Is that crazy? That I’d expect my government not to assault & rape people?

Yes, if you’re beating the war drum or even just idly tapping it then that is crazy.  Rape is part of war and it always has been.  If you don’t want American soldiers to sexually assault or rape anyone then oppose war.  It really is that simple.

So yeah, I guess what I’m saying is that those aren’t good parallels at all? I’d point at the North Korean kidnapping of journalists as a better example. Diplomacy won the day & hooray for Bill Clinton & all that jazz, but these are the official state forces acting in their official capacity against US citizens. So yeah. It gets my hackles up.

& for the record, yeah, I think there should be condemnation for US authorities engaging in criminal practices against foreign citizens, too. Is that crazy? That I’d expect my government not to assault & rape people?

So, yeah, that would be a pretty horrible principle.

Most people don’t run on principles, nor should they. Results are what matter. The question is what result you’re interested in (personally, I don’t have much interest in this, but “nobody gets beaten up or sexually assaulted by Egyptian cops, and ESPECIALLY not Americans” seems reasonable), and what action will most effectively lead to that result.

Dysfunctional people are going to do whatever they desire, without regard for the law. The law’s real purpose, or what the law’s real purpose should be, is to act as a deterrent to those who are still in control of their faculties, but are debating just what their response should be to adverse events.

I tend to view all those who break the simple law of *leave others the fuck alone*, as emotionally disabled. In other words I don’t buy the excuse, “I was drunk.”

The law used in any other way is tyranny, plain and simple.

You don’t really find out what your real principles are until you’re furious and want revenge.

See, THIS is when I get hawkish.

If you lose your principles under duress, you never had any to start with.

I was not aware that those publications all have the same owner, although my admittedly brief research doesn’t actually support that assertion in its entirety. But again, that’s clouding the issue, and has at its heart media plurality and ownership. What, in your opinion, is a publication that is not to be considered proganda? I ask that question quite genuinely, as I appreciate that different people have varying opinions regarding different news sources. For example, I would consider the BBC to be a reliable source, The Daily Mail rather less so, so I’d like to know what sources you hold in high regard.

The UK did sell arms and munitions to the Yugoslavian regime, it may not have been aid as such, but we certainly provided the authorities with means to assist in the atrocities committed there.

I’m curious as to what your definition of a “hipster journalist” is? Leaving aside the implicit criticism in your turn of phrase, a quick check of Wikipedia (ok, not necessarily always the most authorative source) shows that Eltahawy was a correspondent for Reuters for many years, and has written for the Washington Post, New York Times, and International Herald Tribune. That would hardly seem to fulfil any definition of “hipster journalist”, at least how I would see that term being applied.

I’m also curious as to how far you would extend your arguments. For example, would you argue that a reporter in a war zone deserves to be shot or injured were that to happen. The BBC correspondent Martin Bell was injured by shrapnel while working in Bosnia. He went in to a war zone knowing it was dangerous, but there’s no way you could argue that he deserved that injury, and I see absolutely no difference in this instance.

Furthermore, you have an antonymic definition of “coward” if it includes people who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way for a greater cause.