And there are still facile idiots who think that sending troops to fight ISIS was wrong:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Tuesday that it received a video showing fighters believed to be ISIS militants stoning a woman to death in the presence of her father after accusing her of adultery. The video, which the London-based monitoring group said was recorded in Hama, where ISIS has seized large swathes of land, showed the woman pleading her father for forgiveness. Two ISIS militants approached the father and pressed him to “forgive” his daughter because “she will depart life and meet God.” One of the militants then began explaining to the woman the reason why she had to be “stoned,” saying that she would set an example for other women not to practice adultery.
But there is good news:
President Barack Obama is sending up to 1,500 more soldiers to Iraq to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight ISIS, in a deployment that would almost double the total number of American troops there to 2,900.
Of course, it isn’t nearly enough but it’s something.
Clarissa's Blog 
I can’t imagine a Syrian muslim woman who dared voluntarily commit “adultery” in that social environment. Even if she dared, what is good in sex with a man who was raised in a misogynistic religious culture? I don’t see any reason why a local woman would commit adultery. An enormous risk for a horrible experience? Voluntarily? Yes, of course… More likely she was raped, and blamed for it. All of these executions seem to be show trials where the misogynistic idiots just want to stone women to death to feed their sick egos. If they were concerned about adultery that much, they would also want to punish men. Disgusting murderers.
LikeLike
As Camille Paglia once said “transgression is hot”. The very fact that such harsh punishments exist are an indication that it happens (rules and taboos give the sober observer a clear idea about what people in a particular culture get up to when they think no one’s looking).
Of course punishments like stoning are unspeakable savagery that people from cultures that practice it should be deeply ashamed of and change. And yes, there is a possibility that she was raped and blamed for it (or in an innocent situation that wasn’t sexual at all). But people are people and threats of death do not discourage people from illicit passion (quite the opposite).
As for the quality of the man – you don’t expect a goldfish to discover water. Even if all them men around a woman are primitive misogynists her natural …. desire is liable to attach to one or more of them.
LikeLike
Exactly, this is just an excuse for this sicko of a father to enact his diseased fantasy.
LikeLike
Why is this atrocity, terrible as it is, special enough for the US to send troops there? Such murders happens in other places as well. Should we send troops everywhere?
LikeLike
I’m sorry it’s not “special enough” for you. How many victims would make it “special enough”?
LikeLike
The other issue is that I stubbed my toe the other day and Obama didn’t send troops to remedy that. Americans first, I say.
LikeLike
“I stubbed my toe the other day and Obama didn’t send troops to remedy that”
How do you know? Perhaps there were just a few drones sent to scope out the situation before determining that troops on the ground were not (yet) needed.
If you sprain your ankle then all bets are off and you should probably get used to the idea of military occupation.
LikeLike
\\ I’m sorry it’s not “special enough” for you. How many victims would make it “special enough”?
What about intervention in Syria in pre-ISIS days?
Previously you said:
“OK, so who used the chemical weapons in Syria? The government or the rebels? […] Whatever the answer is, however, it is disturbing to consider a possible US invasion of Syria at this point. If the United Nations really existed, it could handle such issues.”
Why is using chemical weapons (in addition to killing and creating millions of refugees) not special enough, but one video of stoning is?
I don’t understand the logic.
Btw, Iran stones people too. Legally. So stoning or using chemical weapons by themselves are not reasons to send American troops. Only if you are not a real governing power, unlike Iran / Assad and like ISIS, America should interfere?
LikeLike
I find it very strange that people would start to pretend, all of a sudden, that “one video of a stoning” is all they have ever heard about ISIS.
LikeLike
I heard much more about Assad too, but you were against sending troops then.
LikeLike
This whole thread is freaking me out, seriously. First, somebody uses the royal “we” to discuss the sending of troops. Now I’m discussed as somebody who actually makes these decisions. I dont, the troops are already going there.
The US would have had to fight ISIS sooner or later. ISIS has made it abundantly clear that it’s battling the West and its symbolic representative, the US. This is a confrontation that nobody could have avoided. And I’m saying, that’s nothing to beat Obama over. He’s finally doing something internationally. And it’s something so obviously good that I have no idea what we are even fighting about.
What Assad has to do with any of this is escaping my understanding.
LikeLike
Ah, I just figured out the Assad connection. Many people base their vision of foreign policy either on “invade everybody all of the time” or on “hide and never look outside no matter what happens. ” I tend to look for more nuanced approaches which produces confusion. People don’t know what crowd to place me with.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s all we’ve got in the area of intellectual alternatives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ah, I just figured out the Assad connection. Many people base their vision of foreign policy either on “invade everybody all of the time” or on “hide and never look outside no matter what happens. ”
It is el, after all.
Btw, the war nerd brilliantly skewered Glen Greenwald over this exact issue. In his inimitable style, of course. The backdrop in this case is Mali.
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/war-nerd-vs-greenwald/
“Ever since GG blotted his copybook backing Iraq, he’s played the principled non-interventionist with all the irritating simple-mindedness of a reformed drunk. His new view, nice and simple, is that all intervention is bad, everywhere and every time.
So when GG hears that the French Army has intervened in Mali, his first-generation moral software picks up the word “intervention” and does the rest, a nice simple Jetsons way of dealing with a wiggly, complicated world. Intervention = Bad; Mali = Intervention; therefore Mali = bad. It’s as dumb as something by that buffoon Socrates.”
LikeLike
What a brilliant journalist, just outstanding.
The world outside of the US borders is not a homogeneous mass of undifferentiated “strange” folks. There is endless complexity. It is OK not to have the interest or the time to learn about the regional specificities. But in this case, it makes sense to abstain from judgment on the issue. I believe that first you read a lot, learn, get as informed as possible, and then begin to venture opinions. But the uniform “let’s invade no one ever / let’s invade everybody all of the time” is a childish position that I cannot respect.
For instance, recently I have started learning about Africa. I’m trying to get a basic grip on the continent’s geography, I’m reading News Africa, etc. But until I familiarize myself with specific issues of the continent, I’m not venturing opinions. It would be amazing if people stopped grossly simplifying and started working on more nuanced approaches. It is our world and it is up to us to appreciate it in its intense complexity.
And the same goes for internal politics of the country. I’m equally tired of “Obama is 100% evil” and “Obama can do no wrong” approaches. I’m still extraordinarily glad that Obama beat both his opponents in the 2 presidential elections. But it doesn’t mean I need to deify him.
And, again, the same goes for Putin. I obviously detest him but his Valdai speech that I analyzed is absolutely brilliant, honest, direct, and valuable. Yet I have already been accused of having been bribed (!!!) by Putinoids for publishing my analysis of Putin’s speech. People just can’t seem to tolerate nuance.
LikeLike
What do you think about Obama’s latest statement?
Report: Obama sees Assad ouster as key to defeating IS
WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama wants his advisers to review the administration’s Syria policy after determining it may not be possible to defeat Islamic State militants without removing Syrian President Bashar Assad, CNN reported on Wednesday.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4591565,00.html
LikeLike