Things that make you go.......WTF?

Post by **think positive** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:54 am

Yeah I guess I read between the lines that the officers were party to it, guess we have to see if they keep their promise

Post by **David** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:07 pm

While I'm happy to see barbarity punished, there does seem to be a strange double standard with these things. Kill enemy soldiers in a cruel and unnecessary way and you (rightly) get court martialed. Drop a bomb on an enemy target, taking a few civilians out as 'collateral damage', and that's just war.

Anyone who thinks the latter is less cruel, have you ever seen the aftermath of a bombing?

Post by **stui magpie** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:17 pm

^

Comes down to intent. I think we've had this conversation before, several times. It's like a version of your trolley car fetish.

Run over people in the trolley because you're having a bad day or because they did something bad to you, ungood.

Run over 3 people in the trolley so 100 others can live, justified.

Post by **David** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:27 pm

Post by **think positive** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:34 pm

Bin laden was never going to be taken alive. He would have seen Saddam death. Wasn't there reports he had a gun?

Post by **David** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:36 pm

I think it's more correct to say that they had no intention of taking him alive. In any case, I think it came out eventually that he was unarmed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 91766.html

Post by **think positive** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:44 pm

Is there a difference between killing a criminal mastermind and his foot soldiers? I think there is. He wasn't tortured either, right between the eyes the first shot. Dead or dying? So shoot him in the chest to put him out of his misery. On a side note, I've been to ground zero, I'm glad he's dead.

The other story is different, they were already either captured or surrendered.

Mugwump · Post by **Mugwump** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:47 pm

stui magpie wrote:^

Comes down to intent. I think we've had this conversation before, several times. It's like a version of your trolley car fetish.

Run over people in the trolley because you're having a bad day or because they did something bad to you, ungood.

Run over 3 people in the trolley so 100 others can live, justified.

Yes, it's really not that hard. On Your logic, David, there seems no moral difference between the invasion of Normandy in 1944, with inevitable civilian casualties, and killing enemy combatants after they have surrendered ? I'm not trying to be cute, but that seems to be what you're suggesting ? If so, that seems very odd to me.

As for bin Laden, I think you'll see the difference after a few minutes reflection, but let me suggest some lines of thinking for you :

1. Had bin Laden surrendered ?
2. Were the circumstances those of combat ?
3. Were there unique political considerations attached to the bin
Laden capture and a US trial which made the idea of his arraignment and incarceration under US law uniquely problematic ?

....

Post by **stui magpie** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:49 pm

David wrote:I think it's more correct to say that they had no intention of taking him alive. In any case, I think it came out eventually that he was unarmed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 91766.html

Without reading the article, I'm sure there was zero intent to take him alive. That would have involved locking him up, getting him healthy and putting him in front of courts while all the time acting as a rallying point for his cause.

Bullet to the head, far preferable.

Post by **David** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:51 pm

Mugwump wrote:
stui magpie wrote:^

Comes down to intent. I think we've had this conversation before, several times. It's like a version of your trolley car fetish.

Run over people in the trolley because you're having a bad day or because they did something bad to you, ungood.

Run over 3 people in the trolley so 100 others can live, justified.
Yes, it's really not that hard. On Your logic, David, there seems no moral difference between the invasion of Normandy in 1944, with inevitable civilian casualties, and killing enemy combatants after they have surrendered ? I'm not trying to be cute, but that seems to be what you're suggesting ? If so, that seems very odd to me.

As for bin Laden, I think you'll see the difference after a few minutes reflection, but let me suggest some lines of thinking for you :

1. Had bin Laden surrendered ?
2. Were the circumstances those of combat ?
3. Were there unique political considerations attached to the bin
Laden capture and a US trial which made the idea of his arraignment and incarceration under US law uniquely problematic ?

....

I don't mind you arguing that it was a special case, as long as people accept that it was effectively an assassination.

As for WW2, there were a lot of things that the Allies did that would rightly be considered war crimes today but were accepted as a necessary fact of war at the time. I suspect that the real lesson to take from this is that, necessary or not, war can never be anything but cruel and barbaric. Rules of engagement probably help make it a little less so, though by defining morality around them we set up a dichotomy (of 'good' and 'bad' wartime behaviour) that is only loosely related to real-world consequences.

Post by **think positive** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:59 pm

Not just the Allies, take a look at the crimes of the Japanese and Germans just for a start.

Mugwump · Post by **Mugwump** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:04 pm

^ of course war is cruel and barbaric, David, but that is so obvious that I scarely see the point of saying it.

One of the great problems of war is that it is almost impossible, in advance, to know which wars were worth fighting, and on what terms. I am increasingly sceptical, for instance, that Britain was wise to fight in either the First or the Second World War, though these assertions are themselves unprovable. More controversially, I think the First World War probably presented a more reasonable casus belli for Britain than the Second. The commitment given to Poland was a massive strategic error.

Bin Laden was the killing of a murderous combatant, and in the uncertain context, a secure surrender was virtually inconceivable. If you call that an assassination, I think that term becomes far too elastic.

Post by **think positive** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:07 pm

Mugwump wrote:^ of course, but that is so obvious that I scarely see the point of saying it.

One of the great problems of war is that it is almost impossible, in advance, to know which wars were worth fighting, and on what terms. I am increasingly sceptical, for instance, that Britain was wise to fight in either the First or the Second World War, though these assertions are themselves unprovable. More controversially, I think the First World War probably presented a more reasonable casus belli than the Second.

Bin laden was the killing of a murderous combatant. If you call that an assassination, I think you are being too elastic with terms.

I guess I don't like my grandfathers side being tarnished without pointing out the evil of the opposition, cheers

Post by **David** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:23 pm

Post by **stui magpie** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:24 pm

The nazis did the Holocaust. Nuff said on them.

The japanese were only behind them on volume and selection process and possibly ahead on sheer cruelty (possibly)

They both set a fairly low bar, I'd like to think our actions, while some may have been poor at times, weren't able to crawl under that bar.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Things that make you go.......WTF?