- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,218
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Location
- DFW, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There's always another choice... Dying is one of them. Be killed rather than kill.Sometimes, there is no other choice.
There's always another choice... Dying is one of them. Be killed rather than kill.Sometimes, there is no other choice.
Well, OK -- but my contention comes from the use of the term 'strategic'. There are several different levels of conflict and concern, and I am not sure that only the 'strategic' level need apply.Not if the "highest order of strategic significance" is clearly defined. The subjectivity would exist if it's not defined, or during the defining process, but once it is clearly defined, then the situation loses subjectivity.
As it stands, it is not defined except at the subjective level. This is a mistake, because what I described does occur to some degree. It is just not consistent in application.
All rights have boundaries, deliniating what actions fall under the auspices of a right, and what actions do not. The specifics of these boundaries are defined through varuous governmental interactions.So when the government says it's okay to kill, then we can. Got it.
No. Its not.It's like the age-old... "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Well, OK -- but my contention comes from the use of the term 'strategic'. There are several different levels of conflict and concern, and I am not sure that only the 'strategic' level need apply.
Sometimes, there is no other choice.
Circumstantially, yes you can be forced to perform a lethal action. People with military, law enforcement, and many with regular firearms/tactical training do have reflexive actions that are second nature, including pulling the trigger under duress.
Sometimes, there is no other choice.
I believe we're speaking on an actual responsibility for the killing, as a driver takes when he causes an accident, not when the situation is forced upon you.No one else but yourself can have your brain send signals to your muscles to have them perform an act. You're not a robot, everything ultimately always comes down to a choice you make.
That choice goes against the basic instincts of the living being, and no sane house of law would accept such a thing as the required action by the soldier.There's always another choice... Dying is one of them. Be killed rather than kill.
That choice goes against the basic instincts of the living being, and no sane house of law would accept such a thing as the required action by the soldier.
That's exactly what I'm saying.But that speaks to justification of the act, not responsibility of the action itself.
I'm not talking about required action or law. I'm saying that if you wish to avoid killing human shields, you do not shoot.That choice goes against the basic instincts of the living being, and no sane house of law would accept such a thing as the required action by the soldier.
The point is to learn, the point is to not dismiss the humanity of those we fight. By acknowledging this, we can potentially decrease the frequency and longevity of wars we have to fight.
To learn what? That our enemy's are dirt bags who use inhumane tactics? I mean realistically we learned that already.
Those we fight have already given up any humanity they had the moment they started hiding in mosques and using human shields. It is not shortening anything as I showed in the article, it is making them bolder.
War itself is inhumane.
We already know this.
We should learn the follies of dehumanizing portions of the human population to make it easier to kill them. Instead, we should face full on the consequences of our actions and fully bear our sins.
We should learn the follies of dehumanizing portions of the human population to make it easier to kill them. Instead, we should face full on the consequences of our actions and fully bear our sins.
Ikari, could you elaborate on "face full the consequences" and "fully bear our sins".
Let's say US troops are in a firefight with whomever.
An enemy steps out of hiding with a toddler strapped to his chest. The enemy aims an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade launcher) at a house where three of our troops are positioned, a clear threat likely to result in three deaths if he fires the RPG.
One of our troops shoots the RPG enemy dead. He was trying for a headshot, but he was a little low... he kills both the enemy shooter and the toddler that the enemy was using as a human shield.
What penalty should that soldier suffer for his action?
(My answer is, "None".)
G.
I'd agree with "none" in this instance. It's a fully justifiable action, IMO.
Ikari said:I'm not talking penalties. But instead of hiding behind scenarios where we either dehumanize the enemy or remove all concept of responsibility, we accept the consequences of our actions....over the whole you'll end up with an environment where we don't take war so casually. Where we don't just say "war is hell" and shrug our shoulders. But rather understand the human component of war and what our actions have on such.
.... While it will never be totally avoidable, perhaps we can learn to not utilize it as some form of offense.
We should always be wary of the consequences of our actions and we should accept in full those consequences.
War is a metaphor for life in a twisted way. There was a local hero here who passed away not too long ago that saved a vietnamese village from a rogue U.S. platoon that was just hellbent on killing anyone asian at that point, then there was one of my dad's cousins who never came to terms with a japanese soldier he killed in WWII, so I think the emotions swing all over the spectrum.I think we must examine this from the position of the soldier doing the deed.
I would hope that most soldiers would have issues with killing civilians.
Then again, after awhile they might become somewhat immune to the feeling, if only in mental self-defense.
Or so one always hears in war movies/reads in books about wars.
Damn all wars, anyway.
Then again, damn all humans, who are the root cause of war.
/sigh
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.I'm not talking about required action or law. I'm saying that if you wish to avoid killing human shields, you do not shoot.
You're talking about the most literal meaning of fault.I wouldn't say the shooter isn't at fault. Through the actions of the shooter, an innocent is killed. Rather, I would say that in some cases the taking of innocent life can be justified in some legal manner. It doesn't take away the action, because the action would have been a measurable quantity. What it would say is that it was "reasonable" or justified action to kill the other person. The shooter still carries causation as they made the decision to shoot.