Guest Guest Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Fighting Seabee Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Geez guys, you didn't read my second comment. You're all right. I'm a veteran so I'm just a tad biased. The real cowards are the ones who attack unarmed civilians on purpose. They are the bastards. Your grandmas brother is a hero to me and should be to all of us. He gave his life to save life. I believe that is the true intention of most American military personnel. Ofcourse some airforce guy sitting in an office controlling a predator and firing missiles at insurgents 4 miles away in the middle of the night isn't exactly fair. But hey, I'm biased. My comment about the ied bombers is purely based on emotion. I don't like those guys. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Originally posted by Ali-Baba: I dont think anybody insulted your grandmother's brother here, you really missed the point. I never said any one insulted my grandmothers brother but read the third post. This is what it said "Yeah just like fighter plane and bomber pilots .....". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Moral equivalence is a touchy subject. To my mind, how you go about war and the attitude you have to the taking of life make a difference. For instance, the bombers who tried to kill Benazir Bhutto on 18 October also killed about 130 innocent civilians surrounding her bus. They cared little for the lives of these people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, they may have actually intended to kill them because they were supporters of Mrs. Bhutto and therefore in their eyes "the enemy". Compare that with the way Western air crews in the modern era strive to avoid collateral damage. Missions are carefully planned to avoid killing innocent civilians. If civilians wander into the target area, spotters will frequently call off a fire mission even though it puts their own side's troops at risk. If the enemy surrenders to our troops, we take them prisoner. Compare that to the treatment of captives by our opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindry69 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think it's pointless debating the tools of war, they are all to a lesser or greater degree equally barbaric. What is important is why they are fighting and how much they are attempting to avoid civilian casulties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luderbamsen Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Oh how quickly this thread has run amok. I really expected more from this forum... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 It all boils down to perspective. If your on the side of the IED bomber then its perfectly reasonable and fulfilling to blow the **** out of your enemy, even though this means a few civilians get blown as well, its all for the cause anyway and those civilians that are on your side will understand. One guys freedom fighter has always been another guys insurgent/terrorist/whatever. I suppose the French Resistance never killed any French Civilians when they blew up a train in WW2? Or that Allied bombers never killed any non Germans either, I'm sure they did plenty. Assymetrical warfare has been around since the dawn of warfare, we just like to think that we in the West have a monoploly on deciding whats done and what shouldnt be. War is Pants......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodey Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Mines, ied's or ambushes have a long and lauded history in warfare. That isn't what we fight against now. There is a reason we call many of these people we fight terrorists. The great majority of ied's aren't used against our troups. They are used by a very small number of people to control the civilian population in Iraq. If someone in the neighborhood irritates the "freedom fighters" then an ied goes off under that civilian or his children. Or children taking candy or presnts from US troops. That is the coward, and worse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Originally posted by The Warrior: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ali-Baba: I dont think anybody insulted your grandmother's brother here, you really missed the point. I never said any one insulted my grandmothers brother but read the third post. This is what it said "Yeah just like fighter plane and bomber pilots .....". </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kite Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 regarding GSX's comment: It is an idealogical difference. It is NOT understandable to me how someone can kill their fellow countrymen while attacking an enemy. Nothing against you GSX, just my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Originally posted by Woodey: Mines, ied's or ambushes have a long and lauded history in warfare. That isn't what we fight against now. There is a reason we call many of these people we fight terrorists. The great majority of ied's aren't used against our troups. They are used by a very small number of people to control the civilian population in Iraq. If someone in the neighborhood irritates the "freedom fighters" then an ied goes off under that civilian or his children. Or children taking candy or presnts from US troops. That is the coward, and worse. That is just regular civilwar, nothing new Every country in civilwar and it's every freedom fighter group does the same. Friend or foe, no gray shades in between. Sadly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Originally posted by Kite: regarding GSX's comment: It is an idealogical difference. It is NOT understandable to me how someone can kill their fellow countrymen while attacking an enemy. Nothing against you GSX, just my opinion. That seems to be pretty easy thing to do. My countrymen were killing each others in war and in POW camps, so-called red- and whiteterror. And also fighting againt communistic Russians which tried to support red communistic side. Plus Germans supporting white side. I can understand it. Nation was in middle of crossroads, with it's just received indepence. Hostilities were about to emerge (as they finally did) and compromises were impossible to fit in picture. I quess in Iraq there's samekind situation right now. I would count it more to be civilwar than just a war. ps. Sorry about douple post. [ November 19, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Never fight fair.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLorre86 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Originally posted by Sixxkiller: Never fight fair.... Exactly. But to take it even further, there is no such thing as 'fair'. Fight by the means most effective with respect to your reasources, this is the point of war. Any concept of 'fairness' is simply a limitation. That is why war is such an ugly thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Originally posted by Kite: regarding GSX's comment: It is an idealogical difference. It is NOT understandable to me how someone can kill their fellow countrymen while attacking an enemy. Surely you haven't thought this through. "Soon we shall be engaged in battle. To drive the enemy out, we must fire on our homeland. This is the price of liberty." --R. Adm. Jaujard's speech from The Longest Day Any time forces fight to defend or retake their homeland, it involves killing fellow countrymen while attacking the enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Originally posted by Kite: regarding GSX's comment: It is an idealogical difference. It is NOT understandable to me how someone can kill their fellow countrymen while attacking an enemy. Nothing against you GSX, just my opinion. Mind you, killing fellow countrymen is a touchy subject in most freedom fighting movements. Nobody really wants it. But the reasoning is, as far as I can tell, if it takes the sacrifice of a few (or a lot) of said fellow countrymen to achieve victory/freedom, an stop further bloodshed, then so be it. Perhaps in the long run, fewer of them will need to die. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Its certainly strange to debate the pros and cons and various morality issues with regards to different ways of killing our fellow humans.......... Carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenowl Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Evenly matched opponents in war become attrition and even higher casualties than a clearly superior vs. inferior opponent. Want to see a very bloody war between two roughly equal opponents then look at WW1, WW2 or even Iran vs. Iraq. I think we all know how bloody Iraq would have been in Gulf War 1 or 2 if it had been a fair fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmium77 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 My grandmothers weren't cowards; one had 13 kids the other had 15. Tough old farm wives... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molotov_billy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Originally posted by Rollstoy: Absolutely not. Read "On Killing" by Grossman to find out how much training and indoctrination are, in fact, necessary to get soldier to kill the enemy. Best regards, Thomm Most likely has just as much to do with cultural and developmental experienes. Yes, the American kid who grew up playing Nintendo in a safe secure little world, protected from any real natural experiences will certainly need a lot of indoctrination to kill another human being. He hasn't experienced the true depths of human brutality and is generally never exposed to anything more traumatic than losing a grandma to old age. The typical afghani, chechen - most likely didn't recieve any real indoctrination or training, but was far more likely to experience the full depth of human reality - hard work, true tragic loss, life and death struggles on a daily basis - and from a very young age. While the american kid is playing "house" with his little sister on a sunday morning, maybe the afghani kid saw another human's insides blown onto the side of a building, maybe even someone he knew. Extreme cases perhaps, but then again insurgents and terrorist organizations are not fully representative of the places they come from. They're the ones with a bone to pick, or a desperate family to feed and no hope of a job. They've grown up in war and they're numb to it. Doesn't bother them to take another life in the most brutal fashion necessary to get their point across. We wonder why they can behead another human with not so much as a flinch; meanwhile the typical american male can't touch a house spider with his bare hands, has to go get the broom. 1930's farmboys certainly had an easier time of it. They worked hard every day, had a true understanding of the value of a life. They slaughtered cattle, hunted, lived in the elements. They most likely saw a number of their siblings die at birth or later through simple disease. Maybe they didn't have the stomach to cut the head off of a live human being, but they certainly didn't have any qualms about shooting another man who was going to shoot them - they already understood that this was what human struggle was about, didn't have to learn it from a department of defense video or a drill instructor. In other words? Maybe the Navy Seals should stop recruiting highschool football stars and should start recruiting from a population base who have the emotional experience to kill without remorse and endure true physical and psychological hardship. [ November 20, 2007, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 molotov_billy, Having to kill other humans or having to face human aggression is the ultimate fear of human beings, and does not leave anybody unscathed whether they attack or receive. People who saw off heads are criminals and/or psychopaths regardless from which society they come from. There are plenty of "Nintendo-playing" US citizens that are capable of violence or torture (remember Abu Gharib?). But 99.8% of the Afghans, Iraqis, or whatever just want to lead a safe, peaceful life. It is the same acknowledged "problem" of the military that the overwhelming majority of citizens behave normally, and have to be converted into "killing machines" by conditioning, that is, make them shoot to kill in combat as a (unconcious) reflex. I repeat: Read "On Killing". The history of warfare is ripe with examples of how soldiers resist to kill each other! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kite Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Rollstoy that reminds me of an excellent book I read earlier this year. If you haven't read it, it's really fascinating: Up Close And Personal: The Reality of Close-quarter Fighting in World War II http://www.amazon.com/Up-Close-Personal-Close-quarter-Fighting/dp/159114907X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195572471&sr=8-2 "While some authorities maintain that only twenty-five percent of all combat soldiers fired their weapons at the enemy because of the innate human reluctance to take another’s life, and others take the view that soldiers enjoy killing, the author of this book argues that combat is far more complex than either of these statements imply." I realize it's a different setting and a different time, but it's a great read. The things learned from that time are directly represented in how our soldiers are trained and conditioned today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molotov_billy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Rollstoy - point being, cultural and developmental differences are oftentimes replacements for the indoctrination and training that you're talking about. I'm not arguing that many people require training in order to kill other people. Abu Grahib - Yes there are specific examples to the contrary, and I even mentioned that specifically. I'm talking about visible trends of groups of people, not individuals. Originally posted by Rollstoy: People who saw off heads are criminals and/or psychopaths regardless from which society they come from. Criminality is completely a function of the society you live in. Removing the heads of enemies was common practice in a number of societies, not outlawed, but accepted and in some cases completely honorable. Point being, it's the developmental and cultural differences that give a person the *ability* to stomach such a thing. The fact that in Iraqi society beheading is illegal means absolutely nothing. What means something is that when insurgents behead people - they oftentimes force young children to see the event. What means something is that entire societies watch events such as this on their evening news every night and accept it as reality. What do american audiences see on their evening news - who Jessica Simpson is currently dating. You can dismiss them as all randomly psychotic if you like, but we both know that isn't true, otherwise we'd find the same thing just as often in every other society and condition. But we don't. We find them in specific places under specific conditions. It is the same acknowledged "problem" of the military that the overwhelming majority of citizens behave normally, and have to be converted into "killing machines" by conditioning, that is, make them shoot to kill in combat as a (unconcious) reflex.] Explain to me the vast majority of vietcong who received little combat training, let alone "indoctrination" on killing - yet they were perfectly capable of doing it just as often, or more often, as any trained American soldier. Are you saying that a person who grew up eating twinkies and watching Britney spears on their HD television has the exact same violent capabilities as a person who grew up seeing *real* violence and *real* human hardship every single day? And no, Bruce Willis violence and "doing the dishes for Mom" does not count. [ November 20, 2007, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 molotov_billy, Some weeks ago, we had a band of youths beat up a 12 year old boy and filming themselves with their handy videos while doing so. The boy had to be taken to the hospital. Do you think they often saw *real* violence in Vienna, a most peaceful town? Or do you think they just had their brain f.cked up by television and the internet and video games and what not and decided all by themselves to do this cowardly act? Suggested reading this time: Inside the Criminal Mind. Best regards, Thomm PS: I seriously doubt that the Vietcong were as good or better soldiers than the US ones. No way! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.