Summations Only

On what basis are you convinced that those undertaking the attacks are doing the necessary moral calculus?

So would I. In fact I would go so far as to say it is inevitably the case. Why?The sheer number of attacks in question, the sheer amount of collateral damage (i.e. civilian deaths and maimings) that the attacks in question have resulted in, the less than exemplary moral track record of the US military, the fact that the attacks are often undertaken by intelligence agencies who are notoriously unaccountable for their actions, the psychological need to dehumanise those one is required to harm or kill, the sort of apathy to atrocities exhibited by people like you, the fact that it’s all too easy to lose moral perspective when it is your job to sit thousands of miles away from those you are killing effectively operating controls that are not dissimilar to those found in a video game, the footage of US troops taking a jingoistic and gung-ho approach to killing people, the fact that humans will invariably provide post-hoc rationalisations to the morally dubious actions they take or support, reports from the UN and other organisations stating that the attacks in question flout long established standards of human rights and so on and so forth.So having established that immoral killings are taking place the only question left in this thread is whether such killings can legitimately be described as "murder".Whilst in a legal technical sense the answer is probably "no" I would suggest that in more common parlance the term "murder" is probably quite apt.

Have you seen that movie Charlie Wilson's War?There's so much covert shit going on, none of us have a clue as to what's really happening over there. There's a lot of calculus happening, probably too much, but whether or not its moral isn't something we're going to figure out here. But the people in charge do have a vested interest in their country (at the least you don't want to work yourself out of a job). You're going to have to trust them at some point. And if not, then you've got to vote someone else in that you do.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling

See Message 302

So have you seen that movie? I don't really have a problem with that. It kinda cheapens the word "murder" and it also means that a lot of western governments are also "guilty of murder". Its going to be something that every country that goes to war is "guilty" of. So I don't see the point in calling it that.Why not just reiterate that war is really fucking ugly?Throwing around emotive words like murder isn't my cup of tea. And it makes people sound like a bitch when they do.

They're human beings, aren't they?

All I'm asking for is consistency really.If when US citizens are killed by those who consider themselves at "war" with America it is "murder" but when the US kills people it believes it is at "war" with it isn't murder - Then I think the word "murder" is being used inconsistently and emotively for reasons that largely amount to propaganda. Then I suggest you complain equally vociferously when the term "murder" is used in other circumstances.Taking their cue from the US, how long before Russia and China are start killing off people they don't like around the world with drones......? Will we be discussing the legal technicalities of whether these attacks constitute "murder" or not? I doubt it....

Yes they are human. And given the demonstrable ability of humans to act immorally or to psychologically immunise themselves from actions they might normally consider immoral - I think you have pretty much made my point for me.

Really? You don't see the fundamental asymmetry in what you've just described? When a militant attacks the US, both the militant and the US agree that he's at war with the US. The militant is happy to tell you and the US is happy to take him at his word. But the people the militant is usually attacking - American civilians - aren't at war with anybody. And that is murder.Killing a soldier, on a battlefield, during a war isn't "murder." Killing a civilian during an attack on a soldier is a regrettable accident, but it's not murder either. Killing a civilian on purpose is murder. We're not the ones who do that. The people we're trying to kill are.

And what point is that? That our militaries are run by sociopaths that kill kids for fun? Why on Earth would I believe something so stupid?

How about if you know your attack will inevitably kill civilians and you think it probable that it will also kill an enemy soldier?Is that "murder".....How about if you think there is a vague chance you will kill an enemy soldier and you don't care that a bunch of civilians will inevitably get killed in the attack - Is that murder?Your example is too black and white, too sanitised, too clean cut to realistically represent the full extent and nature of the attacks that have taken place. So does wiping out a city of civilians with a nuclear bomb constitute "murder" or not? I'm sure the terrorists who attack New York and London think of themselves waging war in exactly the same way that those who drop bombs do. It is NOT an "accident". It is at best a calculated decision. And given all the factors I mentioned in Message 302 it isn't a calculated decision that we can just assume is always morally legitimate.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. Rather you should question your assumption that all the attacks in question are morally legitimate because of the following already stated reasons. Here they are again.The sheer number of attacks in question, the sheer amount of collateral damage (i.e. civilian deaths and maimings) that the attacks in question have resulted in, the less than exemplary moral track record of the US military, the fact that the attacks are often undertaken by intelligence agencies who are notoriously unaccountable for their actions, the psychological need to dehumanise those one is required to harm or kill, the sort of apathy to atrocities exhibited by people like Catholic Scientist, the fact that it’s all too easy to lose moral perspective when it is your job to sit thousands of miles away from those you are killing effectively operating controls that are not dissimilar to those found in a video game, the footage of US troops taking a jingoistic and gung-ho approach to killing people, the fact that humans will invariably provide post-hoc rationalisations to the morally dubious actions they take or support, reports from the UN and other organisations stating that the attacks in question flout long established standards of human rights and so on and so forth.In short (to quote Robert Wright) because "human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their ignorance of the misuse".

(Sorry about the bare link, but I think This Modern World should be in every Sunday comic strip in america)

quote:

---

Malala, who has said she wants to be a doctor, gained notice by blogging for the BBC under a pseudonym in 2009. Diary of a Pakistani schoolgirl described with visceral detail militants’ attempts to subjugate the residents of her native Swat Valley and, especially, the Taliban’s attempt to ban girls from attending school.
Since today was the last day of our school, we decided to play in the playground a bit longer. I am of the view that the school will one day reopen, but while leaving I looked at the building as if I would not come here again, she wrote.
The Pakistani military eventually beat back the Taliban, but the group continues to cast a shadow, especially in rural regions which is why Malala kept advocating on behalf of girls who want to learn and become productive members of a modern society.
Malala was shot in the head and neck. She is likely to survive, although the extent of her recovery remains to be seen. Still in critical condition, she was transported to a new hospital Thursday.

---

http://www.nydailynews.com/...file-courage-article-1.1181476Taliban activities in Pakistan have, so far, killed almost 40,000 men, women, and children. When they blow up weddings and funerals, it's on purpose.

I think we all agree that the Taliban is an evil organization. The problem is when we retaliate in a way that causes innocent death, then no matter how morally justified it may be in western eyes, in the eyes of those we are ostensibly helping we are no different.If we really want to help those societies that are being brutalized by totalitarian regimes such as the Taliban then we have to show them a better way. Eventually people will rebel in big or little ways and over considerable time things will improve just as they have in our own societies, as imperfect as they are. The problem will not be resolved overnight or in one world leader's term in office.It seems to me that we now have the tools and the technology to reach out to people who are being traumatized by the Taliban and even to those in the Taliban itself. As I said earlier we should be carpet bombing the place with computers and providing educational tools it their native languages via the internet. We should provide food supplies and the materials and knowledge to provide for themselves. This so called war should be aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the people and bombs just don't cut it.AbE:This14 year old Pakistani girl has done more, IMHO to defeat the Taliban than any number of bombs that have been dropped. What a heroic young woman. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.