Justin: “A petition like this is intended for the people who have the power to make the decision to release or keep the captives — the captors”

My question wasn’t about the petition. I know why that stresses these points and I think it’s quite reasonable to do so. What I was less sure about was the purpose of mentioning it in this blog post, advertising the petition, which I take it was aimed at sympathetic people who are likely to sign it, rather than the captors. (Unless you mean to suggest that you expect guerillas in Iraq to be reading your blog. Which I take it that you don’t.)

Justin: “I think you ought to have been able to puzzle that one out without leaping immediately to the worst possible conclusion. But if you were sincere, then I’ll just suggest gently that such leaps do not generally produce sympathy in the person who you are addressing, and it is therefore unlikely to lead to fruitful communication.”

As I said already, I didn’t leap to a conclusion; I asked a question. Which you’ve partially answered above — thanks — although as I mention above I don’t understand all the details of your answer. If you’re going to give suggestions, gentle or otherwise, about interpretive charity, you ought to be able to puzzle out the difference between a clarificatory question and an accusation, and not read malicious intent into the former unless you have pretty strong reasons for doing so.

If they were missionaries or weren’t anti-imperialist, would you believe that they ought to be harmed after being captured?