The difference between drone strikes and public beheadings is

[Pryderi]

collateral victims.

[hobbit709]

1. Dead is dead.

whether it's done retail or wholesale.

[cali]

14. Dead is dead, but all manners of death are not equal.

[malaise]

20. Go tell that to the families and friends of the dead

It's can't be barbarian to kill journalists and humanitarian workers, but not barbarian to slaughter close to 2,000 people in Gaza. Slaughter is slaughter and the West doesn't get to define it for the rest of the world.

[cali]

37. I just said it here.

I'm hardly condoning the slaughter in Gaza. I am pointing out that all manners of death are not equal. It's simplistic to pretend that there are no differences. And you are selectively outraged and demonstrate that regularly- which is deeply ironic. Witness your thread of yesterday about the BBC, Saddam and beheadings.

[merrily]

2. In school, I had a debate of the kind that school kids sometimes have.

Not a formal debate, just a friend and me gabbing with each other.

I took the position that the most inhuman behavior of WW II had been the Holocaust. A friend took the position that dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more inhuman because of how detached it was.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. I think it's rather pointless to discuss the relative 'evilness'

of atrocities. They're both horrors that should never have happened, but did because they actually were all too human.

Calling such things 'inhumane' is sort of a 'No True Scotsman'. It takes humans to do something so despicable. No other living thing apart from humans has ever conceived of such acts. We only slander other animals when we say people 'acted like animals'. No, they acted like humans.

[merrily]

10. As I said, it was the kind of debate school kids sometimes have.

It was about being inhuman, not inhumane. However, I see your semantic point. So, substitute for "inhuman" a word you find more tolerable.

[malaise]

34. A profound comment

Wish I could rec

[hack89]

40. The Nazi's mechanized mass murder

one of the reasons they build extermination camps is that the psychological toll on the Einsatzgruppen so high - the rates of suicides and alcoholism were off the charts. The Nazi put a lot effort into dehumanizing the Holocaust by turning it into a bureaucratic mechanical things that required the fewest possible numbers of killers.

I agree with you that the Holocaust was by far and away the most inhuman behavior. The atomic bombings didn't even break new thresholds in civilian deaths beyond doing it a lot quicker.

[Adrahil]

41. Frankly, I think the fetishization of the A-bomb ignores....

the deaths of many more killed in deliberate bombings of population centers by both sides. The blitz in London and the the dire-bombing of Dresden, and the indiscriminate shelling of Berlin by the Russians were every bit as devastating as Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and probably more so.

[merrily]

44. I agree as to your point, but

I don't think my debating partner was fetishing the A bomb, any more than I was fetishing the Holocaust. We were quite young and those were highly visible and events of World War II and, new as to WWII. The point of the discussion was comparative loss of humanity on the part of those responsibie for these newer horrors, not how many died in each.

Again, though, I agree on your major point. And World War I was more deadly than World War II, sans nuclear weapons, sans Holocaust and, Red Baron aside, almost sans airplanes.

[Live and Learn]

3. Journalists and aid workers don't count as collateral damage?

I think the difference would be in the numbers of collateral damage.

[merrily]

13. Yes. No. Collateral damage usually means people you never targeted, but

who got hurt or killed because they were near the target.

In one view, the journalists and the aid workers were the intended targets. In another, they are only symbols of the US which is the intended target. In another view, their deaths were to help IS continue to raise money from the nations that do pay ransom.

[Live and Learn]

16. But drones are targeted and we know the civilians

are there before they are deployed so I see little difference.

[merrily]

18. In your view, then, the US is targeting presumably innocent bystanders?

If so, there is a big difference legally. Perhaps there should not be, but there is. One is a war crime and the other is, "Oh, shucks, shit happens during wars."

Of course, Congress has to declare war, but that is a whole other discussion.

[Live and Learn]

19. Of course, they are.

But it is no different that targeting a city for bombing which we and most countries are guilty of. War really is hell, which is why so many of us are against it.

[merrily]

22. I am a pacifist and non-violent.

[Adrahil]

42. Ummm... I get your point, but I think you're wide of the mark.

I do think there is a difference between collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians. There is no evidence I know of that Drone strikes deliberately target civilians, though there may be times when a strike takes place when civilians are known to be present.

[merrily]

45. I almost hate to resort to this, but it depends on how you define "deliberately target."

In ordinary criminal law, if a civilian throws a bomb at Mr. Y, hoping and praying that the bomb will not also hurt so much a hair on the head Mr. X, but the bomb kills Mr. X, the law holds you responsible for the intentional murder of Mr. X.

Of course, that is outside a war context. However, some would argue that drone killings are also outside a war context.

[joshcryer]

4. The people beheading kill 10x as many?

Or did you not see the 1400 Iraqi young men being executed industrially? Check out the videos if you want nightmare fuel.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Than drones, yes.

But something like half a million Iraqis died as a result of the problems caused by Bush's war of aggression.

The beheaders are still pikers compared to the US MIC.

[joshcryer]

6. So you go from drones to MIC.

Fair enough. MIC is worse, no question. Drones haven't killed nearly as many innocents as ISIS in one day.

Go watch the videos before responding. Get through them all. They are 2 hours worth of execution videos. Come back and tell me they're the same thing, OK?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. How many have drones killed?

Do you actually know? Does anyone who doesn't have a fairly high security clearance know?

Are you making a statement of fact based on knowledge, or just a guess?

[joshcryer]

9. Which counts? Militants or civilians?

It seems like you don't care who gets beheaded as long as no one else gives a fuck about mass executions of innocent people or something.

Hint: it's 3x less than ISIS if we're talking innocent people not involved in wars of aggression.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. It's always fun to accuse other people of 'not caring' about deaths, isn't it?

I'm 'caring' about half a million deaths that 'you don't seem to care about'.

See how that works?

In reality, I don't want to see anyone die, 'militants' or 'innocent people'. And I will hopefully assume that you feel the same way.

[joshcryer]

15. Reread post #6.

You're the one literally diminishing deaths because they don't conform to your required level of depravity.

I don't want to see anyone die, either, but ISIS is killing people, this is objective fact, and I support anyone defending themselves against ISIS. And I support those people accepting support to defend themselves from outside sources.

The disagreement appears to be that you simply don't want "us" to be an "outside source" supporting them. For me that is absolutely 100% irreverent. It doesn't matter who fucking supports people from a depraved merciless murderous invader.

"Invader" includes, potentially, the US, btw. For the record I don't think ISIS is defending itself from anyone and is in fact the aggressor, and that distinction would be a rhetorical flourish that only the inept would conjure.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Where exactly did I outline 'my required level of depravity'?

Here's a hint - I didn't. It's something you've made up out of whole cloth in your imagination and projected onto me.

Nor will you find a single statement wherein I suggest that I don't 'support people defending themselves' from ISIS.

So the the basis on which you built your post is total strawman.

(Edited to fix typo in title.)

[joshcryer]

21. Post #5? Your concern is minimal, at best.

Do you support helping people defending themselves from ISIS? If so, what level of support do you accept? I accept any and all support. Let me guess. You support them only insomuch that they don't have ground troops or airstrikes, or arms? Pretty sure that's where you stand. I hope I'm wrong. I'd hate to be alone in this discussion supporting those defending themselves from ISIS completely. Anything helps, as far as I'm concerned. But I have an itch, a little one, you draw the line somewhere, and poor ISIS should be left alone if we scratch too much.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. My 'concern level' in post 5 is the same as your 'concern level' in post 6.

You are wrong on where you imagine I stand.

If you wasted your time looking up my prior comments on ISIS (I say waste your time, because I feel the DU search function is lousy, and there seems to be no easy way to just say 'let me see the comments by member X') you'd see that I supported prior targeted air strikes in ISIS.

What I do not support is drone strikes around the world that are occurring based on far more limited intel, and as a result killing far more civilians.

And, in larger strategic terms, I feel that (largely unilateral) US military action has a proven history of creating more terror around the world (and more hatred for the US) than it has of stopping it. Thanks to what little the Us has already done, ISIS has grown by leaps and bounds. Indeed, the recent videotaped beheadings are designed EXACTLY to draw the US into a war so as to serve as the main recruitment drive for the group.

So I generally recommend the US provide non-military support to countries, which allows them to repurpose their own resources towards domestic military growth. Thus they serve as the face of opposition, while the US is seen the world around providing roads, hospitals, schools, utilities. This denies groups such as ISIS the ability to recruit more disaffected people to 'fight the US' who are 'warring on Islam'.

[joshcryer]

28. So you do draw the line.

I don't draw it anywhere. If the people defending themselves against ISIS want drone strikes, I support them. I support whatever level of action that the people, defending themselves from ISIS, want. Period. That's the difference.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. I draw the line at actions I feel will create even more deaths down the road.

You're fine rushing in where angels fear to tread, damn the consequences.

[joshcryer]

36. I'm fine supporting what the defenders want.

I do not condition it on what we do, but what those in danger want or desire or pray for while huddled in their basements, or in trenches, or under sandbags. I support those who don't want to die against a threat that wants to kill them.

[HERVEPA]

32. Exactly.

[cali]

12. I think there are lots of differences.

Personally, I'd far rather die (assuming it's instantaneous) in a sudden blast than having my head sawed off on camera. The thought of my son and friends having to know that that was out there, forever, is chilling. Yes, they're both awful, but there are differences. Everyone is free to interpret those differences as they wish.

[Live and Learn]

23. Beheading was once considered a rather humane death.

Given a choice, I would take it over having my entire family killed instantaneously or otherwise.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. beheading was considered humane because it was quick

however, the shit these militants are doing today is far from quick. it's is brutal. it is beyond hateful. designed to inflict maximum pain and maximum PR value.

sP

[Live and Learn]

25. I haven't watched any of the videos but I haven't seen anything

beside your post claiming so. And given our water boarding and other history, I am not sure we have any authority to complain.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. equating waterboarding and beheading with a small serrated blade

interesting...

sP

[Live and Learn]

29. How the hell can I be accused of equating when

I admitted I haven't witnessed the beheadings (nor will I , especially in light of the fact that they want you to view it).

How do you know a small blade was used? I have never heard that before.

Do you really believe nobody died from the water boarding? I don't.

I don't really expect you to answer these questions since you didn't answer the last question I posted and instead answered using a logical fallacy.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. you said quite clearly

that since we have waterboarded people we have no room to complain... if that isn't equating, nothing is.

as far as the blade... look at any opening shot to these beheadings. you don't have to see the actual cutting to see the blade he is brandishing.

it is clear you see the US gov't action and these as the same from your statement that we have no room to complain. own it. it is what you believe. now you're just trying to walk it back. and by the by, you asked me no questions so i have no idea what you're talking about.


sP

[Live and Learn]

33. An opening shot? That is your proof?

And you believe what the Us has told you about the torture it is guilty of? Did you believe it when they told you we weren't guilty of any?

I think you are being a slight bit naive.

By the way, that 'own it' slang is pretty ridiculous on a message board.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. glad YOU get to decide what's ridiculous on a discussion board

and YOU believe that the knife he is brandishing is NOT the one he used in the beheadings? without watching them? interesting that YOU believe what you believe.

and no, i think we did some horrible things... but that certainly doesn't make what the ISIS shitbags are doing right nor does it give them the right to do it any more than we had the right to torture. i am, however, pretty damned sure that we didn't cut anyone's head off with a 6 inch blade... make a video of it... post it for the world to see. especially of a reporter or an aid worker.

sP

[cali]

38. beheading with a sharp sword, axe of guillotine, was indeed considered more humane than

hanging, drawing or quartering. But what ISIS is doing isn't close to that.

as long as you insist upon bringing the entire family into this, make it an honest comparison- your entire family has their heads sawed off on camera vs. dying instantaneously.

[ChazII]

46. +100 on the method of beheading.

The Samari (sp) warrior was far more humane than the ISIS soldier. Gruesome as it is it is better to be beheaded with the sharp blade than that that of a dull knife. Thank you, cali for posting this fact.

[Chathamization]

47. If you get a piece of shrapnel tear open your gut and die from prolonged bleeding it’s not exactly

painless. We shouldn’t sanitize drone deaths.

[CJCRANE]

49. More people are wounded or maimed

by a "sudden blast", the effects of which can be long-lasting or permanent. The psychological damage to friends, family and neighbors is probably also immense.

Both methods are bad and part of the same thing IMO.

A force beyond democratic control that stirs up wars and violence towards its own ends.

[Pryderi]

51. Drone victims have been known to suffer before they die. Missing limbs, eyes, face...etc. n/t

[treestar]

39. So they are better than we are?

A little more complicated than that. Their killing has a different motive behind it.

[CJCRANE]

43. They're all part of the same thing.

[ksoze]

48. Motivation

The HD produced, tripod shot beheadings are macabre theatre meant to enrage and call attention to a group of sadists - the actual victim sacrificed is secondary to them, but everyman to us. They are meant not so much for the act of killing a targeted person but producing results which transcend all human emotion and can force a movement. Drone strikes are hidden and meant to destroy single or group targets. They are not paraded as show and used to incite action due to a purposeful barbaric method of tortured death. If anything, they are kept under wraps. Both kill innocents, but one is interested in the actual death scene for sadistic motivational purposes.

[CJCRANE]

50. Drones have little impact on us

but I imagine that they terrify the people in the regions they are deployed.

Both techniques are bad and part of the same goal.

[Orsino]

52. Labor costs and camera time.

Beheadings are attempts to garner publicity, while drone strikes are for avoiding accountability.