Torture vs Drones

[MobBoss]

I really don't know. I doubt any of us know. That's why I returned the question.

What you're doing is rationally approaching the subject. I'm not convinced we'd use our heads instead of our hearts in this case. Another part of it is that it would depend in what scenario this would happen. If I'd grown up in a region like the Gaza strip would be different than growing up in Pakistan. Whether the incident stands by itself or is preceded by other similar events. Whether there is an active terrorist movement accessible. Point is, I can't categorically say "I couldn't be a terrorist". That would depend on a lot of factors.

You actually think you could strap on explosives and kill a bunch of innocent people in a bus?

And i'm of an age where I pretty much know myself, who I am, and what I would do. Sure, i'm using my brain, but I also know in my heart that I couldnt be a terrorist.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The reason why it's a gut reaction is because it's the same set of ethical values that baboons use. One thing that is really good about Christian morality is that is fundamentally transcends this instinct. Baboon morality is an instinct, but it's not objectively good. The second you value someone 'close' more than someone 'far' is the second you've abandoned Christ's morality.

We're human, it's going to happen. But should be recognised for what it is, it's a human fallibility.

This has partially inspired my anti-war views (Blowback, expansion of government power, and the drain on tax revenues being the others, in no particular order).

I agree with Mobboss that the US President should protect US citizens first (Although I don't think this would often be necessary were it not for our warmongering foreign policy). But that doesn't mean it should make me any less sad when someone from a foreign nation dies.

You actually think you could strap on explosives and kill a bunch of innocent people in a bus?

And i'm of an age where I pretty much know myself, who I am, and what I would do. Sure, i'm using my brain, but I also know in my heart that I couldnt be a terrorist.

I couldn't kill myself, and I couldn't kill anyone in any of our military invasions. But if someone attacked my home or my country, I would have no problem with killing them.

 

[MobBoss]

The lives of the people of one nationality being worth more than another means that some posters think they are prima facie worth more than other posters in this thread, simply based on where they were born or where they live, or that some posters think other posters are prima facie worth more that another set of posters in this thread, simply based on where they were born or where they live. Apparently MobBoss thinks Forma's life is worth more than Ziggy's, for example (though to be honest, we might have guessed that anyway).

Is it a 'US and then the rest' thing, or is there some sort of fleshed out hierarchy (and if so, where do Australians fit on the list)?

Its just simple tribalism at its core. In other words, its simply a human thing that happens.

 

[El_Machinae]

We've no problem killing people. It's just that we insist upon some distance between the cause & effect and forgive ourselves if there's any type of dilution of guilt. This, again, is a function of proximity. Again, it's another place where I agree with the Christian message, we're all sinners and it's nigh impossible to not be one.

Regarding the President: yes, it's his job to value his citizens over others. His job just conflicts with the Christian commandments; it then that person's decision to downplay what Christ said and go for the lukewarm route of the Golden Rule.

 

[MobBoss]

We've no problem killing people. It's just that we insist upon some distance between the cause & effect and forgive ourselves if there's any type of dilution of guilt. This, again, is a function of proximity. Again, it's another place where I agree with the Christian message, we're all sinners and it's nigh impossible to not be one.

True, but in the end, there is still a difference between those that heed the call of Christ and are saved...and those that dont.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You actually think you could strap on explosives and kill a bunch of innocent people in a bus?

And i'm of an age where I pretty much know myself, who I am, and what I would do. Sure, i'm using my brain, but I also know in my heart that I couldnt be a terrorist.

Read my post again.

 

[Formaldehyde]

C'mon. Everybody knows that terrorism must entail suicide and killing as many innocent civilians as possible.

It can't possibly mean seeking revenge against those responsible for just killing your entire family. Acting against those those who invaded and occupied your own country on the basis of lies and deceit. Fighting against those who treat you like a subhuman while stealing the natural resources of your country.

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." William Blum

 

[Chiteng]

C'mon. Everybody knows that terrorism must entail suicide and killing as many innocent civilians as possible. It can't possibly mean seeking revenge against those responsible for just killing your entire family. Acting against those those who invaded and occupied your own country on the basis of deceit and lies. Fighting against those who treat you like subhumans.

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." William Blum

It doesnt matter what the enemy believes. If he is trying to kill you, you kill him.
That is called self defense.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do think there's a difference between a terrorist and an insurgent(/freedom fighter). They're different things, morally.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that 2) often includes 1), since fighting a professional, national army on its own terms - that is, 'playing fair' - normally ends badly, and we've had enough experience to be able to deal with most of the legal forms of unsporting warfare.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I do think there's a difference between a terrorist and an insurgent(/freedom fighter). They're different things, morally.

By that distinction, very few terrorists actually are "terrorists". There are far more "freedom fighters" who don't intentionally target civilians, yet they are still often called "terrorists" so they can be treated like they are subhumans to rationalize excessive "collateral damage".

 

[MobBoss]

By that distinction, very few terrorists actually are "terrorists". There are far more "freedom fighters" who don't intentionally target civilians, yet they are still often called "terrorists" so they can be treated like they are subhumans to rationalize excessive "collateral damage".

Do you have an example to back up your premise? Please be specific.

Read my post again.

Come on Ziggy. You know I read it. My answer stands.

 

[Camikaze]

Its just simple tribalism at its core. In other words, its simply a human thing that happens.

I'm not disputing that, but it certainly doesn't make it right, defensible or thinking that we shouldn't aim to avoid.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not disputing that, but it certainly doesn't make it right, defensible or thinking that we shouldn't aim to avoid.

Don't worry, I'd pick the Australian box too.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not disputing that, but it certainly doesn't make it right, defensible or thinking that we shouldn't aim to avoid.

If you had to make a choice and had to pick the life of your countryman or a foreigner, with all things being equal, who in the hell would pick the foreigner to live?

Now, I can understand and appreciate the fact that you might not want either one of them to die. Great. Got it. But if you absolutely had to pick, and fully knew one would die and you would be saving the other, wouldnt you pick your own countryman as well?

And fwiw, I'd have a hard time saying that would be wrong. And thats not really a reference of the value of either of them, its just how a deep part of our own psyche works. And its there for a reason.

And if you think such a choice is wrong, then explain why.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not disputing that, but it certainly doesn't make it right, defensible or thinking that we shouldn't aim to avoid.

It is just another excuse to engage in barbarism from the distant past.

There is no either/or decision here. It is callously killing innocent civilians because an American soldier might possibly be injured or killed instead. It is based on the absurd pretense that American life is sacred but other life is not.

The first duty of any soldier should be to protect all innocent human life whenever possible, not just those of their countrymen. That means not intentionally using bombs or other weapons with well known blast radii when it is quite well known there are non-combatants in the kill zone, especially women and children. It is really no different than intentionally doing so when the results are inevitable, and such acts are now specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention due to numerous such atrocities committed during WWII.

 

[MobBoss]

Form, it is nothing of the sort.

And soldiers do have a duty to protect innocent life. We do more now to decrease the chances of such life lost as never before in the history of our country.

As to 'blast radii' and blame, lets not forget earlier in this thread you were selling huge EOD explosions as examples of that - falsely I might add. And of course there is a huge difference in intentionally targeting and killing civilians and those that are killed accidently.

All you know how to do is blame and use false information to bolster your accusations. Luckily more than enough here see your lies for exactly what they are: simple propaganda.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you had to make a choice and had to pick the life of your countryman or a foreigner, with all things being equal, who in the hell would pick the foreigner to live?

Now, I can understand and appreciate the fact that you might not want either one of them to die. Great. Got it. But if you absolutely had to pick, and fully knew one would die and you would be saving the other, wouldnt you pick your own countryman as well?

And fwiw, I'd have a hard time saying that would be wrong. And thats not really a reference of the value of either of them, its just how a deep part of our own psyche works. And its there for a reason.

And if you think such a choice is wrong, then explain why.

I would refuse to make the choice. There's simply no intristic reason I should pick one over the other. I'd leave it to God.

If someone put a gun to the head of two people and said "Name one so I can kill that one" I'd refuse to answer, and if that meant he killed both and me, so be it, I didn't do anything unethical and so I am in right standing before my God.

 

[MobBoss]

I would refuse to make the choice. There's simply no intristic reason I should pick one over the other. I'd leave it to God.

If someone put a gun to the head of two people and said "Name one so I can kill that one" I'd refuse to answer, and if that meant he killed both and me, so be it, I didn't do anything unethical and so I am in right standing before my God.

Refusing to answer wasnt an option. You have to make the choice and one has to die. Do you save the person you actually have a commonality with, or do you let your countryman die? Its just a simple exercise, and fwiw, I think the vast majority would pick their countryman to live, regardless of their culture or nation of origin.

What I dont get is why are people afraid to admit thats the choice they would make?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Come on Ziggy. You know I read it. My answer stands.

I know you read the first line. But if you feel your reply is an answer to my entire post, we have nothing to discus.