Thread: The morality of beheading

Does anyone else out there wonder at the morality of various violent means of achieving a political end. An example would be the use of beheadings of westerners to encourage the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This seems barbaric and indeed it is. But is it worse than the use of cluster bombs, tanks, helicopter gun ships, machine guns, grenades mortars or any other means of killing people, used by our own governments to achieve their political ends.
It could be argued that beheading is far more moral because, first of all the target has been identified before the killing. Unlike cluster bombs or mortars, there is no risk of "collateral damage". No child is accidently going to be killed. Secondly, due to the intensive media coverage of these events, the impact of one single death is far greater than that of perhaps dozens of people killed in a much less personal manner, so "value for money" is much higher. The death of one person could achieve that of killing a thousand soldiers.

Yes. It's more barbaric than cluster bombs.

Duh.

Beheading as performed by the islamic animals doing it is simple murder.

Cluster bombs are aimed at legitimate distributed targets.

Naturally, only someone self-identifying as a "liberal" could establish a moral equivalency here.

beheading is encouraged in the Quran. enforced by Islamic imams. carried out by muslims. and it is taught to children, especially at holidays.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Cluster bombs are aimed at legitimate distributed targets.

Yeah, civilians. Which is why the use of cluster bombs is illegal...

Since when?

I thought they were illegal, but when I just went and googled, it looks like they are still legal to use, but there's a lot of restrictions placed on their use...

Thought I missed something.

Originally Posted by Aussieliberal

But is it worse than the use of cluster bombs, tanks, helicopter gun ships, machine guns, grenades mortars or any other means of killing people, used by our own governments to achieve their political ends.
.

if the US was trying to achieve political ends then it would be immoral. however, the US is in Iraq and the war on terrorism in self defense. we were attacked on 911 by Islamic terrorists who use beheading and other methods such as torture by burning, beating, using drills, and castration.

To use cluster bombs on undefined targets is immoral. The use of cluster bombs against enemy positions is not. The use of cluster bombs on captured enemy is immoral.

Originally Posted by sectionOne

if the US was trying to achieve political ends then it would be immoral. however, the US is in Iraq and the war on terrorism in self defense. we were attacked on 911 by Islamic terrorists who use beheading and other methods such as torture by burning, beating, using drills, and castration.

You seem to miss my point altogether. I am looking at morality. You just trot out the same tired old lines about islamic terrorism.
Is one highly specific and well publicised killing more or less moral than a multitude of deaths including many civilians if the same end can be achieved?
Also, what did the invasion of Iraq have to do with 9/11?