomenting hatred towards Muslims. Again, I was expecting a higher standard in that I thought you would sense that continuation. I was wrong about that and for that I apologise because it did lead to somewhat of a misunderstanding.

[umbanda]

what does the details matter to the victim...?

not all things are the way they first appear . . . http://visualfunhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/headless-sun-tanner.jpg

are you talking about 9/11?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted. This thread isn't about Israel.

[Steely Dan]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted. This thread isn't about Israel.

Mazel tov.

[Bwanatickey]

Thirdly, you exaggerate unforgivably. If you insist on such a wild claim, you really ought to provide some evidence of daily beheadings, executions, crucifixions, dismemberments, eviscerations, burnings, AND etc.

I see your obsession with Israel follows you around like a bad smell. That anyone can try to make a case of moral distinction between Israel trying to kill terrorists hiding behind human shields is incredible. It is also unbelievably stupid;- ISIS and Hamas are two cheeks of the same arse. They share the same ideology, many of the same methods are supported by the same people and funded by the same sources. I put it to you that ISIS are a PR disaster for Pro-Palestine one issue activists so naturally along come the conspiracy theories that Israel created ISIS, just as they supposedly did Hamas. Well Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are on the same side at present trying to stop the Islamists so please do at least a minimal amount of background reading before making such a fool of yourself.

Indeed. Hamas and ISIS are almost identical twins. They are both groups of Islamic terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of their own people.

No surprises there then.

Anything negative and nasty in the rest of the world news will be linked to Hamas.

[schondie]

Thirdly, you exaggerate unforgivably. If you insist on such a wild claim, you really ought to provide some evidence of daily beheadings, executions, crucifixions, dismemberments, eviscerations, burnings, AND etc.

I see your obsession with Israel follows you around like a bad smell. That anyone can try to make a case of moral distinction between Israel trying to kill terrorists hiding behind human shields is incredible. It is also unbelievably stupid;- ISIS and Hamas are two cheeks of the same arse. They share the same ideology, many of the same methods are supported by the same people and funded by the same sources. I put it to you that ISIS are a PR disaster for Pro-Palestine one issue activists so naturally along come the conspiracy theories that Israel created ISIS, just as they supposedly did Hamas. Well Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are on the same side at present trying to stop the Islamists so please do at least a minimal amount of background reading before making such a fool of yourself.

Indeed. Hamas and ISIS are almost identical twins. They are both groups of Islamic terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of their own people.

No surprises there then.

Anything negative and nasty in the rest of the world news will be linked to Hamas.

Of course IS and Hamas are so close that IS head cases show their love for Palestine by trying to burn their flag before just stomping on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tF5msIoWoc#t=41

When will the naysayers realise that the BBC, CNN, Fox and all the usual brain numbing mainstream media sources tell you what to think instead of reporting what is actually happening. Is it so difficult to look at the news stories and never question what you are told? Obviously not.

[Ulysses G.]

They are BOTH Islamic terrorist groups. Please stop the spin.

[schondie]

Totally different angles I'm afraid. One is or was a legitimately elected representative of the Palestinian people and one is a bloodthirsty group of misguided idiots. Another difference is that Hamas has always been a friend of Palestinian Christians and the other one has killed countless Christians across Iraq and Syria.

I'm sure that's of no concern to you though as your loyalties lay elsewhere.

Yes, that's Senator John McCain meeting with the leader of IS and other real terrorist groups in Syria in the photo.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. This topic is not about Hamas or Israel. Let's stay on topic, please.