Good. We can't stop these barbarians, but if we can be even justa a mild and temporary hindrance to their twisted thirst for blood, then so be it.
Given that you, implicitly, support the excesses of the French Revolution because they helped create 'a wonderful regeneration of French politics and society', I think the you are the last person to be labelling people as barbarians or bemoaning their 'twisted thirst for blood'.
Ok, how about another one then. Why do you favour waging war on ISIS (I do as well), given that that would lead to considerably more deaths, and, of course, the deaths of more innocents? You're hardly adopting any kind of consistent ethic here, getting all squeamish over the exections of women stranglers and cop killers whilst at the same time proudly declaring that ISIS must be stopped 'at all costs' (which of course, implies a willingness to see a large number of people killed in order to scotch ISIS). Why is this form of killing inherently unnacceptable and barbaric whilst the other one is totally morally justified. I mean, to be clear, you do agree, don't you, that the people being executed in this instance are not good people, on a moral par with those murderers and terrorists that you excorciate in ISIS?
I mean, this is the thing I've never understood. People wail and gnash their teeth and flap their hands and get in a tizzy about the state taking the lives of its own citizens, but then they're perfectly fine with it when done its done in battle, despite the fact, I'd wager (moving away from the ISIS example) that those being killed are of a far higher moral calibre than the vast majority of the human waste that is sentenced to death under American law. I repeat, why is one form of killing inherently unnacceptable whilst the other is not.
