Fox News Hosts Video of Jordanian Pilot Being Burned Alive

[The Emerald Dawn]

To a point. Is it state-sponsored violence?

Does Jordan have a responsibility to come to Missouri to stop us from shooting black people?

The fact that these atrocities are being committed by a non-state actor is probably a greater endorsement of intervention than were they a state - as there is no state to hold accountable.
One reason I wonder if we should allow the Assad government to survive the Syrian civil war, if just to hold Assad's government to account.

I disagree. When the extant government doesn't want us in their country, why should we suddenly feel comfy invading them to stomp on a pest problem?

[Imperializt Russia]

Isn't that an argument against the Afghan War?

Iraq is currently somewhat happy to have intervention from a number of Arab and western states - of course, they're not hot on us invading them again, but the western powers are intervening - air power and special forces operations. The Gulf states are pouring men and materiel into Iraq.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Isn't that an argument against the Afghan War?

Shock that I'm not partial to that one.

[Imperializt Russia]

al-Qaeda was a state-sponsored group under the Afghan Taliban government, was it not?

[Geilinor]

I don't think they should have, since this is what ISIS wants us to do, but I don't really care if they do it. The overall effect this will have is minor. If anything, I have to hand it to Fox for showing this on daytime Television. How in the world did they get this by the Execs?

ISIS wants us to get roused against them?

[Ethel mermania]

Well theN you wind up with folks putting other folks in a cage and set fire to them. Or slaughterING christians for being christian. Do we have any obligation to protect the innocent?

To a point. Is it state-sponsored violence?

Does Jordan have a responsibility to come to Missouri to stop us from shooting black people?

The problem with any argument that isn't an absolute, you get to a point on the slope where it's absurd.

Is Mississippi as a deliberate policy, gunning down masses of blacks? Is isis as a policy killing christians? The answer we come to may be the same, but the question is very different.

[The Emerald Dawn]

al-Qaeda was a state-sponsored group under the Afghan Taliban government, was it not?

That committed an act of aggression against the US, on US soil. Which gives enough of a pretext to topple the government, and put another government in.

[New Werpland]

al-Qaeda was a state-sponsored group under the Afghan Taliban government, was it not?

That committed an act of aggression against the US, on US soil. Which gives enough of a pretext to topple the government, and put another government in.

Yeah that and the fact that they stoned people everyday.

[The Emerald Dawn]

That committed an act of aggression against the US, on US soil. Which gives enough of a pretext to topple the government, and put another government in.

Yeah that and the fact that they stoned people everyday.

Which is totally why we're involved militarily all over Africa. What with boots on the ground in each African nation.

Oh wait.

That's not what's happening.

[The Emerald Dawn]

To a point. Is it state-sponsored violence?

Does Jordan have a responsibility to come to Missouri to stop us from shooting black people?

The problem with any argument that isn't an absolute, you get to a point on the slope where it's absurd.

Is Mississippi as a deliberate policy, gunning down masses of blacks? Is isis as a policy killing christians? The answer we come to may be the same, but the question is very different.

That's my point. At what point is the balancing crux? I'm against throwing the cart before the horse for the sake of optics.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Oh no! It looks like Jordan can't handle this. Guess the US should just gallivant in and show them how to do this.

[Ethel mermania]

Oh no! It looks like Jordan can't handle this. Guess the US should just gallivant in and show them how to do this.

No, but a donation of a couple of napalm bombs would be nice.

[Ethel mermania]

The problem with any argument that isn't an absolute, you get to a point on the slope where it's absurd.

Is Mississippi as a deliberate policy, gunning down masses of blacks? Is isis as a policy killing christians? The answer we come to may be the same, but the question is very different.

That's my point. At what point is the balancing crux? I'm against throwing the cart before the horse for the sake of optics.

Do you draw a line is the first question ?
the second becomes where do you draw it?

Jordan seems to have drawn it much sooner than the pilot dying. but the pilot seems to have crossed a second line.

[United Russian Soviet States]

The truth should not be sugarcoated.

[Gauthier]

The mistake the US made wasn't necessarily invading Iraq or Afghanistan, it was in trying to build democracies where the culture doesn't allow for it. What the US should've done was what it did in the Cold War era, simply install puppet dictatorships. What really matters is that a tyrant and their dynasty is able to maintain complete control and they can be contained. The dictators can be left to their own devices within their own countries while the rest of the world can go on about its business.

I think removing Saddam from Iraq was a mistake because he had a perfectly solid system going on there.
He could've kept control and was a check to Iran's regional power.

>Argues setting up democracies in Middle East is wrong and dictatorships should be installed
>Argues Saddam could have kept Iran in check
>Misses how installing a dictatorship in Iran turned it into a theocracy today

[The Rich Port]

The mistake the US made wasn't necessarily invading Iraq or Afghanistan, it was in trying to build democracies where the culture doesn't allow for it. What the US should've done was what it did in the Cold War era, simply install puppet dictatorships. What really matters is that a tyrant and their dynasty is able to maintain complete control and they can be contained. The dictators can be left to their own devices within their own countries while the rest of the world can go on about its business.

I think removing Saddam from Iraq was a mistake because he had a perfectly solid system going on there.
He could've kept control and was a check to Iran's regional power.

>Argues setting up democracies in Middle East is wrong and dictatorships should be installed
>Argues Saddam could have kept Iran in check
>Misses how installing a dictatorship in Iran turned it into a theocracy today

I like to give myself some credit.

When I reluctantly engage in Armchair Machiavellian Shit, I at least engage in coherent conspiracy.

Unlike SOME people.

[New Werpland]

The mistake the US made wasn't necessarily invading Iraq or Afghanistan, it was in trying to build democracies where the culture doesn't allow for it. What the US should've done was what it did in the Cold War era, simply install puppet dictatorships. What really matters is that a tyrant and their dynasty is able to maintain complete control and they can be contained. The dictators can be left to their own devices within their own countries while the rest of the world can go on about its business.

I think removing Saddam from Iraq was a mistake because he had a perfectly solid system going on there.
He could've kept control and was a check to Iran's regional power.

>Argues setting up democracies in Middle East is wrong and dictatorships should be installed
>Argues Saddam could have kept Iran in check
>Misses how installing a dictatorship in Iran turned it into a theocracy today

You can't simply set up a democracy in the Middle East, the population will just vote in a sharia government. Ever wonder how Turkey managed to be a relatively modern/western state for a while before Erdogan? It's because the Turkish Army would depose of any overly Islamic president that was elected.

[Al Nahar]

The mistake the US made wasn't necessarily invading Iraq or Afghanistan, it was in trying to build democracies where the culture doesn't allow for it. What the US should've done was what it did in the Cold War era, simply install puppet dictatorships. What really matters is that a tyrant and their dynasty is able to maintain complete control and they can be contained. The dictators can be left to their own devices within their own countries while the rest of the world can go on about its business.

I think removing Saddam from Iraq was a mistake because he had a perfectly solid system going on there.
He could've kept control and was a check to Iran's regional power.

>Argues setting up democracies in Middle East is wrong and dictatorships should be installed
>Argues Saddam could have kept Iran in check
>Misses how installing a dictatorship in Iran turned it into a theocracy today

Every country is different. There is no one strategy for all countries. They fucked up in removing the government in Iran, and mind you the Khoemeinists in Iran weren't alone in their fight against the Shah there were many others too. So it didn't just breed 100% Islamist radicalists.

[Cetacea]

Considering Fox is one of the largest news organizations in America with high ratings, I woilfnt be so quick to dismiss them.

Ratings have NOTHING to do with journalistic integrity.

so its got more to do with the sensibilities of American citizens?

thats a little disconcerting

[The Rich Port]

Ratings have NOTHING to do with journalistic integrity.

so its got more to do with the sensibilities of American citizens?

thats a little disconcerting

As opposed to the sensibilities of vultures and Communists?

Unless you're going argue against journalistic ethics, older probably than you are, you should go watch FAUX News instead of posting here.

[Cetacea]

so its got more to do with the sensibilities of American citizens?

thats a little disconcerting

As opposed to the sensibilities of vultures and Communists?

Unless you're going argue against journalistic ethics, older probably than you are, you should go watch FAUX News instead of posting here.

What does it have to do with journalistic ethics? If Fox has the highest ratings in the US then their success is based on giving the US public what they want to see and hear, including this particular video.

Are you calling the Fox Watching American public vultures and communist?

[Gauthier]

As opposed to the sensibilities of vultures and Communists?

Unless you're going argue against journalistic ethics, older probably than you are, you should go watch FAUX News instead of posting here.

What does it have to do with journalistic ethics? If Fox has the highest ratings in the US then their success is based on giving the US public what they want to see and hear, including this particular video.

Are you calling the Fox Watching American public vultures and communist?

Just easily manipulated.

Indiana Man Got 'Riled Up' Watching Fox News, Drank 45 Beers, And Then Set Fire To A Mosque

[Atomic Energy]

On one hand, showing the video might desensitize people to horrible killing, similar to how we don't flinch when we see holocaust survivors or scars on slave's backs, but on the other hand, maybe it will remind people of the truly evil enemy that ISIS is.

[Gauthier]

On one hand, showing the video might desensitize people to horrible killing, similar to how we don't flinch when we see holocaust survivors or scars on slave's backs, but on the other hand, maybe it will remind people of the truly evil enemy that ISIS is.

Then again it's FOXNews, so they're probably trying to use it to say "All Muslims Do This".

[Atomic Energy]

On one hand, showing the video might desensitize people to horrible killing, similar to how we don't flinch when we see holocaust survivors or scars on slave's backs, but on the other hand, maybe it will remind people of the truly evil enemy that ISIS is.

Then again it's FOXNews, so they're probably trying to use it to say "All Muslims Do This".

I think the narrative is probably more like "Obama caused this"