Human shields

molten_dragon · Mar 12, 2010

I look at it this way. If either side had not taken the actions they did, then the human shield would not have died. That makes both sides responsible for the death.

Andalublue · Mar 12, 2010

Goobieman said:
Does the presence of a human shield create a legal and/of moral imperative to not attack a legitimate military target?

If it is known that human shields are being used and that those shields are civilians, then yes it does create that moral and legal imperative.

I didn't vote because you didn't give me a "both" option.

Tucker Case · Mar 12, 2010

Goshin said:
Yup, and he's going to have nightmares and PTSD and **** for the rest of his life anyway, most likely.

Exactly. The guys gonna live with it the rest of his life, and to add anything to that would be sadistic, IMO.

When I looked at the poll question, my answers were related to the idea of the "brass" giving the order to shoot. One of my biggest considerations is what you describe above. When I was talking about "highest order of strategic significance" I was thinking about situations like the one you described.

Situations where the decision to shoot was definitely going to save lives.

It doesn't necessarily need the immediacy of what you described, but one of the reasons there is a moral imperative to make damned sure the action is justifiable, IMO, is that the people who have to do the shooting are going to live with that action for the rest of their lives.

They need to be able to trust that when they are given an order of that nature, there is no other option, and that they've been given the order for a damned good reason. It probably won't totally stop the nightmares and PTSD they'll face in the future, but it might decrease the frequency and intensity.

Ikari · Mar 12, 2010

Apocalypse said:
You're talking about the most literal meaning of fault.
That the person that pulls the trigger is at fault for killing the innocent, because he has pulled the trigger.

Of course, because pulling the trigger isn't an empty effect. It causes something, namely a projectile to be launched. That projectile is deadly. If you don't pull the trigger, a person does not die. If you do, a person does. Thus you have some role in the death of the other person.

All this blah blah blah it's not their fault crap is all attempts to remove responsibility so that people can feel better about killing other people. So that we don't have to think about it as mowing down innocents, but rather some vague concept of dastardly sub-humans forcing the hands of others around them. "It's not our fault that person X is dead. I mean...yeah, we shot X...but it's not our fault." More "it's not my fault" than you'll here on the Millenium Falcon.

People want to remove that responsibility, pretend that their actions didn't lead to the death of someone so that they can feel better about themselves. That's the whole thing here with these dismissive statements which are quite frankly insulting to humanity. But the facts are clear, someone may have put another in harms way; but if you physically kill someone you share a part in that person's death. I didn't think that would be so hard to understand. But I'll repeat it because it seems like a tough concept. If you kill somebody, you share a part in that person's death. End of story.

Apocalypse said:
In both the legal and the moral world, that is of course not the assumption.
The person who has killed the innocent is the one who has caused his death.
By taking the person hostage while shooting at another, the humans shield user has created a situation when there is a great risk for the innocent's life, and hence, in the case when the innocent dies, the humans shield user has caused his death.

In the legal and moral world it is the assumption. It cannot be anything else and still line up with reality. The person who has killed an innocent always bears some responsibility towards to death of that person. The question isn't "did X kill Y", we know the answer...yes. Legal and to lesser extent moral (though moral can be more rigid) isn't asking if X caused Y to die, but rather if X was justified in killing Y. But that's justification, not responsibility. If someone kills another, they are responsible at least in part for that person's death. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.

Apocalypse said:
Since we assume that a person would always try to survive, and that if he's being shot at he'll have to fire back, we do not regard to it as a move that he takes, but a move that is 'naturally' expected to be taken.
When you're walking into fire, expect to be burned.
When you're jumping off a building, expect to be hit by the floor.
When you're shooting at a person, expect to be shot back at.

Those are justifications. We're talking responsibilities. And the responsibilities need to be accepted and the weight born. If you kill someone for whatever reason, you've still killed another human being. Legally you may be justified, you may not go to jail. But that doesn't negate the fact that you killed someone, you've taken human life. All this blah blah blah is to hide that part, it's what the "war is hell", shrug the shoulder people are running from; why they are so dismissive towards human life. Because people don't want to acknowledge their role in killing other humans, so we scrape for excuses and we struggle to invent "logic" to remove responsibility and consequence. But that responsibility should be accepted and we should look at it for what it is. Killing another human is never a good act. You may find justification for having done so, but it's still not a good act. That is the moral absolute.

Apocalypse said:
When a driver who has 3 passengers in his car decides to smash his car into a wall, he is killing his passengers, because he should know that if you smash the car into the wall, there is a risk to the passengers' lives.

And is responsible for their deaths as he's the one who caused it solely.

Apocalypse said:
From the same exact reason, when someone takes a human shield and starts shooting people in the street, he is pretty much entirely at fault for killing the innocent were he to be shot back by the expected counter-fire.

He shares fault for having put the person in that position in the first place. But the person who kills that human shield bears some responsibility for killing that human shield.

Apocalypse said:
It should have been an obvious question to begin with.

It should be, but some people really want to remove all responsibility and consequence of action. It doesn't make sense.

Jucon · Mar 12, 2010

Couldn't you come straight out and say this is about the fight in Afghanistan? That was kind of confusing the way you explained it for the poll.

First Thought · Mar 12, 2010

Apocalypse said:
But that statement is meaningless to the actual conflict here, that if you do not shoot while you're under attack, every moment is a risk to your life.

Simply allowing the terrorist to kill you is of course not one of the options.

It is a glaringly obvious option. Just because most people would never allow it to happen does not mean it is not a solution to shooting human shields.

Apocalypse · Mar 12, 2010

EgoffTib said:
It is a glaringly obvious option. Just because most people would never allow it to happen does not mean it is not a solution to shooting human shields.

Sure, it's a solution I'll give you that.
It is the second worst solution, right after shooting the innocent and then committing suicide.

spud_meister · Mar 12, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Sure, it's a solution I'll give you that.
It is the second worst solution, right after shooting the innocent and then committing suicide.

well, from a certain perspective, it would be the best decision, as it would only result in the loss of one life, whereas shooting the innocent and the captor would result in the loss of two lives

Apocalypse · Mar 12, 2010

Ikari said:
Of course, because pulling the trigger isn't an empty effect. It causes something, namely a projectile to be launched.

Taking a human shield and shooting people isn't an empty effect, it causes the innocent to be in the line of counter-fire.
Taking a human shield and then firing at a person practically causes a projectile to be fired towards the human shield holder, putting the innocent he holds at risk.

If you kill somebody, you share a part in that person's death. End of story.

Really?
So in a state where mercy killing is allowed, and a doctor unplugs a person from the machine, is he responsible for the person's death?
But that is wrong, no? Seeing that the doctor has done everything that he could to keep the patient alive.

In the legal and moral world it is the assumption.

No it's not.
A person being shot at while the shooter holds an innocent as a human shield, the person pulls out a pistol and shoots back, killing both the human shield's holder and the innocent, the person would not be charged with anything and would not be found guilty of killing an innocent.
The above is a contradicting example to the claim that the assumption exists in the legal and moral world.

Those are justifications. We're talking responsibilities.

That's why I stated above that you look at this issue from the most literal meaning of the term responsibility, and not from the way of values and morality.

Killing another human is never a good act.

Of course not, but sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's also not a bad act.
No one has suggested otherwise.

He shares fault for having put the person in that position in the first place. But the person who kills that human shield bears some responsibility for killing that human shield.

Why?
What was he expected of?
How could he avoid that alleged responsibility while still living on with his life?
What do you expect the normal person in this situation to do?

It should be, but some people really want to remove all responsibility and consequence of action. It doesn't make sense.

I do not find sense in ("partially") blaming a person for the crimes of another.

Apocalypse · Mar 12, 2010

spud_meister said:
well, from a certain perspective, it would be the best decision, as it would only result in the loss of one life, whereas shooting the innocent and the captor would result in the loss of two lives

The captor would have to be shot at were he to open fire, so is life is not to be considered in the equitation.
Furthermore, a chance exists in the decision to shoot the captor to hit the captor alone, and not causing harm to the innocent.

Beyond that, it consists of committing suicide, and that is not to be expected from a living person under no sane law.

Black Dog · Mar 12, 2010

Ikari said:
Of course, because pulling the trigger isn't an empty effect. It causes something, namely a projectile to be launched. That projectile is deadly. If you don't pull the trigger, a person does not die. If you do, a person does. Thus you have some role in the death of the other person.

They are the enemy thats what we do in the military. It is what we train for. At that moment in time to without question take a life, period.

Ikari said:
All this blah blah blah it's not their fault crap is all attempts to remove responsibility so that people can feel better about killing other people.

What do you think the job of a solider is? We are not police, our job is to kill the enemy's of the nation we serve. End of story.

I knew a staff Sergent (ranger) who was part of an ambush in Grenada that killed an entire family. They got caught in the cross fire.

The last thing he said he heard was the bubbles gurgling out of the infants neck from a bullet wound.

He went on to say he did not feel anything then and he probably would not feel anything now. It was a hazard of his job and it needed to be done. They died so our solders could live.

This is war, not some Utopian set of ideals that don't work in the real world.

Ikari said:
So that we don't have to think about it as mowing down innocents, but rather some vague concept of dastardly sub-humans forcing the hands of others around them. "It's not our fault that person X is dead. I mean...yeah, we shot X...but it's not our fault." More "it's not my fault" than you'll here on the Millenium Falcon.

What?

Ikari said:
People want to remove that responsibility, pretend that their actions didn't lead to the death of someone so that they can feel better about themselves. That's the whole thing here with these dismissive statements which are quite frankly insulting to humanity.

The only thing insulting here is this Vietnam, baby killer mentality.

Ikari said:
But the facts are clear, someone may have put another in harms way; but if you physically kill someone you share a part in that person's death. I didn't think that would be so hard to understand. But I'll repeat it because it seems like a tough concept. If you kill somebody, you share a part in that person's death. End of story.

Yes we do. So what? We had the guts to do what needed to be done. While sorry little wimps sit at home and complain about it.

Ikari said:
In the legal and moral world it is the assumption. It cannot be anything else and still line up with reality. The person who has killed an innocent always bears some responsibility towards to death of that person. The question isn't "did X kill Y", we know the answer...yes. Legal and to lesser extent moral (though moral can be more rigid) isn't asking if X caused Y to die, but rather if X was justified in killing Y. But that's justification, not responsibility. If someone kills another, they are responsible at least in part for that person's death. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.

You have failed to show one shred of evidence that you have any legal ground to stand on.

Morally it is subjective.

So all you have shown is you don't agree because you "feel" it is this way.

In the real world and on the modern battle field that don't mean ****.

Ikari said:
Those are justifications. We're talking responsibilities. And the responsibilities need to be accepted and the weight born.

Most of the civilized law makers of the world disagree.

Ikari said:
If you kill someone for whatever reason, you've still killed another human being. Legally you may be justified, you may not go to jail. But that doesn't negate the fact that you killed someone, you've taken human life.

It is our job.

Ikari said:
All this blah blah blah is to hide that part, it's what the "war is hell", shrug the shoulder people are running from; why they are so dismissive towards human life. Because people don't want to acknowledge their role in killing other humans, so we scrape for excuses and we struggle to invent "logic" to remove responsibility and consequence.

:lol:

No. We are willing to accept that people die in war, and it is our job to kill them. This is the reality no matter how you would like to deny it.

Ikari said:
But that responsibility should be accepted and we should look at it for what it is. Killing another human is never a good act. You may find justification for having done so, but it's still not a good act. That is the moral absolute.

Lot's of people have been killed and it was a good act.

No moral absolute here.

Ikari said:
And is responsible for their deaths as he's the one who caused it solely.

He shares fault for having put the person in that position in the first place. But the person who kills that human shield bears some responsibility for killing that human shield.

So you can't even make up your mind. Is he solely responsible or not?

Ikari said:
It should be, but some people really want to remove all responsibility and consequence of action. It doesn't make sense.

What makes no sense is people like you who have never been there, trying to tell those of us and the majority who have what WE should be feeling or doing based on unrealistic crap.

Ikari · Mar 12, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Taking a human shield and shooting people isn't an empty effect, it causes the innocent to be in the line of counter-fire.
Taking a human shield and then firing at a person practically causes a projectile to be fired towards the human shield holder, putting the innocent he holds at risk.

I never said the one who took the shield was completely absolved of all responsibility.

Apocalypse said:
Really?
So in a state where mercy killing is allowed, and a doctor unplugs a person from the machine, is he responsible for the person's death?
But that is wrong, no? Seeing that the doctor has done everything that he could to keep the patient alive.

Yes, he shares some responsibility for the biological death of the person. We can get into all sorts of philosophical death debates. Especially arguing that essentially what is human is contained in the brain and once that is dead, the organism left over is less than human. But I think that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Apocalypse said:
No it's not.
A person being shot at while the shooter holds an innocent as a human shield, the person pulls out a pistol and shoots back, killing both the human shield's holder and the innocent, the person would not be charged with anything and would not be found guilty of killing an innocent.
The above is a contradicting example to the claim that the assumption exists in the legal and moral world.

No, you're wrong. Because the question isn't did X kill Y, the question legally asked is was X justified in killing Y. It's still starts with X having killed Y.

Apocalypse said:
That's why I stated above that you look at this issue from the most literal meaning of the term responsibility, and not from the way of values and morality.

The question on the thread was about responsibility. Who is responsible for the consequence? The answer is all the people whose actions contributed to the consequence. That includes the shooter. Responsibility speaks more to absolute morality than anything else. Justifiability has more to do with legal consequences. Someone may not be legally bound to a set of circumstances, but that doesn't mean the actions were without responsibility or consequence. Even if you justifiably kill someone and do no jail time, you killed someone and are responsible for that person not being there anymore. You should feel bad about it, and that's where the absolute morality comes into play.

Apocalypse said:
Of course not, but sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's also not a bad act.

It's always a bad act. It doesn't mean that it's always carried out in malignant fashion, but killing another human is always a bad thing. That's just the fundamental nature about murder.

Apocalypse said:
Why?
What was he expected of?
How could he avoid that alleged responsibility while still living on with his life?
What do you expect the normal person in this situation to do?
I do not find sense in ("partially") blaming a person for the crimes of another.

Why does he share responsibility? Because his actions led to the death of an innocent person. Without him there, the person would be alive. That's the absolute.

Crime is another word for justifiable. It's a legal context, but the thread isn't about legal context or floppy morality. It's about responsibility. Who is responsible? Everyone whose actions contributed to the consequence. The sense in making people understand the responsibility is to make them understand the absolutes of their actions. Beyond defending yourself or saving another, people must be aware that actions have consequences and we must bear those consequences. If you kill another human, you need to accept and shoulder the burden of that sin.

Goobieman · Mar 12, 2010

Andalublue said:
If it is known that human shields are being used and that those shields are civilians, then yes it does create that moral and legal imperative.

Is this imperative absolute or conditional?

Ikari · Mar 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
They are the enemy thats what we do in the military. It is what we train for. At that moment in time to without question take a life, period.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I merely said that you'll have to accept the responsibilities and sins of your position.

Blackdog said:
What do you think the job of a solider is? We are not police, our job is to kill the enemy's of the nation we serve. End of story.

Your job is to protect my rights and soveriegnty, but that's another thread all together.

Blackdog said:
I knew a staff Sergent (ranger) who was part of an ambush in Grenada that killed an entire family. They got caught in the cross fire.

The last thing he said he heard was the bubbles gurgling out of the infants neck from a bullet wound.

He went on to say he did not feel anything then and he probably would not feel anything now. It was a hazard of his job and it needed to be done. They died so our solders could live.

That's unfortunate, that's a broken human. He has deadened himself to quiet his consciousness.

Blackdog said:
This is war, not some Utopian set of ideals that don't work in the real world.

You refuse to understand what I am saying.

Blackdog said:
What?

It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding.

Blackdog said:
The only thing insulting here is this Vietnam, baby killer mentality.

I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread.

Blackdog said:
Yes we do. So what? We had the guts to do what needed to be done. While sorry little wimps sit at home and complain about it.

You apparently don't have the guts to accept what you've done.

Blackdog said:
You have failed to show one shred of evidence that you have any legal ground to stand on.

I've said multiple times now, I'm not arguing a legal basis. That is justification, I'm not arguing justifications. I'm arguing responsibilities. I don't know how to be more clear. If the concept escapes you, then please refrain from trying to engage in something you don't understand.

Blackdog said:
Morally it is subjective.

Morally there are absolutes. If you think all morality is subjective, then you can't in anyway be religious. But some will take to the idea because it allows them to remove themselves from the consequence of their actions.

Blackdog said:
So all you have shown is you don't agree because you "feel" it is this way.

In the real world and on the modern battle field that don't mean ****.

What I've shown is that people who shoot people for whatever reason are at least in part responsible for the death of that person. That's an absolute.

Blackdog said:
Most of the civilized law makers of the world disagree.

Well then it's a good thing I wasn't arguing law.

Blackdog said:
It is our job.

Did I say it wasn't? Even if you kill someone because it was your job, it doesn't mean that you didn't kill someone.

Blackdog said:
No. We are willing to accept that people die in war, and it is our job to kill them. This is the reality no matter how you would like to deny it.

No, you accept that you are fighting some force for a greater cause and that your actions are just; that those you face are something less than human in the guise of human. It takes a lot of strength to understand the sin and accept it because you think you're doing something that is necessary. You can tell who those guys are; and they aren't the one's shrugging their shoulders saying "war is hell". Those are the people dehumanizing so they don't have to feel bad about what they do. But they should feel bad because that's telling them something...killing is bad. And if collectively we can begin to understand this as a whole, we can become less zealous in war.

Blackdog said:
Lot's of people have been killed and it was a good act.

No, killing is never a good act. That's something you want to believe, you want to hide from consequence. You were justified, it was good, it's ok, don't regret, don't feel bad. These are tools for us to try to remove consequence. Sometimes, certain acts are supposed to make you feel bad. Because the act itself is bad. If we continue to dehumanize and ignore the consequences of our actions, we'll only repeat them. We can think of war as nothing. War is hell, war is eternal, no use fighting it; just go with it. Accept it. Don't question it.

Blackdog said:
No moral absolute here.

There are always moral absolutes.

Blackdog said:
So you can't even make up your mind. Is he solely responsible or not?

Can you not remember what you wrote? Reread your scenario that I was responding to (or did you forget I was responding to your car crash scenario) and then come back.

Blackdog said:
What makes no sense is people like you who have never been there, trying to tell those of us and the majority who have what WE should be feeling or doing based on unrealistic crap.

Based on fact and reality. It is not I who wishes to escape consequence.

Phantom · Mar 12, 2010

Both side A(Gaza) and side B(Israel) are responsible in my opinion. Side A obviously is at fault for putting their own children in the line of fire... But I call on side B to be more strategic to lower the deaths of innocent children. Like I said in the Middle Eastern board I understand you have to counter attack the terrorists, but you must do everything possible to save the lives of children.

P.S. - With all do respect to Gardener who has attacked me in the past for my positions on this issue: If you find this thread and reply to my post - fine - but don't resort to the name calling and false allegations as I will ignore them.

Goobieman · Mar 12, 2010

Phantom said:
Both side A(Gaza) and side B(Israel) are responsible in my opinion. Side A obviously is at fault for putting their own children in the line of fire... But I call on side B to be more strategic to lower the deaths of innocent children.

They do.
If the Israelis didnt have concern for the innocent, a lot more would be dead.

Black Dog · Mar 12, 2010

Ikari said:
I didn't say anything to the contrary. I merely said that you'll have to accept the responsibilities and sins of your position.

Murder is a sin, not killing.

Ikari said:
Your job is to protect my rights and soveriegnty, but that's another thread all together.

If you want to believe that. I mean I was only doing it for 12 years, what the hell do I know about what I was taught.

Ikari said:
That's unfortunate, that's a broken human. He has deadened himself to quiet his consciousness.

So you can read minds now? Because someone does not think like you they are "deadend." :lol:

Ikari said:
You refuse to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you are saying and it is bull****.

Ikari said:
It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding.

Or maybe you have not typed it clearly. :doh

Ikari said:
I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread.

"It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding."

Ikari said:
You apparently don't have the guts to accept what you've done.

Well please point out what I have done?

Ikari said:
I've said multiple times now, I'm not arguing a legal basis.

Because you can't.

Ikari said:
That is justification, I'm not arguing justifications. I'm arguing responsibilities. I don't know how to be more clear. If the concept escapes you, then please refrain from trying to engage in something you don't understand.

If accepting responsibility amounts to nothing, than it means as does your argument in this case, nothing.

Ikari said:
Morally there are absolutes. If you think all morality is subjective, then you can't in anyway be religious. But some will take to the idea because it allows them to remove themselves from the consequence of their actions.

What does my religion have do do with the fact that morality is subjective and has no absolutes? It is different for each person.

Ikari said:
What I've shown is that people who shoot people for whatever reason are at least in part responsible for the death of that person. That's an absolute.

To what end? Nothing legally? Nothing morally since you throw out justification. So to what end?

I will tell you...

Nothing.

Ikari said:
Well then it's a good thing I wasn't arguing law.

Well you have nothing legally to stand on.

Ikari said:
Did I say it wasn't? Even if you kill someone because it was your job, it doesn't mean that you didn't kill someone.

So what? They are dead, **** happens. Welcome to reality.

Ikari said:
No, you accept that you are fighting some force for a greater cause and that your actions are just; that those you face are something less than human in the guise of human. It takes a lot of strength to understand the sin and accept it because you think you're doing something that is necessary.

What is up with this "sin" all of a sudden? It is not a sin to kill. It is a sin to murder.

So I accept the fact that people need to die to protect society.

Ikari said:
You can tell who those guys are; and they aren't the one's shrugging their shoulders saying "war is hell". Those are the people dehumanizing so they don't have to feel bad about what they do. But they should feel bad because that's telling them something...killing is bad. And if collectively we can begin to understand this as a whole, we can become less zealous in war.

A soilder will tell you that is wrong. We are not dehumanizing anyone, but they are the enemy and we kill them, end of story.

Ikari said:
No, killing is never a good act. That's something you want to believe, you want to hide from consequence. You were justified, it was good, it's ok, don't regret, don't feel bad. These are tools for us to try to remove consequence. Sometimes, certain acts are supposed to make you feel bad. Because the act itself is bad. If we continue to dehumanize and ignore the consequences of our actions, we'll only repeat them. We can think of war as nothing. War is hell, war is eternal, no use fighting it; just go with it. Accept it. Don't question it.

Says you? :lol:

Ikari said:
There are always moral absolutes.

Again says you?

Ikari said:
Can you not remember what you wrote? Reread your scenario that I was responding to (or did you forget I was responding to your car crash scenario) and then come back.

My car crash scenario? You are now confused.

Ikari said:
Based on fact and reality. It is not I who wishes to escape consequence.

You still have yet to point out the consequences? Even 1. So again it means nothing.

Tucker Case · Mar 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
Murder is a sin, not killing.

That depends on the religion. In Catholicism it is "thou shalt not kill"

Black Dog · Mar 12, 2010

Tucker Case said:
That depends on the religion. In Catholicism it is "thou shalt not kill"

Not true. It is a mistranslation in the KJV. It is thou shall not murder.

Catholics also now know this.

To deny it would be blasphemy.

Tucker Case · Mar 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
Not true. It is a mistranslation in the KJV. It is thou shall not murder.

Catholics also now know this.

To deny it would be blasphemy.

Not according to their website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Related to the topic:

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

They allow certain types of killing (defensive, unintentional killings), but it must be unintentional and after all peace efforts have failed.

The Catholic Church would consider any killing occurring in Iraq to be a sin. It's way more complex than just "murder" as in "illegal killing".

According to the above, much of the fighting in Iraq would qualify as a sin.

OxymoronP · Mar 12, 2010

Real answer is other!

It doesnt matter, all is fair in war as long as you win. If you loose, the victor will make sure to make you look like the instigator and aggressor criminal, so no sense in holding back.

Black Dog · Mar 12, 2010

Tucker Case said:
Not according to their website:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The fifth commandment

Related to the topic:

They allow certain types of killing (defensive, unintentional killings), but it must be unintentional and after all peace efforts have failed.

The Catholic Church would consider any killing occurring in Iraq to be a sin. It's way more complex than just "murder" as in "illegal killing".

According to the above, much of the fighting in Iraq would qualify as a sin.

Since I am not Catholic why would this concern me? They are ignoring the correct translation for a known mistake. This makes it blasphemy to most Chrsitians. Of course in the eyes of the Catholic church, this would make me and most Christians heretics, so it's all good.

Ikari · Mar 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
Murder is a sin, not killing.

Depends on which interpretation you want. People will take whatever interpretation is most convenient for their lives.

Blackdog said:
If you want to believe that. I mean I was only doing it for 12 years, what the hell do I know about what I was taught.

That you were taught something. It doesn't necessarily mean what you were taught was correct.

Blackdog said:
So you can read minds now? Because someone does not think like you they are "deadend." :lol:

No, because there are fundamentals and absolutes to humanity. All humans are human and we all share a common base. When humans are forced to do things against that nature, they can occasionally break. The breaking involves disconnection with actions, which is exactly what you described.

Blackdog said:
I understand exactly what you are saying and it is bull****.

You obviously don't. Because you keep trying to say something that I'm not.

Blackdog said:
Or maybe you have not typed it clearly. :doh

Or maybe you have not read it clearly :doh

Blackdog said:
"It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding."

What does that have to do about your claim of Vietnam baby killers? Nothing? Yup. Again, I've seen no evidence of it in this thread. Come back with real proof next time.

Blackdog said:
Well please point out what I have done?

You've dehumanized certain sects and enemies to ignore the overall humanity of those whom you wish to destroy. It's a standard tactic and one which is "necessary" for sustained, unnecessary war. This is because fundamentally humans know that killing other humans is wrong. And we need an excuse or a reason or an ideology we can get behind in order to excuse the action itself.

Blackdog said:
Because you can't.

I've already said that legally there can be justification for the act, but that doesn't erase the act. I think maybe you should pay attention.

Blackdog said:
If accepting responsibility amounts to nothing, than it means as does your argument in this case, nothing.

It's not nothing. You just don't seem to understand the consequences of accepting the responsibility and what that means overall towards an aggregated effect on society and warfare in general.

Blackdog said:
What does my religion have do do with the fact that morality is subjective and has no absolutes? It is different for each person.

Because gods make absolutes.

Blackdog said:
To what end? Nothing legally? Nothing morally since you throw out justification. So to what end?

I will tell you...

Nothing.

It's the acceptance of the absolute humanity of humans. That has many moral implications as well as understanding what is done in war and removes the propaganda typically used to sustain war after it's outlived its usefulness.

Blackdog said:
Well you have nothing legally to stand on.

Never claimed legal. Please keep up.

Blackdog said:
So what? They are dead, **** happens. Welcome to reality.

You only go to prove my point that you can't understand the fundamental. You're continually dodging the consequence. If you've killed someone, you've done something bad. Instead of hiding from that bad, you should accept it so that you understand fundamentally what you are doing. But this entire shrugging your shoulders thing is nothing more than running away from the reality of your actions.

Blackdog said:
What is up with this "sin" all of a sudden? It is not a sin to kill. It is a sin to murder.

So I accept the fact that people need to die to protect society.

Depends, the Catholics I believe say Thou Shall Not Kill, as they (like I) take absolutes such as respect of all human life. People change what the "sin" is to fit their lives. It's not that there isn't absolutes, it's that some humans don't want to accept that there are absolutes and will work in ways to make it appear that there are not. It's a defense mechanism so they don't feel bad about actions which they really should feel bad about.

Blackdog said:
A soilder will tell you that is wrong. We are not dehumanizing anyone, but they are the enemy and we kill them, end of story.

Thanks for proving my point. You say in one sentence you're not dehumanizing, but then go on to show fundamentally that you are.

Blackdog said:
Says you? :lol:

Says a lot of things. But don't let that stop you from trying to deflect deflect deflect.

Blackdog said:
Again says you?

And what says the man who wishes to run from consequences?

Blackdog said:
My car crash scenario? You are now confused.

Fair enough, not yours but Apocalypse's. But you still confused and ignored the original quote because that was a direct response (which was even quoted) to a scenario about a guy who decides to crash his car into a wall with passengers in his car. Read the whole thing before you try to throw out accusations.

Blackdog said:
You still have yet to point out the consequences? Even 1. So again it means nothing.

The consequence is that you've killed a human and you bear partial responsibility for it. Now that's the "you" in context to the question posed in the thread. Someone bad guy takes a human hostage. Some good guy takes the shot and takes both out. The consequence is that the good guy bears some responsibility for the death of the innocent. And that is what you run from.

Black Dog · Mar 12, 2010

Ikari said:
Depends on which interpretation you want. People will take whatever interpretation is most convenient for their lives.

Or in this case the correct one.

Ikari said:
That you were taught something. It doesn't necessarily mean what you were taught was correct.

I was taught what I needed to stay alive and do my job. That makes it right.

Ikari said:
No, because there are fundamentals and absolutes to humanity. All humans are human and we all share a common base. When humans are forced to do things against that nature, they can occasionally break. The breaking involves disconnection with actions, which is exactly what you described.

This has no relevance on moral absolutes.

Man has been killing man since day 1. So it looks like it mite be the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. This also has little to do with generalizing about someone you don't know and have never met.

Ikari said:
You obviously don't. Because you keep trying to say something that I'm not.

No. I am disagreeing with what you are saying because it is not realistic and does not work in real world terror or warfare situations.

Ikari said:
What does that have to do about your claim of Vietnam baby killers? Nothing? Yup. Again, I've seen no evidence of it in this thread. Come back with real proof next time.

It has everything to do with it.

Ikari said:
You've dehumanized certain sects and enemies to ignore the overall humanity of those whom you wish to destroy. It's a standard tactic and one which is "necessary" for sustained, unnecessary war. This is because fundamentally humans know that killing other humans is wrong. And we need an excuse or a reason or an ideology we can get behind in order to excuse the action itself.

OK point out where i have done this in my life? Wow you know allot about me for someone who has never met me. Assume much?

Ikari said:
I've already said that legally there can be justification for the act, but that doesn't erase the act. I think maybe you should pay attention.

You need to realize justification is everything and blame with no force behind it means nothing.

Ikari said:
It's not nothing. You just don't seem to understand the consequences of accepting the responsibility and what that means overall towards an aggregated effect on society and warfare in general.

You mean like the terrorists we are fighting?

Ikari said:
Because gods make absolutes.

And not everyone worships a god, what does this tell you?

Ikari said:
It's the acceptance of the absolute humanity of humans. That has many moral implications as well as understanding what is done in war and removes the propaganda typically used to sustain war after it's outlived its usefulness.

So instead of calling the enemy solders, "enemy solders" we will call them ahhh human targets. would that help? :lol:

Ikari said:
Never claimed legal. Please keep up.

Did not say you did. I said you have no legal leg to stand on. In other words the rest of the civilized world disagrees with your unrealistic moral assumptions.

Ikari said:
You only go to prove my point that you can't understand the fundamental. You're continually dodging the consequence. If you've killed someone, you've done something bad. Instead of hiding from that bad, you should accept it so that you understand fundamentally what you are doing. But this entire shrugging your shoulders thing is nothing more than running away from the reality of your actions.

So in other words your whole argument is based on semantics? :lol:

So because I call someone an enemy combatant in stead of human (which would cause a hell of a lot of confusion) somehow all of a sudden I am responsible? :lol:

Ikari said:
Depends, the Catholics I believe say Thou Shall Not Kill, as they (like I) take absolutes such as respect of all human life.

And it like much of the cannon of Catholicism is wrong and based on an incorrect translation.

Ikari said:
People change what the "sin" is to fit their lives. It's not that there isn't absolutes, it's that some humans don't want to accept that there are absolutes and will work in ways to make it appear that there are not. It's a defense mechanism so they don't feel bad about actions which they really should feel bad about.

You have yet to post one shred of evidence that moral absolutes exist. All you have to do is look around, you can see it does not.

Ikari said:
Thanks for proving my point. You say in one sentence you're not dehumanizing, but then go on to show fundamentally that you are.

Semantics again.

Ikari said:
Says a lot of things. But don't let that stop you from trying to deflect deflect deflect.

I am arguing cold hard facts, while you try and argue philosophy and semantics.

No need to deflect.

Ikari said:
And what says the man who wishes to run from consequences?

No need to. None in this case exist.

Ikari said:
Fair enough, not yours but Apocalypse's. But you still confused and ignored the original quote because that was a direct response (which was even quoted) to a scenario about a guy who decides to crash his car into a wall with passengers in his car. Read the whole thing before you try to throw out accusations.

Don't care enough to bother.

Ikari said:
The consequence is that you've killed a human and you bear partial responsibility for it. Now that's the "you" in context to the question posed in the thread. Someone bad guy takes a human hostage. Some good guy takes the shot and takes both out. The consequence is that the good guy bears some responsibility for the death of the innocent. And that is what you run from.

Not running from it. Nothing to run from. No consequences legally or morally from society's point of view or the results of this poll.

ricksfolly · Mar 12, 2010

Goobieman said:
No.

Its not.
If all you were going to do is avoid the question, you should not have bothered responding.

>>

Your attack says more about you than me.

ricksfolly

Human shields

See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?

Side A

Side B

Anti-Hypocrite

Hello again!

Matthew 16:3

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

King Of The Dog Pound

John Schnatter 2012

King Of The Dog Pound

Matthew 16:3

King Of The Dog Pound

Matthew 16:3

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound