LoL!!! I'm all for a debate...but in this case I'll keep it simple.

How is beheading someone on video comparable to hiding a prisoner from the Red Cross? For that matter - what separates killing someone by beheading and dropping a 'smart bomb' on some building? Are you implying that there are "right" and "wrong" ways of killing? Or just that killing is bad in general? If the latter - OF COURSE it is!!! I don't think ANYONE would debate that fact...but how to stop the killing? Just withdraw from Iraq and let what happens happen? Let terrorists roam amuck killing at will yet refrain from killing them because its fundamentally wrong?! What's your idea? If you were president, what would YOU have done?

"When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies. When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values. When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror." - Norman Solomon from "Orwellian Logic 101 - A Few Simple Lessons".

;)

Hmmmm....I shall ponder this...

Pacifier, it's the mind *behind* the killing that matters.

If a terrorist blows up innocent civilians, he does it to kill as many people as possible, and to prolong a conflict.

If a US combat pilot drops a bomb onto an enemy position, the goal is not necessarily to kill the enemy, but to end the conflict.

The difference is quite obvious: terrorists kill to kill, while the US army wants to kill to *stop* the killing.

...right?

Eh, does it really matter behind the mind?

In the end they still go out there knowing they'll have to kill, regardless of motive

I don't really care to much about motive - killing is still killing, isn't it?

Remember that quote from Patton? "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "

Whether you're out to end a conflict or to start one, you're still going to kill - i dn't think there's much of a point in equating one or another when this same stuff happens at home

I think you missed the point of what I said. I was mocking people who answer BushCO actions with "the terrorist did X", where X is the next terrorist action. These people seem to think that as long as BushCo isn't quite as bad as the terrorists, everything is fine. If the actions of BushCO are comparable to terrorist actions, (I'm not saying they are) the Senate needs to start impeachment trials.

Yes, of course it does. Killing isn't necessarily bad. If I were to kill a terrorist that is preparing to kill tens of people, I've just saved the lives of those potential victims.

What's your thought on the US soldiers killing German soldiers to end the second world war? Isn't there a difference between the two sides? And if you want to move into the extreme... there surely is a difference between German SS soldiers killing innocent French civilians, and US soldiers killing those same SS guys?

...now, if you don't see any difference, there's not much left to discuss. It'd mean that people would not be allowed to defend themselves against an enemy, regardless of how evil this enemy is. I simply won't accept that.

No what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter in the end - killing is still = killing. Whether you're saving people or not, the end is the same.

And what do you mean by not allowing me to defend? Thats one big huge assumption. I said it doesn't matter in the end - doesn't mean it doesn't happen nor does it mean I dont think it should. When there is war, people are killed. I don't think there is a point in saying one side is better than the other when the end result is the same - someone is killed.

If you think I'm suddenly a pacifist because I don't think that one side is better than another, then boy are you wrong.

< hypothetical >
So if a US soldier kills a not guilty suspect by torturing him that "kill" is better than the beheading of a US civillian?
< /hypothetical >


wrong, you see the terrorists as mindless killing machines without any kind of goal or reason. You see them as their only reason to live is to kill.
That point of view is so black/white that it hurts.

Terrorists might have a goal, but they are still sociopathic cowards.

Well, at least you agree they have a goal which is what we were getting at.

the sad fact is that killing *IS* killing and that no matter how much justifying you do to prove that the killing that we did is somehow better than the killing done by others is just an effort to dehumanize the enemy. not only does it trivialize the issues that are being fought over ("we're right, the're wrong and that's all there is to it!") but it is predicated on the assumption that our side doesn't make mistakes. This is a horrible form of denial because it allows out government in our name to kill innocent people. obviously it is necessary to do something to combat terrorism and the harsh reality is that blood will be spilled -- but i would like to think that every other avenue would be exercised first and that we would still regret whatever death had to occur. Iraqi's are people with families and lives and gods and to sum up their entire existence with "well the're evil." is a pathetic attempt to comfort ourselves in a time of horrible choices.

Sooooooooo,

Our action of killing German soldiers in WW2 is morally equivalent to Hitler gassing and cremating Jews?

Or perhaps we just didn't try to "understand" him enough?

So when America hides prisoners it is for national security. If any other country do the same, then it is human right abuse. Double standard people?

Well he fell into the category of "Illegal combatant" correct? I think everyone can pretty much agree, that if this guy had information that involved the safety of our boys in Iraq, and we had the power to not reveal him and extract said information, there is no issue.

If not, wow.

Californians... ;)

is the death of a german soldier just as sad as the death of a jew? yes. is woodrow wilson as evil as hitler? of course not. unnecessary death is sad; when you think of everyone involved as complete people it is horribly sad and I think it callous to argue anything else. I am not saying that war is never necessary but i do not think it should be taken lightly and i do not think that we should pretend that the "enemy" (not to mention the civilians that are bound to be caught in the crossfire) is not human.

Too bad that you're dead wrong. I don't see terrorists as mindless killing machines. I understand that they have a goal. I just happen to think that their goal is evil, insane, undemocratic, inhumane and totally against my interests. In other words: they're the enemy, no matter if they have a goal or not.

And yes, I do recognise the difference between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists. I don't think freedom fighters should be striving to blow up innocent civilians, no matter what their reasons; that is wrong according to pretty much every moral system on the planet. The reason it is wrong is the intent.

Perhaps it would be better to say that the US strives for order, while terrorists strive for chaos. Whereas too much order is a bad thing, too much chaos is a very bad thing.

Is war terrible?

Yes.

Should it be avoided if possible?

Yes.

Am I said that the person trying to kill me is dead?

No.


While you are trying to understand them, they are trying to kill you.

i am. i'm glad i'm alive, if it had to be me or him i'm glad it wasn't me -- but i'm not glad someone had to die. i'm not glad that this person's family will have a funeral to go to. i'm not glad that I live in a world where people hate each other this much. i'm not glad to have blood on my hands and i wish that it could have been differently. do you really think that anyone (short of the phycopathic) ever feels *GOOD* about killing another person?

Geez labeling people Californians?

Great for the generalizations, but I think we got over that... or did we?

I'll let you know I've had to fire a rifle in anger before and I know i've killed people - in the end, what does it matter?

The same thing happened - one guy died on their side, one guy on ours. Does it matter in the end? No, they're dead, its just that simple.

I don't care if a person is evil or good or what not, if they got killed, they got killed!

You're going to do what you must in war regardless and survival is #1, and if you have to kill, then you do so. Whether a person is good or evil - who cares. If he got killed, he got killed.

Maybe, but your statement sounded like that.


OK, but I think understanding the goal and motivation of the enemy make it easier to find a solution. A solution that involves not the usage of more violence than the enemy.

yes, somehow thats true, Terrorism work with the fear of the masses.


An additional note to the Nazis comparisons:
Those are irrelevant to the question if the mind behind the killing counts, to see if the mind count you have to compare two identical situations (both armies killing civilians). In that case I don'T see how the mind counts.
In your exaples it is always "kiling civilians" vs. "killing soldiers", in that case the mind behind the killing doesn't matter, killing civillians is always wrong

I am not glad there is war and anger and unnecessary death in the world.

I am sorry that we have to resort to killing at times.

But when we decide that we do, it should be done without hesitation or appology.

The logic is that the civilian population is very much apart of the war machine, as it is they who supply the soldiers, build the tanks, bombs, guns, etc.

If they civilian population loses the will to fight, then the military population usually isn't far behind.

This lesson was very much driven home with Viet Nam.

why should it be done without apology? i don't see what we gain (except maybe some sort of denial) by pretending that killing other people isn't sad.

So you prefer the concept of "total war"?
You realise that with you explanation such attacks like 911 are perfectly OK in the "war on terror"?

Might I point out that there's a difference between explaining the logic behind something and actually agreeing with it? :)

yep, thats why i'm asking ;)

Because once you are my avowed enemy, I am not sorry to see you dead.

As I've explained in the past and will likely explain again in the future, the critical destinction is that Al Quaeda is not associated with any country.

They have no uniform.

They have no government.

They have no territory.


They are instead made up of dissidents from this place and that place who want to kill all the Jews in Israel and kick all the westerners out of Saudi Arabia while bringing Sharia to as many countries as they can.


Is the difference really that hard for you to see?


Edit:

Oh, and as for total war, I am only for it when it has a purpose and when the people we are at war with can be defined.

So while I support the use of the atomic bomb in WW2, I would not support killing Muslims in the US for the sins of Al Quaeda.