News The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

[JaredJames]

It's sad, but we make the most progress (technologically, scientifically etc) when trying to kill each other, at war.

 

[Astronuc]

you’re way too picky people!, now the whole western media counts on these links or videos!, you know what is bias here? your opinions are, each one [not all] won’t accept even an idea that their government may be wrong at some points, so pathetic

Please don't make such statements. Most people at PF have a healthy amount of skepticism and cynicism with respect to the US and western media. I think we expect the media to get wrong - perhaps often - and many expect the government to be misleading or wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

It's sad, but we make the most progress (technologically, scientifically etc) when trying to kill each other, at war.

Well the US made a lot of scientific and technical progress during the manned-space missions - Mercury, Gemini and Apollo - then Skylab - then the STS and ISS. No war - just progress in science and technology.

And look at the missions to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and hopefully Pluto.

And look at all the satellites that monitor the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land.


Water and food are supposed to become sources of conflict in the future, but I don't see the enough effort regarding the right actions being taking place to secure future supplies of clean water and sufficient food.

It's easy for some to find $400 billion or $500 billion or more for weapons systems and war, but it seems more difficult to find a few hundred million $ for clean water and sustainable agriculture programs.

 

[JaredJames]

The space race comes to mind with regard to manned space missions, during the cold war I believe?

Sattelites, stuff up there also does some spying, not sure what come first though, military or civilian sats.

A lot of technology was developed during the war years. Look at radar. We couldn't work without it in aviation these days, but that was developed in a push to help spot enemy aircraft coming in from Europe. I'm not saying we wouldn't have have had it if there was no war, I'm just saying it was a major factor in the push with the technology.

 

[kyleb]

Who said one has to get all their information from mainstream media? The point was US media (all US media), not *just* mainstream media.

See:

all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..

I have not heard about this, so I won't comment.

See:

Are you claiming our media doesn't whitewash the actions of our troops? One notable examples is the "Barny Song" torture our mainstream media played off as a humorous story, conveniently excluding the fact that it was being blasted at young men in cargo containers while flashing them with a strobe light for upwards of a day at a time if not more, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2h...over&dq=The+men+who+stare+at+goats#PPA121,M1".

For one, that entire video is garbage so I don't care what part he was referencing to. He shouldn't have reference it at all - it's crap.

If you think YouTube videos made from cut up, out of context, segments with horrible Allah Akbar music in the background is credible enough for you to want me to provide a 'convincing argument to the contrary' then I'm wasting my time here. I would suggest you try a real news source if you want to make a point, not a video from what appears to be a dufus kid in Saudi Arabia on YouTube.

I know that Finta video isn't simply some YouTube video, but rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)" . I'm at a loss to understand why your are so hostile to Wajed for discussing a clip contained in the response to it, or why your keep speculating on the origin of it's author for that matter.

Unsupported statements like the one you made are not allowed here. Back it up with facts or don't post it.

Please quote whichever statement of mine you are claiming is unsupported so I can address it directly.

The argument I made still applies with the Iraqi troops.

It really doesn't. http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/rootwile/shockandawe.html" , and the conclusion:

The principle of shock and awe uses a means that inevitably causes the deaths of noncombatants both directly, with indiscriminate weapons, and indirectly, as secondary collateral damage, through the destruction of infrastructure. Whether using Murphy's chain of agency, Rawls' self-defense theory, or a different defense of noncombatant immunity, unless one considers no one a noncombatant, there is no moral defense of shock and awe. When the power of any single weapon increases, the moral responsibility attached to its use increases at an equal rate. A strategy requiring the use of thousands of immensely powerful weapons seems likely to be immoral because of the inevitability of noncombatant deaths, and such is the case with the U.S. military doctrine of rapid dominance through shock and awe.

Again, it's not like our troops (or the ones who ordered them) expected all the bombs to magically miss the innocent civilians. Furthermore, I'm at a loss as to figure what you think this thread is about if not the moral culpability of the troops who kill innocent civilians.

Hmm, another mainstream media source with it. You really should do your homework. That's two links before your next response.

I never claimed it wasn't in the mainstream media, just asked to see the claim that it was substantiated, and I thank both you and Cyrus for doing so. There is no reason for hostility here.

 

[Evo]

I haven't been here this week and I guarantee you that if I had, half of what was posted would not be here.

Fair warning, I am back and non-mainstream and unsubstantiated claims will be deleted and infractions given from this point on.

For new members that don't know the rules, read them now, and I can't be sucked up to.

 

[Cyrus]

See:

all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..

See:

Kyleb, wajed's post above was a lousy generalization about where Americans get their news, and is not generally true. This is simple enough to understand.

I know that Finta video isn't simply some YouTube video, but rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)" . I'm at a loss to understand why your are so hostile to Wajed for discussing a clip contained in the response to it, or why your keep speculating on the origin of it's author for that matter.

I am talking about the video on Youtube posted by wajed. I did not, nor am I, talking about a "Finta video". I don't know what said Finta video is. I never mentioned anything about a Finta video.

Please quote whichever statement of mine you are claiming is unsupported so I can address it directly.

I already told you what it was and you can go back and read it.

It really doesn't. http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/rootwile/shockandawe.html" , and the conclusion:

I'm not reading a paper written by a college student on his own website. This is not a credible source (are you kidding me posting that?). Second, this back and forth you and I are having is about the US media not telling a true story. Instead of addressing this, you keep trying to switch gears which only confirms to me that you are not only wrong (about the US media), but are trying to mask that fact with irrelevant subjects (in relation to this sidebar topic of the media).

Again, it's not like our troops (or the ones who ordered them) expected all the bombs to magically miss the innocent civilians. Furthermore, I'm at a loss as to figure what you think this thread is about if not the moral culpability of the troops who kill innocent civilians.

Edit: This thread has taken such a left turn since wajed's astoundingly lousy comments about the media that I forgot it was about 'murder'. My bad. This is what happens when someone posts such a poor comment.

I never claimed it wasn't in the mainstream media, just asked to see the claim that it was substantiated, and I thank both you and Cyrus for doing so. There is no reason for hostility here.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Again, it's not like our troops (or the ones who ordered them) expected all the bombs to magically miss the innocent civilians. Furthermore, I'm at a loss as to figure what you think this thread is about if not the moral culpability of the troops who kill innocent civilians.

I believe the point of Shock & Awe was to shorten the war and get the initial and most harmful phase done with as soon as possible. The total civilian casualty rate from drawn out battle and attrition would theoretically be reduced. Whether or not this strategy was properly and responsibly implimented in the Iraq war to achieve the desired effect is certainly debatable.

 

[kyleb]

Kyleb, wajed's post above was a lousy generalization about where Americans get their news, and is not generally true. This is simple enough to understand.

He was generalizing about mainstream media, were Americans mainly get their news, which should be self-evident.

I am talking about the video on Youtube posted by wajed. I did not, nor am I, talking about a "Finta video". I don't know what said Finta video is. I never mentioned anything about a Finta video.

My bad, it's "Fitna", but https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2237095&postcount=95".

I already told you what it was and you can go back and read it.

I am honestly at a loss to see what in my comments you are taking issue with, but again if you care to quote the comment in question I would be happy substantiate it.

I'm not reading a paper written by a college student on his own website. This is not a credible source (are you kidding me posting that?).

I figure referenced paper on a college website is as good as the Wikipedia references which pass here. Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War", albeit in more pleasant terms.

Second, this back and forth you and I are having is about the US media not telling a true story. Instead of addressing this, you keep trying to switch gears which only confirms to me that you are not only wrong (about the US media), but are trying to mask that fact with irrelevant subjects (in relation to this sidebar topic of the media).

I'd be happy to provide more examples to support my position on the media, but I'm still hoping you might address the subject of the Barney Song torture first.

Edit: This thread has taken such a left turn since wajed's astoundingly lousy comments about the media that I forgot it was about 'murder'. My bad. This is what happens when someone posts such a poor comment.

All good, but Wajed's comment about the media was in regard to how much of our troops brutalizing and killing innocent people it bothers to report, which is why I brought up the example of the Barney Song torture that I'm still hoping you might acknolage.

 

[Al68]

Am I out of line when I say I hate the troops as much as any other murderer/life taker?!

Yes. The words "murder" and "kill" are not interchangeable in the English language.

It is a severe violation of U.S. military law (UCMJ) for a member to commit murder on any foreign land, war or not.

There are three kinds of people on this board that do not equate killing in war to murder, even if they think the war is wrong:

1. The far left.
2. The far right.
3. Virtually everyone in between.
4. Every major religion in history.

So basically, antd, I think you're all alone here.

 

[wajed]

If you think YouTube videos made from cut up, out of context, segments with...

Why are you suddenly talking about Christians being good/bad/guilty? At what point did we change topics?

Do you understand what the video is about?
The producer of the video used some out of context segments to show people how you can easily do it..
A christian used some out of context segments from Quran, and so, this was a reply just to show everyone how someone can use out of context segments from Bible also..
Its not to show that bible is bad.

That doesn`t mean the video I was referring to won`t make sense..I "used it" to show "something in the video". whether the video uses out of context or not, that doesn`t hide the fact that the soldiers are hitting some kids/guys, brutally.

Again, if you haven't even watched it, don't bother posting it.

I watched it before, I remember the soldiers, and I implied that when I posted the video.
I said "clips" because I couldn`t open it again.. all I remembered was "some clips that show some tortouring".
Its not a big deal, I gave you the video as it is, I didn`t cut parts from the video and sent them to you.


Let`s form a picture of the media Issue:-
1)Sometimes things get out of control. A journalist may get his hands on something interesting and just post it on some newspaper. the pictures leaked from Guantanamo, and published in public can be one example.
That doesn`t mean media is free to show you what really happens in Iraq or anywhere else.

2)When there is something like "Aljazera" showing on live how sheltering baghdad looks like, CNN would be really in a bad position if they just show tanks moving.

3)Cyrus, you are asking us to bring some facts that your media is biased.
Well, you can be biased by many ways:
A)twisting news
B)moisturing some horrible news
C)hiding
D)mentioning news but not giving it enough time.
E)finally, lying.

Now, all of these stuff are hard to prove - except the last one. All I can say, you try to compare news.
How do I know media is biased? when I talk to many americans and find them knowing nothing about certain incidents.. when I watch CNN and find them showing someone`s point and not giving enough time to show the other`s point.. etc.
Its not that I have to provide facts; I may be able to, but I`m not really spending big portion of time to do it now. All what we can talk about now is "what makes more sense".
If that doesn`t suit you, I`ll just stop here. Its fair to do it.
We are not in the court. And I`m not trying to convince you. I`m only trying to show you it can happen, and just try to have you accept it, so that you don`t stop and wait the "facts" to drop all the way from the sky to your desk.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes. The words "murder" and "kill" are not interchangeable in the English language.

It is a severe violation of U.S. military law (UCMJ) for a member to commit murder on any foreign land, war or not.

There are three kinds of people on this board that do not equate killing in war to murder, even if they think the war is wrong:

1. The far left.
2. The far right.
3. Virtually everyone in between.
4. Every major religion in history.

So basically, antd, I think you're all alone here.

Three kinds of people then you list 4? Sorry just had to mention it.

 

[JaredJames]

Now, all of these stuff are hard to prove - except the last one. All I can say, you try to compare news.
How do I know media is biased? when I talk to many americans and find them knowing nothing about certain incidents.. when I watch CNN and find them showing someone`s point and not giving enough time to show the other`s point.. etc.

Ok, you say you speak to people who really have no idea what goes on with certain incidents. Well if your only source of reference is a tv station from / around the "attacked" country, then it also stands to reason that it is just as bad as CNN etc.
A tv station in, say, Iraq, may want to make the US/UK forces look like monsters and if so would supply news to shed that sort of light on the troops. Now CNN on the other hand may want them to look like 'Angels', doing good and so may 'twist' the facts in the much same way to give them that light. Neither sources are totally accurate and both convey their own viewpoint. Even with comparison, (yes I just watched the Aljazeera channel for a bit), I found they were more like two sides of an argument when it came to certain stories. And so it becomes a judgement issue on the watchers part. Again, this sounds to me like what you are doing. You are watching them and coming to a conclusion (whether on what the so called facts are or simply on bias). This may seem to be the better way to watch the news but given that both sources may be altered to suit their cause, it also means your conclusion is potentially based on mis represented and therefore incorrect factual evidence and therefore just as worthless as a person who just watches CNN.

Two sets of incorrect facts do not make one right conclusion.

What you percieve as fact from one channel, does not make it so. The only way to know the true facts of a situation is to be there. Which you are not, and so your viewpoint from watching a 'middle east' news channel instead of / with CNN is potentially just as skewed.

Regardless, we are way off topic here. Is killing bad is the discussion not Is the media crap.

 

[Al68]

Three kinds of people then you list 4? Sorry just had to mention it.

I stand corrected.

 

[drizzle]

Ok, you say you speak to people who really have no idea what goes on with certain incidents. Well if your only source of reference is a tv station from / around the "attacked" country, then it also stands to reason that it is just as bad as CNN etc.
A tv station in, say, Iraq, may want to make the US/UK forces look like monsters and if so would supply news to shed that sort of light on the troops. Now CNN on the other hand may want them to look like 'Angels', doing good and so may 'twist' the facts in the much same way to give them that light. Neither sources are totally accurate and both convey their own viewpoint. Even with comparison, (yes I just watched the Aljazeera channel for a bit), I found they were more like two sides of an argument when it came to certain stories. And so it becomes a judgement issue on the watchers part. Again, this sounds to me like what you are doing. You are watching them and coming to a conclusion (whether on what the so called facts are or simply on bias)...

sorry jarednjames, but as I'm [personally] involved in what’s going on there, I do see that my media reflects the truth, with no amplifications [how can telling innocent people killed by troops be exaggerated?]. at least it would be close to the truth more than the western one, because it does represent the people there.

 

[Hurkyl]

[how can telling innocent people killed by troops be exaggerated?]

Quite easily. Also, "innocent people killed by troops" could be the exaggeration.

 

[Cyrus]

sorry jarednjames, but as I'm [personally] involved in what’s going on there, I do see that my media reflects the truth, with no amplifications [how can telling innocent people killed by troops be exaggerated?]. at least it would be close to the truth more than the western one, because it does represent the people there.

Could you tell me what western media you read to arrive at such a conclusion?

 

[drizzle]

Could you tell me what western media you read to arrive at such a conclusion?

CNN and BBC

 

[Cyrus]

CNN and BBC

Have you tried Charlie Rose, or Meet the Press, or CSPAN?

 

[drizzle]

Have you tried Charlie Rose, or Meet the Press, or CSPAN?

no, is it available in the middle east?

 

[drizzle]

never mind I’m searching the net

 

[Moridin]

Im curious as to why so many posting here think killing is wrong. I don't. There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.

This is a very good point, and there are further complications. For instance "killing", could refer to

killing an innocent by-stander for no apparent reason
killing a spider that has entered your house
killing microorganisms by breathing or scratching your forehead
killing an intruder that has a gun to your face
killing hundreds of thousands of people by dropping a nuclear payload on them

etc.

I would personally want to go as far as to argue that "is killing wrong?" is not even a moral question, since it has been decontextualized to such an extreme. I can suppose that we can say that moral arguments that claim that killing other humans is generally invalid, but that the exceptions would depend on context.

 

[JaredJames]

This is a very good point, and there are further complications. For instance "killing", could refer to

killing an innocent by-stander for no apparent reason
killing a spider that has entered your house
killing microorganisms by breathing or scratching your forehead
killing an intruder that has a gun to your face
killing hundreds of thousands of people by dropping a nuclear payload on them

etc.

I would personally want to go as far as to argue that "is killing wrong?" is not even a moral question, since it has been decontextualized to such an extreme. I can suppose that we can say that moral arguments that claim that killing other humans is generally invalid, but that the exceptions would depend on context.

If someone comes up to me in the street and attempts to use a knife on me/us, and I took defensive actions to protect myself/anyone with me, and ended up killing that person I would not consider that wrong. The person came up to me with the intention of causing harm/death for no justifiable reason (lets put it as a random attack for simplicity).
Whereas if I was that person, and I just went up to someone and killed them for no reason, that would be an unjustified killing.

 

[drankin]

If someone comes up to me in the street and attempts to use a knife on me/us, and I took defensive actions to protect myself/anyone with me, and ended up killing that person I would not consider that wrong. The person came up to me with the intention of causing harm/death for no justifiable reason (lets put it as a random attack for simplicity).
Whereas if I was that person, and I just went up to someone and killed them for no reason, that would be an unjustified killing.

We can simplify this:

Murder = bad
Killing = depends on situation/context

 

[maze]

Killing is always bad. It's just sometimes the lesser of evils.

If you killed someone, even in self defence or war, it would still haunt you the rest of your life.

 

[JaredJames]

Killing is always bad. It's just sometimes the lesser of evils.

If you killed someone, even in self defence or war, it would still haunt you the rest of your life.

Really? If a cop shoots a terrorist with a bomb, (with the intention of blowing up a packed public area), before they have a chance to detonate it. Do you think they are haunted by it?

If a a guy pulls a gun on a cop and shoots at him, and the cop responds by shooting back and killing that person, do you think it would haunt him?

I don't in the first case the cop would be a hero and the second would be defending himself.

 

[maze]

It depends on the cop, but probably yes it would haunt them. That is why they have counseling set up for police and soldiers who kill in the line of duty.

 

[drankin]

Killing is always bad. It's just sometimes the lesser of evils.

If you killed someone, even in self defence or war, it would still haunt you the rest of your life.

I think most people would disagree that "Killing is always bad". When it comes to kill or be killed, you may choose death but most everyone else alive will choose to keep breathing. But, I find it hard to believe that if you were faced with someone bent on murdering you that you would not prevent it even if it cost the attackers life. That's your choice to make for yourself but not your choice to make for others.

 

[Cyrus]

It depends on the cop, but probably yes it would haunt them. That is why they have counseling set up for police and soldiers who kill in the line of duty.

I don't buy into your generalization argument here.

 

[JaredJames]

It depends on the cop, but probably yes it would haunt them. That is why they have counseling set up for police and soldiers who kill in the line of duty.

No, if you use the OP logic alone "everyone who joins these forces wants to kill" then nobody would be traumatised. However this is clearly not the case. But that still doesn't mean most people become traumatised. I think in these situations, the cop would see it as doing their job and therefore, unless they felt they did something wrong (made a bad call) then they wouldn't be affected.