RE: "Jihadi John" confirmed killed in airstrike
January 20, 2016 at 1:07 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2016 at 1:09 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 20, 2016 at 11:59 am)Ben Davis Wrote: I'd much rather he'd have been brought to justice. I understand the type of revenge thinking that drives people's emotions in this type of situation, the man was a sick murderer after all, but killing him with drones only gives ISIS another martyr and more political ammunition to fire at 'the evil and decadence of western democracies'. He kills, we kill in response; that makes us just as bad, doesn't it?
A big, public trial to highlight his atrocities followed by a full life sentence would provide us with the ability to demonstrate why his so-called 'messages' (aka. killings) were examples of the worst kind of inhumanity and then rob him of his chance for everlasting glory.
'Dead men can't talk' and now we've missed the opportunity to use his incarceration to send a powerful message in opposition to the death and destruction he advocated.
I get what you're saying, but I think the likelihood of him turning into a messenger of peace would have been vanishingly small. How many radicalized fighters have come out of Guantanamo Bay preaching peace to their fellow jihadis?
As for the moral equivocation between us and them, I disagree on that too. Intent is vital to assessing the morality of an act. He killed with the intent of terrorizing others into bowing before the movement he had joined. The countries fighting these assholes kill with the intent of stopping the spread of a virulent, and murderous, brand of Islam.
Pacifism is nice, but unrealistic. It's a mean world and sometimes a fellow needs to be shot in the face for being a murderous cunt coming after you -- or innocents you're charged with defending. Hand-wringing over self-defense, or the defense of innocents, doesn't seem to be a useful strategy in fighting these assholes.