Jawa Exclusive: Uncensored Video of Taliban Psychopath Teach 12-Year-Old Boy How To Behead A Murdered "Spy"

Very, very strong content warning, though you'll have a chance to just read the background and avoid actually looking at the photos (which are obscene, but buried under multiple warnings).

A small grace note:

One of the leaders was rumored to be the now very dead Mullah Dadullah or his younger brother. In these frames Mullah Dadullah or a person with a close family resemblance can be seen coaching the young man on how to proceed.

At least Dadullah's been relieved of his position as Thug Scout troop leader.

Nearly as charming is Al Qaeda's torture manual (content warning: Graphic hand-drawn images, which in a way are even more repulsive than the 12-year-old decapitator).

Hey -- Andrew Sullivan? This is what torture looks like, you preening hysterical manbitch. Click -- but content warning. And this isn't even the worst of it.

Thanks to Vilmar, and also dri, who comments, "This is almost as bad as Abu Ghraib!"

Indeed. Almost. The drawing showing how to remove the eyes from a living human, or how to twist someone's head off in a vise, are nearly as repellent as the "torture" that so bothered Andrew Sullivan -- female interrogators smearing red ink on terrorists, pretending it to be menstrual blood.

But see, that's why I think we'll win this war: We're willing to perpetrate horrors like that that Al Qaeda cannot even dream of.

Question For Preening Hysterical Manbitch Sullivan: Given that the imperative against torture is absolute, praytell, is it permissible to waterboard in order to facillitate the capture of true torturers -- guys who jerk themselves off at the prospect of removing eyeballs from living humans?

If it's an absolute moral imperative to not torture -- and therefore also to stop torture -- aren't measures short of torture justified in preventing true torture?

To make it concrete. We know the captured US servicemen were tortured -- for real -- before being slaughtered like animals. If we had captured one of the Al Qaeda terrorists known to be responsible for their capture, is it Sullivan's claim that it would be immoral to waterboard him, thus permitting the actual torture and murder of three soldiers who are actually innocents?

It's preferrable for the innocent to suffer than for the monstrous -- those themselves who take a sexual delight in the true torture, maiming, and slaughter of others -- to experience some short-term discomfort?

This is the unshakable "moral" conviction of Andrew Sullivan?

Really?

No, um, "politics of doubt" enter into this strange moral calculus, eh?

Politics of doubt. Uh-huh. Seems to mean "my politics are doubltess correct, but you should have lots of doubt about any point upon which you disagree with me."

posted by Ace at 03:02 PM

| Access Comments