Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News In Response to the War Crimes caught on video Thread

  1. Apr 4, 2004 #1
    You know, Adam posted a video that showed Americans shooting a wounded iraqi next to his gun while cheering... Well I saw it again on CNN late last night but I got quite a different interpretation. The feature was about how many young soldiers have to live with killing, and how it affects them down the road.

    The same interview with the sargent who was quoted in saying "hell yea, lets go do it again" was also shown, but it also opened up another part of the same interview in which he was talking about his regrets afterwards. Talking about how he knew that the guy had probably had a wife and kids and talking about how it has been haunting him. He stated that the cheer was something of adrenaline, and that he was ashamed of it.

    It also showed several ww2 vets talking about the exhiliration of killing, and the post-mordam afterwards.

    So, I just think it is kind of funny how someone can take a short excerpt of an interview and use it for its exact opposite purpose. I feel kinda sheepish for falling into it.

    True, it was an atrocious act, but the interview afterwards which portrayed the sargent as being an ignorant barbarian was completely wrong.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 4, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I well remember pictures taken 9-11-2001 of Palestinians cheering in the street over the loss of thousands of American lives.
  4. Apr 4, 2004 #3
    In war, there will always be war crimes. That's just the way it is. Historically the U.S. has a pretty good record compared to a lot of nations, but there will always be some war crimes no matter how hard we try to prevent them.

    Sometimes war is neccessary. It's too bad that it is, but it's just a fact of life. Most of human history is the story of preparation for war, war, and the aftermath of war. Humans just love to kill each other. Too bad.

    We are currently in a world war, there will be much more death and destruction before it is over. Get used to it, you're stuck with it, just the same as I am, whether you like it or not. Just do your duty, and in the long run we'll prevail.

    God bless America,
  5. Apr 4, 2004 #4
    Hang in there Janitor. Every dog has his day. If these people had any clue, they would be investing their time more wisely. Wait 'till you see round 4!
  6. Apr 4, 2004 #5
    Isn't war itself a crime, or does it fall outside of legalism? Is such "justice" fated to perpetuate injustice?
  7. Apr 4, 2004 #6
    I don't know. But I do know this; war is real, and at any given time there are several wars raging all over the world. It would be nice if this were not so, but it is. Don't look for a change anytime soon. Humans truly do love to kill each other; next to sex, it seems to be our favorite thing to do.

    If your are a pacifist, that's fine by me. It certainly doesn't hurt anything, it just makes you irrelevant. Pacifism is a nice concept, but it has no practical application on this planet.
  8. Apr 4, 2004 #7
    Two things I noticed when Adam posted that garbage:

    1>It was horribly clipped
    2> It was a CNN video posted on a site that says "news you won't find on CNN"

    Thanks for the update on what really was edited.
  9. Apr 4, 2004 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I knew a Marine who re-upped just so that he could fight in Gulf I. He openly admitted that this was not because of duty; it was that he wanted to use all that he had learned. He wanted to go and kick a$$!

    It always makes me a little ill at heart to see commercials selling kids on military service...as if it were like any other career option, or as if learning to kill will enhance a person's life. I think pacifism does have a place; without it the results are absolutely inevitable.

    There is or was at least a strange little fact that I heard cited along the way somewhere. I assume that at least it is mostly true; I am pretty sure it was when I heard it. The statement was that no place that has a McDonalds ever sees military warfare on its own streets. The author was suggesting that the desire for war at home is inversely proportional to wealth. Maybe when everyone is wealthy enough there won't be any place to fight. :biggrin:

    Help end war. Please contribute to a foreign McDonald's franchise today. :tongue:
  10. Apr 4, 2004 #9
    Seems like most attempts to make war making nations adhere to a legal code have been unsuccessful. Hitler blatantly defied the League of Nations, as Bush defied several veto-holding members of the UN. In theory the Geneva convention prevents war crimes, but has been thrown out the window in Guantanamo. In the end, two or more parties must agree on a legal code and be willing to respect it; when one side decides the only law it will obey is the Law of the Jungle, the law is destroyed for all, and no party can expect the law to be respected.
  11. Apr 4, 2004 #10
    The man is still dead. It remains an atrocious act. The shooter is still a barbarian. Who the fudge cares if he felt bad about it much later? The scumbag still did it.
  12. Apr 4, 2004 #11

    If you mean that all people who kill others are barbaric scumbags, then so be it - you're opinion, whatever.

    If you mean that he's a barbaric scumbag because of the context of the situation that YOU saw, then that's completely different - you haven't even seen the whole unclipped version, and I have seen nothing posted that explains the scenario that lead up to the event. It's quite assumptive in this case to call the guy names when so uneducated on the events surrounding the scenario
  13. Apr 5, 2004 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I definitely subscribe to that theory. I don't see it as any coincidence that the major combatants of WWII are all living in peace with each other 50 years later - (with the exception of Russia) they are the richest nations in the world.
  14. Apr 5, 2004 #13
    You are absolutely correct. The "whole unclipped version" is an entire war.

    Ivan Seeking,
    My hobbies are mostly extremely dangerous ones, so I meet people who enjoy a serious rush. Many combat veterans enjoy skydiving, motorcycle racing, flying etc. Some of the combat vets that I have met over the years have admitted to enjoying their roles in war. Not most; but some. A certain percentage of people do like this sort of stuff. Some of us enjoy fighting for our lives during the emergencies that we occasionally encounter in our sports. Many people have jobs that are dangerous, and wouldn't trade them for a desk job under any circumstance.

    At one time I had the pleasure of being a private in a rifle company that was attached to the 10th Air Cavalry. It was a very dangerous job, and I enjoyed it very much. We lost quite of few people, but that is the nature of the business. The vast majority of us loved our work. I know I did.

    The military comercials that you see are not targeting people like you, they are targeting people like me. The military does not turn pacifists into war mongers. Pacifists are pacifists. Pacifists are useless to the military. The military has no mission for them.

    I'm not saying that I think less of you because you are a pacifist. I don't think that pacifism does any harm. If you truly feel that war is wrong under any circumstances that's ok by me. You should however realize that you are part of a very small minority, and that it has always been that way, and will most certainly be that way for a long time to come.

    What I don't understand is why people show how nonviolent they are by organizing demonstrations and throwing bricks at police officers. How is throwing a brick at a police officer nonviolent? Before these demonstrations take place, there is peace on the streets. During the demonstrations there is a great deal of violence, frustration and rage. After the police subdue these violent people, there is peace again. What conclusion am I supposed to draw this? What conclusion am I supposed to draw from seeing enraged pacifists? I guess you don't make any more sense to me, then I make to you. But that's ok, we're all different.

    God Bless America,
  15. Apr 5, 2004 #14
    Yay for the admixture of politics and religion...
  16. Apr 5, 2004 #15
    Hummm only one small thing, the majority of people on the planet act in a passive manner, and that is what keeps it all working, the planet, daily, so as 'practical applications' go, they are the ones making your breakfast, building the tanks, guns, and schoolbuses...lots of practical application, the desirable end result of War...Peace

    But I do agree with what you say about War, as historical, and present on the Planet's face, been there for a long time, "lust for money" I hear...
  17. Apr 5, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Lust for power in older men, lust for the challenge of battle in a sufficient number of young men. And now the women have caught it too. To the rich, money is a means to an end, just like people.
  18. Apr 5, 2004 #17
    Like you said before, only a small percentage of the population are pacifists.. While the percentage of pacifists is certainly greater at a rally, I would wager it is still far from the majority. Additonally, drawing the conclusion that everyone at these rallies is throwing bricks or engaging in some sort of destruction, while it may seem that way from corporate media reports, is far from accurate.

    By far and away the most violent elements of the protests here in the US are the police. I was in Miami in November to protest the FTAA and was completely blown away by the level of repression and violence resorted to by the 'robo-cops' as they jokingly referred to themselves. After being mercilessly teargassed, peppersprayed and shot with rubber bullets indescriminately, maybe 5% of the protesters responded by building barricades and throwing back the teargas cannisters that were shot at us. Stupidly, the media reported that the protesters had come armed with teargas :rolleyes:

    BTW, while I dream of a world without war, I wouldn't necessarily call myself a pacifist.
  19. Apr 5, 2004 #18
    Mr. Robin Parsons,
    Nice to chat with you again. I enjoy reading your posts.
    you made some very good points, my compliments. I get your point, please give mine a "shot".

    "The desirable end of war...peace" has been proven by history to be the result of a complete and decisive military victory by one side or the other. This is the surest recipe for peace, and always has been. Some groups negotiate and skirmish for literally thousands of years, causing a much greater loss of life, and much more destruction in the long run, than if they had prosecuted a swift and violent war over a short period of time. Also, truly violent wars that end quickly, seldom result in as much damage to non-combatants.
  20. Apr 5, 2004 #19
    Are you angry and frustrated with god as well?
  21. Apr 5, 2004 #20
    My point exactly. Before the rally, the streets were peaceful. After the rally, the streets were peaceful. Who brought about a lasting peace? The police.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook