Dying A Natural Death: Sufficient Mercy For A Mass Murderer

i eagerly await the day alternate forms of energy make oil irrelevant and these countries can go back to being irrelevant.

i don't have data for this, but i bet there's a correlation between countries that export oil, countries that export terrorism and countries with corrupt governments. access to all that cash for oil makes corruption easy. saudi arabia, for example, "produces" nothing. sure they sell oil (extracted with western technology), but they don't "produce" oil. a cruel twist of geology just "gave" them all that oil. it's just too easy for them. governance amounts to figuring out how to stay in power and what to do with all that money that "god" essentially gave them.

Walter,

It gets worse, unsurprisingly. I had all along the uncanny feeling that this man may actually have been innocent, that the truth may have been worse than imagined. However, if he were innocent, Gadaffi would not have been paying out reparations.

Still, guided by a posting on R. Wolpe's thread, I sought and found this:

http://factindiya.blogspot.com/2009/08/analysis-injustice-over-lockerbie-by.html

I doubt Horovitz has the whole picture, and all the available evidence points to BP involvement in al-Megrahi's return, but Iranian participation in Lockerbee is far from unlikely.

Given BP's history in the region, its smell of oil in both IRan, in whose elections it recently interfered, big time, and Lybia, may, in the end, do us all in, if our own internationally incorporated oil companies don't do us first.

Walter,

On Pakistan, there is, of course, also the matter of our support of Osama bin Laden. The situation there is scary, getting worse by the day.

Walter,

I cannot disagree with you on Saudi Arabia. Ask those Pakistanis who are suffering on a daily basis what our support of SA and Zia has done to them.

God help us all, lest we reap what we have sown, and God help the people of Pakistan, for whom it is very, very late in the day.

farnaz,
remember early on, just after al-Megrahi was released, when people marvelled (or rolled their eyes) at the humanity of the scottish government? the discussion was whether their compassion was warranted or noble but misguided?

turns out, as you said, "No compassion, no mercy. OIL profiteering trumps all."

the shame of world's gradual embracing of gadaffi into the international community should pale in comparison to our embracing of saudi arabia. in addition to, but only because of OIL, saudi arabian exports include 15 of 19 9/11 highjackers, the "noble" koran, jihad madrassas etc...

fallaci was a mofo - in the most positive sense of the expression.

Hi Walter,

Re: Your post

It gets worse. We are shortly to normalize relations with that great avatar of democracy and tolerance, Muammar al-Gadaffi.

If you can possibly get hold of Oriana Falacci's "Interview with History," read her chapter on him. No doubt, we will all soon be reading his Little Green Book and be duly edified.

We have already learned, as have the Brits, that the price of oil wealth is terror. Gadaffi is not only a funder of terror, but a terrorist himself, no matter how much he may pay out in reparations. He will render to whom he must render in the interest of his objectives. I can only pray that we neither we nor the Brits nor anyone else suffer the consequences of oil-mongering.

My heart goes out to the families of the victims of the released mass murderer. Where, I wonder, was the "compassion" for them? No compassion, no mercy. OIL profiteering trumps all.

while i have "problems" with the scots (especially given the BP/oil link) for releasing the libyan jihadist, i have nothing but contempt for the other jihadists who hailed his return. to me, that's the noteworthy thing here.

perhaps it's actually not much of a story. "muslims celebrate jihadist" is along the lines of "dog bites man" - nothing surprising there.

Farnaz

Thank god you are back. Now some decent posts!

Hmmm, if indeed BP is guilty of the crimes set forth by the probability wave, "Farnaz1Mansouri1 ", they probably take their cues from the atrocities graphically depicted in the OT.

To wit:

"Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.

Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)

Joshua:

Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.

Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."

Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.

Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.
Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.

Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon

Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.

1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.

David:

2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.

2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.

2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.

1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.

2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.

2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.

2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans

TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible."

But then the followers of Judaism are god's chosen people. It says so in the bible:

According to the Torah, Israel's character as the chosen people is unconditional as it says in Deuteronomy 14:2, "For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth."

This is thee weirdest topic yet.

Well, why don't we just declare war on Scotland, and invade with our new beloved allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Of course that would require an invasion of Britain, which would give us a pretext to reform their "Godless" health care system and make them more like us. And while we're at it, we could attack France too, and stamp out, once and for all, their fancified ways and all that weird French cookn'.

Back to the topic:

The decision to release Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi had nothing to do with mercy, everything to do with OIL, also spelled "British Petroleum," generally the determining factor in UK Middle East policy, regardless of the issue.

This was seen most recently in
British "interventions" in the Iranian election, on which I posted here extensively.

Ain't no shame in their game. Never has been.

The world's largest oil company, BP has always supported mass murderers, started the chain of events that brought us to the Iran we have today. It is guilty of countless human rights violations, has gotten away with murder right here on US soil. (See Wikipedia.)

Lybian oil cried out to BP, and BP did hear.

Read, and weep.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814974.ece

"Much is written about these topics in rabbinic literature."

WHich rabbinic literature?

In fact, in no synagogue, at no time, will anyone ever hear any rabbi state that "the" Jews are the "chosen people." One does hear, ad nauseum, from priests, bishops, and the like, that the Catholics are "God's people." Ditto, some ministers regarding Protestants, many imams.

Then there are those Christians/Catholics who are expecting us Js at Jerusalem at the end of time, deeming us "chosen" for whatever their infected grey matter has dreamed up.

As noted below, "chosen-person anxiety," on which I have written elsewhere, is best understood as supersessionist angst.

Let go of the Torah, oh ye sufferers, which was not written for you, get your own book, take two valium, read widely and well, and you'll recover.

Hmmm, this probability wave named "Farnaz1Mansouri1" does have a familiar tone to his/her rants.

And from Wikipedia:

"In Judaism, chosenness is the belief that the Jews are the chosen people: chosen to be in a covenant with God. This idea is first found in the Torah (five books of Moses) and is elaborated on in later books of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics in rabbinic literature."

"According to the Torah, Israel's character as the chosen people is unconditional as it says in Deuteronomy 14:2, "For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth."

Susan writes:

...in order to lead them out of slavery in Egypt, he struck down all of the Egyptian first-born. But this biblical story is integral to the worldview of believing Jews.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Err, no, it isn't. (You say you live in Manhattan??)

SUsan writes: "I also don't believe that the Jews are God's chosen people."

Who does? This view is attributed to Jews by Christians. It is part and parcel of Christian supersessionist anxiety (see "Faith and Fratricide," Rosemary Ruether), and has no meaning among Jews. (Chosen for what?)

Alternatively, it is the view of some fundamentalist Protestants, and, from what I hear some Catholics, of late. "The Jews" (sic) are chosen to witness something or other, will gather at Jerusalem and be converted once time ends.

Don't hold your breath. ONe wonders, Susan, when "the Christians" will find something other than Jews to discuss, why we must figure so heavily in their prose, etc.

Susan,

All points well-taken. However, this decision had nothing to do with mercy. It had to do solely with British Petroleum, as is generally the case with UK policy in the Middle East, seen most recently in its
its "interventions" in misreporting on the Iranian election, on which I posted here extensively.

Ain't no shame in their game. Never has been.

The world's largest oil company, BP has always supported mass murderers, started the chain of events that brought us to the Iran we have today. It is guilty of countless human rights violations, has gotten away with murder right here on US soil. (See Wikipedia.)

Lybian oil cried out to BP, and BP did hear.

Read and weep.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814974.ece

Daniel12,

Just wanted to express my appreciation for your most recent post just below. There's something haunting about that *beautiful idea* you raise.

Susan Jacoby: "I guess I'm a bad atheist because I attended a performance of Haydn's The Creation this weekend. A good atheist should only listen to Bach's "profane" cantatas."

Uh . . .

Seriously, Susan—get over this quasi-puritanical and pretentiously elitist "atheist" thing and just be a loose, non-observant Neo-Pagan—it's like agnosticism with benefits. You get to eat what you like, there's no special spiritual edict requiring the mutilation of your naughty bits and you can listen to any music you like. Just crank up Bach's "Christ Lag In Todesbanden" or Allegri's "Miserere" ot Metallica's "Enter Sandman" and dig the changes, man. Eris may not be merciful & all that but she sure knows how to boogie.

The opening of Haydn's Creation is quite awesome, is it not?

Pretend if you were to get a thousand people in a room and all these people had a sexually transmitted disease. Then pretend every person were to say it is not self-inflicted. What you have essentially is everyone in the room looking at everyone else with bitter looks, not a single person accepting responsibility for his actions.

But let that not bother anyone in our modern democracy. We do not need the word noble at all do we? No, along with the dismissal of God and Christ goes one of the most beautiful thoughts that every occurred to the human race: that a person would believe everything in the world which is wrong is his fault--that it is his personal responsibility to correct all that is wrong in the world.

Christ died for all man the story goes. But apparently the beautiful idea goes with the dismissal of religion. I congratulate CCNL. He never tires of criticizing religion. But apparently in killing religion he has not entirely killed in himself the beautiful idea of taking responsibility for something even though someone else was involved. The beautiful idea lives in him because the concept of self-infliction still exists.

But apparently for others...And how amusing...Atheists touting rationality, reason, how religion is so evil, how to dismiss religion is to move toward a better morality...And not at all with the courage and grace to give Christ his due.

Hmmm, this probability wave named "Muckenfuss" does have a familiar tone to his/her rants. Anyone want to venture a guess as to who this might be?

With respect to Libya as as state who sponsors terrorists:

"On May 15, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that the United States was removing Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and would soon resume normal diplomatic relations with the one-time pariah."

www.cfr.org/publication/10855

“Muckenfuss, you are taking an unreasonably narrow view of what "self-inflicted" means, and one that obviously was not intended by CCNL1.”

CLIMACUS,
You put a reasonable argument in favor of CCNL1. But because the context is within CCNL1 posts, the more relative the word is the more MUCKENFUSS’s narrow interpretation is appropriate. Humor kills solemnity. I just LOL when I read it. Agree with Susan.

Climacus wrote:

""to the exclusion of all other causal agents" that doesn't belong in a realistic definition of "self-inflicted","

Brother do yourself a favor: if you are ever in trouble with the law, do NOT act as your own attorney.

This has become tedious. I decline to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.

Muckenfuss, you're wrong. It's the "to the exclusion of all other causal agents" that doesn't belong in a realistic definition of "self-inflicted", which was my point. Think about it. "To inflict", per Webster's, is "to cause (something unpleasant) to be endured." But we know that causation is a multi-layered concept, and that events can (and perhaps generally do) have more than one cause. If someone's conduct is sufficiently effective in the chain of events leading to an event, we can say that it was a cause, even a primary cause depending on the circumstances, of the event (even though there are almost always other conditions and agencies without which the event would not have occurred).

I daresay that if I were willingly to throw myself under a bus, my injuries could fairly be said to be self-inflicted, notwithstanding that from another perspective they could also be said to have been inflicted by the bus or by the bus driver. Through conduct most would deem negligent or reckless, I would have caused myself (though hardly independently of other causes or conditions) to endure something unpleasant. Ergo, self-inflicted.

Part One

You have no concept of the importance of language/linguistics or of words.

Part Two

Go back to school.

Part Three

Stop writing.

Words such as "self-inflicted" and "caused by others" or "caused by something outside oneself" are usually--not just sometimes--used quite relatively. In fact we are rarely precise with such words. There are so many cases in which one person will say a person's actions were self-inflicted and someone else will say no, the action was caused by others doing such and such or caused by such and such reason.

And the reason why all these arguments occur is because humans forever argue about who or what is to blame and where to assign responsibility. That someone were to suggest that self-inflicted is a precise word in the English language is a quite correct statement. The problem is people do not use the word precisely--and they probably never will. One man will use it to describe an action another man will say is not self-infliction at all but caused by others or something outside oneself, which are precise terms as well used relatively and with imprecision by humans.

These words are forever tainted with human interest--really they are probably the words most tainted with human interest. Or certainly right up there with any other words. It would actually be interesting to chart the words in the English language which are precise but used imprecisely due to human interest--the words used most commonly with this problem.

CCNL1 wrote:

"Libya is a backward Moslem country stuck in the idiocy of the koran which calls for the death of all infidels. And Libyans cheer all those who carry out these barbaric acts. It is time to put Libya back on the list of terrorist countries."

And CCNL1 continues to think with his sphincter. Libya has committed no terrorist act against the US. A Libyan citizen did that. You are, predictably, mixing apples and oranges. Nor did Libya release the mass murderer from prison. Scotland did that. Using your constipated logic, we should put Scotland on the list of terrorist countries

Off topic yet again.

If the probability wave, "Muckenfuss", continues on this track he or she will probably self-inflict a blog banning as he/she/it continues to violate blog rules. Be wary however since there are many probability waves splashing dirt all over the On Faith blog rules.

On the topic:

Libya is a backward Moslem country stuck in the idiocy of the koran which calls for the death of all infidels. And Libyans cheer all those who carry out these barbaric acts. It is time to put Libya back on the list of terrorist countries.

Daniel12 wrote:

"If we want to laugh about "self-inflicted" in this case then we might as well laugh about in any case of "self-infliction" because we can always introduce some cause outside a person to get the person off the hook"

No, we cannot. Words have specific meanings. English is a very precise language. If you cannot summon the words to say exactly what you mean, perhaps you should not be writing.

Climaxus wrote:

""Self-inflicted" does not necessarily mean "inflicted on oneself by oneself to the exclusion of all other causal agents""

That is precisely what 'self-inflicted' means. What do you not understand about English?

Muckenfuss said: "It is not, figuratively, literally or speculatively, possible for an std-free person to infect himself with any std. Period. Such infections ALWAYS require a second person/entity who/which is/are infected. Whether the infection results from unprotected sex, eating infected monkey meat, or being bitten by infected lab animals, a second entity is ALWAYS required."

Muckenfuss, you are taking an unreasonably narrow view of what "self-inflicted" means, and one that obviously was not intended by CCNL1. No one denied that a second entity is required. "Self-inflicted" does not necessarily mean "inflicted on oneself by oneself to the exclusion of all other causal agents". If I intentionally engage in a game of "reverse" Russian roulette - the kind where each player points the gun at the other player's head rather than at her own - and am injured, would you deny that my injuries are in some sense "self-inflicted"? What about if I recklessly throw myself into the path of an oncoming driver? If I (or my estate) then sue the other roulette player or the driver for my injuries, what is the obvious objection? That I bear a great degree of responsibility for my own injuries, of course. Even though I did not technically shoot myself or drive over myself, I did impose the outcome upon myself.

By these examples, I do not mean to compare the unreasonableness of these behaviors to any particular sexual conduct - so let's not argue over that - but merely to suggest that an outcome can be intuitively understood as to some degree "self-inflicted" without occurring in total isolation from other agents (as you would apparently have it).

test

wow...rubytues63,

what a great post. especially where you said,

"they have reinforced the western stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are barbarians, that the slaughter of non-Islamist infidels is not only an excusable but an honorable undertaking, that Islam is intent on death and jihad.

These stereotypes may not be true, but it is hard to refute what we see with our own eyes.

And to the Arab world: Do not curse the West if you show us a false image of who you are or what you believe. You have no one to blame but yourself."

my question relates to your calling it a "stereotype". how pervasive does a behavior have to be before a "stereotype" becomes accurate?

as you mentioned, the libyan people's exalting of him is disgusting. he killed innocent people. these were not soldiers occupying his country. he went out of his way to kill innocent people. he thought it was the right thing to do, and so did his fellow muslims in libya. the only people celebrating in the streets after 9/11 were muslims. the only people threatening to kill salmon rushdie (sp?) are muslims. the only people videotaping beheadings are muslims. etc, etc, etc...

Test.

Test.

wow...rubytues63,

what a great post. especially where you said,

"they have reinforced the western stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are barbarians, that the slaughter of non-Islamist infidels is not only an excusable but an honorable undertaking, that Islam is intent on death and jihad.

These stereotypes may not be true, but it is hard to refute what we see with our own eyes.

And to the Arab world: Do not curse the West if you show us a false image of who you are or what you believe. You have no one to blame but yourself."

my question relates to your calling it a "stereotype". how pervasive does a behavior have to be before a "stereotype" becomes accurate?

as you mentioned, the libyan people's exalting of him is disgusting. he killed innocent people. these were not soldiers occupying his country. he went out of his way to kill innocent people. he thought it was the right thing to do, and so did his fellow muslims in libya. the only people celebrating in the streets after 9/11 were muslims. the only people threatening to kill salmon rushdie (sp?) are muslims. the only people videotaping beheadings are muslims. etc, etc, etc...

wow...rubytues63,

what a great post. especially where you said,

"they have reinforced the western stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are barbarians, that the slaughter of non-Islamist infidels is not only an excusable but an honorable undertaking, that Islam is intent on death and jihad.

These stereotypes may not be true, but it is hard to refute what we see with our own eyes.

And to the Arab world: Do not curse the West if you show us a false image of who you are or what you believe. You have no one to blame but yourself."

my question relates to your calling it a "stereotype". how pervasive does a behavior have to be before a "stereotype" becomes accurate?

as you mentioned, the libyan people's exalting of him is disgusting. he killed innocent people. these were not soldiers occupying his country. he went out of his way to kill innocent people. he thought it was the right thing to do, and so did his fellow muslims in libya.

Test.

What CCNL meant by self-inflicted STDs is the careless behavior of a person which can result in disease. If we want to laugh about "self-inflicted" in this case then we might as well laugh about in any case of "self-infliction" because we can always introduce some cause outside a person to get the person off the hook. For example, being overweight because of food companies. Murdering people because one's parents were not nice--or too nice perhaps. In other words, if we move away from "self-infliction" we move only toward blaming external cause, the environment in some way--which is of course an abandonment of a particular word in the English language apparently no one much has heard about: responsibility.

Off topic but necessary:

Hmmm, and again that "probability wave" Muckenfuss makes another appearance distracting and obfuscating with respect to the topic of the day.

With respect to the word "self-inflicted" i.e. Inflicted or imposed on oneself-- one who becomes infected with a STD did not protect himself or herself in some sexual encounter outside monongamy as akin to not protecting himself or herself from getting the flu from a second persosn by not getting a flu shot.

Climacus wrote:

""Without opining on CCNL1's suggestion that such people be excluded from health coverage, it's worth pointing out that Susan Jacoby is wrong to dismiss self-inflicted STDs as a humorous impossibility."

Evidently you, like CCNL1, have mistaken your sphincter for your cerebral cortex. It is not, figuratively, literally or speculatively, possible for an std-free person to infect himself with any std. Period. Such infections ALWAYS require a second person/entity who/which is/are infected. Whether the infection results from unprotected sex, eating infected monkey meat, or being bitten by infected lab animals, a second entity is ALWAYS required.

Nor was CCNL1 thinking of your idiotic drivel about continuing torts. He is not capable of any sort of abstract thought. If it had occurred to him, he would simply have quoted from a source...which is his typical substitute for original thinking.

But it does appear that each of you is good company for the other.

Climacus wrote:
"

The release of the Lockerbie bomber is one of those things that I disagree with, while at the same time respecting the compassionate intent of the Scottish government.

The problem with making any rational decision about what to do with Abdul Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is that he has become more of a symbol than a real person. His name has become synonymous with the wholesale butchering of innocents. Society feels a greater need to make a stand with symbols. We feel a greater need to show the full measure of our anger and disgust toward someone whose acts have earned him a home on the lowest rung of hell.

Americans are angry because a terrorist was shown compassion during his few remaining days. A decision I disagree with, but a noble decision none the less.

What makes me mad is the glorious reception al-Megrahi received upon his return to Libya. Decorum demands a reciprocal gesture of thanks from the Libyan government and instead this war criminal is treated like a hero by the government that likely sent him to perform the crime. Have they no humility or shame? Is everyone in that country a barbarian – to publically honor a mass murderer in this way?

The Scots will be forgiven their compassion, if indeed such an act needs to be forgiven.

The Libyans have walked into a political minefield that affects the whole Arab world. With the eyes of the whole world upon them, they have failed to realize that their actions have symbolic importance too. Through the parades and speeches honoring this man, they have reinforced the western stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are barbarians, that the slaughter of non-Islamist infidels is not only an excusable but an honorable undertaking, that Islam is intent on death and jihad.

These stereotypes may not be true, but it is hard to refute what we see with our own eyes.

And to the Arab world: Do not curse the West if you show us a false image of who you are or what you believe. You have no one to blame but yourself.

From Susan Jacoby:

I have posted further commentary and sources about sexually transmitted diseases on my blog today. You can access it by clicking "All Posts" at the top of this page. As many of you will recall, I can't answer in the comments page because of the "imposter" who appeared some time ago, so I've done a separate post on the panelists' blog so that you'll know it's from me. It won't be displayed on the home page because it is not a response to this week's question about Lockerbie.

I've taken the trouble to do this because ignorance about STDs is a major public health issue--it happens to be a subject I've written about over the years for magazines--and I don't want this thread to be used by ignorant people, who know nothing about the medical facts, to spread misinformation about something so important.

Part one.

Should the Lockerbie bomber have been set free?

I entered a discussion on this problem where as the pattern of the discussion developed it turned out more of the Americans than not condemned releasing the bomber and the Scottish (and friends of Scotland on this question) responded by listing all of the U.S.'s moral shortcomings.

In other words, the surface difference between Scotland (and Scotland's friends) and the U.S. was something to the effect that (on the Scot's part) Scotland had demonstrated morality the U.S. cannot understand, and on the U.S.'s part that Scotland had not demonstrated morality but at best only weakness.

Part two.

So essentially in the discussion we had Scotland schooling the U.S. on morality for every criticism the U.S. made of Scotland. So essentially we had Scotland rubbing its "superior" morality in our face. And of course any American would resent being schooled in morality by another people.

In fact any person would resent being schooled in morality. And we can enlarge this to the general psychological fact that people resent having a person do something which is clearly meant to be morally superior, clearly meant to evoke a like response on the part of oneself. People resent being forced into morality like that. It is just a subtle way of demanding a person be moral.

And we can enlarge that in turn to the general psychological observation that people hate to be given things which are clearly meant to force a like response--and people especially resent that the more it is something of a handout,--and God forbid that someone would give one something which not only comes with lofty airs but which cannot be paid back.

Basic psychological facts. Which makes it all the more interesting that Scotland (and its friends) is all too willing to rub its superior morality in the U.S.'s face but apparently freeing the Lockerbie bomber IS NOT rubbing morality in the Islamic world's face. No, freeing the Lockerbie bomber is an act of mercy with no strings attached. Right. But even if no strings were attached, Islam is supposed to be pleased being schooled in morality (because it still cannot help but be seen as such) by Scotland?

Part three.

Of course not. If the U.S. resents being schooled in morality by Scotland and friends then how can we not expect for Islam to seethe, being schooled in morality by the infidel who does not follow the ways laid down by Mohammed, which is the law, the true morality in the world? Scotland is either truly naive, which I suppose makes its act of mercy a true moral action with no strings attached, or it is being sly--all too willing to rub its superior morality in anyone's face should it be provoked to the degree necessary.

But again, even if Scotland is naive and truly moral, well basic psychology dictates that can be even more infuriating. We all despise goody two shoes. When faced with innocence which persists into adulthood (not the innocence of children) most everyone wishes for it to be spoiled. People just do not like being made to feel morally inferior.

And so predictably we do not have Islam praying to high heaven in thanks for the generosity of Scotland but instead cheering the Lockerbie bomber as a hero. Unquestionably the Lockerbie bomber should not have been set free. In fact he should have been executed long ago. That would simultaneously not be rubbing morality in Islam's face and demanding respect, that certain bounderies should not be crossed or else.

But let the Scots drink their whiskey and bask in their mercy. Just do not stumble into the street and breath that whiskey breath in our faces. Please, Scots, do not go that far. Demonstrate to us as well your great gift for mercy.

Off topic but since the subject was brought up:

"Muckenfuss" returns yet again. Hmmm this probability wave continues its quest for recognition but who is he/she really??

And we thank Climacus for his/her support: i.e

"Without opining on CCNL1's suggestion that such people be excluded from health coverage, it's worth pointing out that Susan Jacoby is wrong to dismiss self-inflicted STDs as a humorous impossibility. The notion is neither humorous nor an impossibility. Indeed, in the subfield of tort law dealing with the transmission of STDs, concepts such as contributory negligence, comparative negligence and assumption of risk are serious subjects, and they are concerned with the extent to which an STD has been, to put it simply, "self-inflicted" in a given case."

Posted by: Climacus | August 25, 2009 2:30 PM

And maybe Susan could enlighten us with some specific studies about those hidden STDs in the monogamous group? I believe such studies if they exist are faulty because there is always that question, was said relationship really monogamous?

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"CCNL1 gets the unintentional humor prize for last week, since he wants anyone with "self-inflicted STDs" excluded from universal health coverage. STDs are impossible to "self inflict.""

Hilarious! After all this time, CCNL1 actually makes a stab at original thought, and this is what he comes up with.

Persiflage,

Thee:
"The Taliban are the remnants of the forces we once supported to defeat the Soviet Union.
The past does come full circle to haunt....."

The Great Snake slavers for its tasty tail-tip, and cuts from Nothing a Ducat that apes the sun.

Re hemp:

Much of my clothing is made of hemp. Very comfortable - breathes in the heat.

I wonder how many pairs of trousers it would take to match an ounce of opium. (:^U

Thee:
"Perhaps most folks believe that Ronald Reagan defeated Russia single-handedly by virtue of his incredible charm - whereas the truth is that their adventure in Afghanistan all but bankrupted their nation..........with our dedicated help in supplying the proper weaponry, of course."

You'd think that lessons would be learned, eh. One could almost construct a geopolitical equation: PROXY WARS = BLOWBACK.

But the doctrine that holds sway (still!) seems to be:

Where atheistic commies fail,
laissez faire god-trusters will prevail!

Onofrio, your points are well taken. I've lost a friend or two over my freely expressed disagreement with the war in Iraq, and now Afghanistan. And this coming from a Vietnam vet my own self.....

The USA is setting itself up for a fall - forgetting the previous fate of the Soviet Union (which we helped engineer) as an object lesson of the recent historical past.

How much will it cost to replace opium as the premiere cash crop in Afghanistan, and with what might it be replaced? The Taliban are the remnants of the forces we once supported to defeat the Soviet Union.
The past does come full circle to haunt.....

I vaguely remember the non-smokable version of the hemp plant as (seriously) suggested by comedian Woodie Harold a decade or so back....or was that for the Columbian economy? Can't quite recollect.......

Perhaps most folks believe that Ronald Reagan defeated Russia single-handedly by virtue of his incredible charm - whereas the truth is that their adventure in Afghanistan all but bankrupted their nation..........with our dedicated help in supplying the proper weaponry, of course.

From the frying pan into the fire, as the saying goes......

The fact is, prostate cancer is not such a bad way for a terrorist to die, all things considered.....a lot of us guys (both famous and obscure) suffer the same fate.... without all the fireworks and the herioc welcome home.

I find the footage of the murderer's triumphal reception back home in Libya most disturbing.

Apparently, the return of the killer is being dressed up as a vindication of sorts. I agree that it were better he died in prison, away from his fans, away from his native soil.

My fond dream is that the killer's colleagues let down their guard and contact him for *auld lang syne*, thus revealing their whereabouts and allowing US or UK intelligence services to nab them.

On the other hand:
"Just imagine what the fate of a westerner would be if caught in Libya after arranging a bombing that killed 270 Libyans."

Moot. The Libyans would never catch him, because he'd be jetting back to base at Mach-whatever, having deployed his payload.

As for "the cultural values of Islamist terrorism, which places no value on the lives of "infidels." "
Brown people in Muslim countries are rated fairly low in the value calculus of *Western* punitive warmongering. What's a few thousand, in the greater scheme? Regrettable?

If one counts all those ordinary Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis killed by well-intentioned *precision* US whoopsies, I daresay the total numbers far exceed 270.

Ah, but *collateral damage* in a *good cause* is not as *evil* as deliberate terrorism ... or so I've heard.

Without a doubt, this terrorist should have expired behind bars. Mercy for the dieing does not include freeing a mass murderer with a terminal illness - and who showed no mercy for the hundreds of innocents that he (and unidentified others) sent to their fear-filled deaths as the result of a terrorist act.

This was an incredible travesty of justice for all the obvious reasons, as recounted in Susan's essay.

One wonders if Scotland would have freed the recent mass murderer of Dublane under similar circumstances, the psychopath that killed 16 school children and a teacher, before killing himself. Perhaps that would have been a wee bit close to home, for such a profound demonstration of the same mercy to pass muster in Edinborough.

And by the way, how did the issue of abortion enter this discussion?? Never let it be said that an political activist lets an opportunity go by.......

I'm not completely sure that I agree with Susan as regards capital punishment, but do agree that the potential for executing the innocent is a monumental complication.

When unrepentent murderers live long lives behind bars, I'm not sure that justice is served.....on the other hand, I'm not moving to Texas anytime soon.

We all die, but murderers should never die in comfort. It's very hard not to take wanton muder personally - it's simple human nature, and a quality of empathy that most murderers lack.

"As anyone who has read my Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge (1984) will know, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty -- not because I think most murderers can be "rehabilitated" but because I believe that capital punishment coarsens and degrades the fabric of every society that imposes it."
--------
And what about capital punishment for say, a five month old foetus which has done no wrong? Such a punishment, merely for existing, is legal in the US right now.

Note, I am NOT talking about the one celled creature which has just come into existence as a result of fertilization. I am talking about a developed being which has well developed organs (and has had them for more than three months).

This is a serious question.

Re "Last Week in Review", it should be reasonably apparent that by "self inflicted-STDs", CCNL1 was referring to instances in which person contracted the disease as a proximate result of his or her own negligent conduct (for example, knowingly engaging in risky behavior).

Without opining on CCNL1's suggestion that such people be excluded from health coverage, it's worth pointing out that Susan Jacoby is wrong to dismiss self-inflicted STDs as a humorous impossibility. The notion is neither humorous nor an impossibility. Indeed, in the subfield of tort law dealing with the transmission of STDs, concepts such as contributory negligence, comparative negligence and assumption of risk are serious subjects, and they are concerned with the extent to which an STD has been, to put it simply, "self-inflicted" in a given case.

My more conservative aquaintances were outraged that Scotland hadn't put this guy to death. Then, most were a little taken aback when I told them that we were the only industrialized Western nation that still imposes the death penalty. Then, that national insanity kicked in and they were proud of that fact even though we also have the highest murder rate in that same demographic, inspite of the death penalty.

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a very good attempt to try to make some sense of our national preoccupation with violence, though he admits that the movie doesn't really reach any solid conclusions.

The level of violence and disregard for fellow humans in this nation makes it clear that your statement "capital punishment coarsens and degrades the fabric of every society that imposes it." has already been proven true in the USA.