Is it wrong to call a soldier "baby killer"?

Earl Grey wrote:

What is the difference between killing civilians in general and killing babies? Innocence? Who says only babies can be innocent?

Quote:
NO soldier intends to kill innocents...

That is strictly speaking not true, unless you want to redefine the word soldier. There are and probably have always been soldiers who wish to kill innocents, out of hate or some other reason.
Then there is the difficulty of defining innocent. Is a civilian who contributes to the national economy by going to work every day an innocent?

An innocent is ANY noncombatant.Male,female,old,young,or wounded enemy soldier,it makes no difference.
No professional soldier enjoys killing innocent people.Yes,there are a few warped individuals in any army that do enjoy it,but they are rare.
The true soldier will go out of their way to protect and defend innocent people,up to and including risking wounds to save them.
I speak from experience on that matter,and have the injuries to prove it.
However,a terrorist os NOT a soldier,no matter what they want to claim.
A real soldier would not machine gun an airport waiting room full of UNARMED women and children. Terrorists do.
So,I will say again that true soldiers do NOT intentionally harm the innocent,nor are they "baby killers".

0 Replies

Amen, mysteryman, amen.

They haven't got a clue.

Amen.

Joe

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

No professional soldier enjoys killing innocent people.Yes,there are a few warped individuals in any army that do enjoy it,but they are rare.
The true soldier will go out of their way to protect and defend innocent people,up to and including risking wounds to save them.

IMHO you are making a logical error.
Does a soldier enjoy killing other soldiers? If he does then you could argue that he is morally wrong. So, he kills enemy soldiers, but doesn't enjoy it.
Does that mean that someone who kills innocents have to enjoy doing that?
If he kills innocents, but does not enjoy it, can he still not be considered a soldier?
What about strategic bombing? What about artillery shelling?

Instead of saying "no soldier enjoys..." you should have said "it is an immoral soldier who enjoys..." or something to that effect.

mysteryman wrote:

... a terrorist is NOT a soldier

He could be a soldier, but he does not have to be a soldier.
The official US army definition of terrorism supports this.

Quote:

"The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature... through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear."

0 Replies

Earl Grey wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

No professional soldier enjoys killing innocent people.Yes,there are a few warped individuals in any army that do enjoy it,but they are rare.
The true soldier will go out of their way to protect and defend innocent people,up to and including risking wounds to save them.

IMHO you are making a logical error.
Does a soldier enjoy killing other soldiers? If he does then you could argue that he is morally wrong. So, he kills enemy soldiers, but doesn't enjoy it.
Does that mean that someone who kills innocents have to enjoy doing that?
If he kills innocents, but does not enjoy it, can he still not be considered a soldier?
What about strategic bombing? What about artillery shelling?

Instead of saying "no soldier enjoys..." you should have said "it is an immoral soldier who enjoys..." or something to that effect.

mysteryman wrote:
... a terrorist is NOT a soldier

He could be a soldier, but he does not have to be a soldier.
The official US army definition of terrorism supports this.

Quote:
"The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature... through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear."

No soldier enjoys killing,period. BUT,on the battlefield,its is a fight between trained,similarly equipped,people that knowingly and willingly agreed to take the risks associated with war.
I am NOT trying to glorify war,there is no glory in war,BUT when you are fighting trained combat troops,it is possible to take pleasure in winning,and not enjoy the killing involved.
Terrorists on the other hand,are NOT soldiers in any definition of the word.
Professional soldiers in every military that I know of hate and despise them. A terrorist is a coward at heart,without honor,and deserving of no quarter from trained troops.

You are trying to make the case that strategic bombing and artillery barrages kill innocents,and you are right,they do.BUT,it is the responsibility of the military to try and remove civilians from the combat zone,especially their own civilians.There is no rational soldier that enjoys killing,and we do everything we can to avoid innocent deaths,but in the final analysis,it comes down to something General Patton is supposed to have said..."You don't win a war by dying for your country,you win by making the other poor SOB die for his"

0 Replies

Dresden?

0 Replies

Dresden was a disaster that never should have happened.It had no strategic,military,or political value as a target,but it was attacked anyway.

But,I can also point to the Doolittle raid on Tokyo,where several airplanes and crews died because they tried to avoid civilian targets.
Or,the Ploesti raid,where several planes went down because the crews avoided civilian targets,allowing the civilians to send a warning.
Yes,there are examples on both sides,and we can keep it up all night if you want.
Do you?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

No soldier enjoys killing,period.

I've already pointed out why this statement is wrong.

mysteryman wrote:

... on the battlefield,its is a fight between trained,similarly equipped...

Similarly equipped? Which battlefield is that?
Certainly not in the latest US war on Iraq. I'm absolutely not saying that having superior equipment is wrong, just that the phrase "similarly equipped" is irrelevant.

mysteryman wrote:

Terrorists on the other hand,are NOT soldiers in any definition of the word.

A terrorist is a coward at heart,without honor,and deserving of no quarter from trained troops.

The word terrorist still needs a definition.
What about guerilla warfare?
The way I see it regular armed forces, guerilla forces and terrorists are all examples of an extension of politics through the use of force in order to attain a political goal.
If you have overwhelming resources, like if you are a superpower, then it's easy to take the high road, but if you are fighting a superpower, then it's obvious that you cannot win by using regular armed forces. You then use those means at your disposal that are most likely to be successful.

A suicide bomber is the same as a regular soldier in the sense that both are an extension of politics.

mysteryman wrote:

You are trying to make the case that strategic bombing... kill innocents...

My main point there is that terror bombing which was widely used from the Spanish Civil War up to at least the end of the Vietnam War was part of military strategy and the crews of those planes were certainly considered soldiers and their missions were in part or in full to kill civilians.
It is not correct to define a soldier as someone who does not kill civilians or even as one who does not enjoy killing civilians.

mysteryman wrote:

... we do everything we can to avoid innocent deaths,but in the final analysis,it comes down to something General Patton is supposed to have said..."You don't win a war by dying for your country,you win by making the other poor SOB die for his"

IMO Gen Patton's point was: It's a fool that puts glory and fair play over winning. Let the other side be heroic as long as my side wins.

0 Replies

Earl Grey wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
No soldier enjoys killing,period.

I've already pointed out why this statement is wrong.

mysteryman wrote:
... on the battlefield,its is a fight between trained,similarly equipped...

Similarly equipped? Which battlefield is that?
Certainly not in the latest US war on Iraq. I'm absolutely not saying that having superior equipment is wrong, just that the phrase "similarly equipped" is irrelevant.

mysteryman wrote:
Terrorists on the other hand,are NOT soldiers in any definition of the word.

A terrorist is a coward at heart,without honor,and deserving of no quarter from trained troops.

The word terrorist still needs a definition.
What about guerilla warfare?
The way I see it regular armed forces, guerilla forces and terrorists are all examples of an extension of politics through the use of force in order to attain a political goal.
If you have overwhelming resources, like if you are a superpower, then it's easy to take the high road, but if you are fighting a superpower, then it's obvious that you cannot win by using regular armed forces. You then use those means at your disposal that are most likely to be successful.

A suicide bomber is the same as a regular soldier in the sense that both are an extension of politics.

mysteryman wrote:
You are trying to make the case that strategic bombing... kill innocents...

My main point there is that terror bombing which was widely used from the Spanish Civil War up to at least the end of the Vietnam War was part of military strategy and the crews of those planes were certainly considered soldiers and their missions were in part or in full to kill civilians.
It is not correct to define a soldier as someone who does not kill civilians or even as one who does not enjoy killing civilians.

mysteryman wrote:
... we do everything we can to avoid innocent deaths,but in the final analysis,it comes down to something General Patton is supposed to have said..."You don't win a war by dying for your country,you win by making the other poor SOB die for his"

IMO Gen Patton's point was: It's a fool that puts glory and fair play over winning. Let the other side be heroic as long as my side wins.

Ok,then you show me any soldier that ENJOYS killing. No NORMAL,RATIONAL soldier enjoys it,but we all recognize that sometimes it must be done.

Yes,every army on the world is similarly equipped.They all have tanks,artillery,grenades,rifles,pistols,etc.
It just so happens that our are better,and we train harder in how to use them. Iraq was equipped with the latest Russian tanks,and we blew thru them.I watched a column of 4 USMC tanks take on and destroy 15 Iraqi tanks,because we had better training and equipment.
That does not mean that the Iraqi equipment was substandard or that their crews were illtrained,but we were better.

Define terrorist and terrorism?
Ok,lets start with the Encyclopedia Brittanica online,ok...
"Terrorists use violence in an attempt to achieve political goals. Their intent is to bring about political change by creating a climate of fear within the society they oppose. The targeting of innocent victims and symbolic locations for a high-profile attack has long been the preferred method of terrorist organizations. "
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?eu=299449&query=terrorism&ct="ebi"

As for the US army definition,I suggest you actually read it. For your convenience,here is a link to it...
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/military_science/spring/402-40.html

from the link I direct your attention to this...
"LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
THE LAW OF WAR

Terrorist acts are criminal acts, whether committed in peacetime or wartime. One difference in terrorism counteraction in wartime involves jurisdiction to punish terrorists. In peacetime, terrorist acts are punishable under domestic (local) criminal law. This is also true for a low-intensity conflict (LIC) which is characterized by police actions to maintain the legitimate government. If, however, the conflict is internationally recognized as an insurgency, then the protections under article III common to the four Geneva conventions apply. Article III requires that noncombatants, including captured terrorists, be treated humanely.
Even in an internationally recognized war or conflict (conventional, limited, or civil war), a terrorist act is a criminal act. Only combatants can legitimately attack proper military objectives. Lawful combatants who commit violations of the law of war, such as attacking unlawful targets, are entitled to prisoner of war status and are subject to the law of war. Terrorists, by definition, do not meet the four requirements necessary for combatant status (wear distinctive insignia, carry arms openly, commanded by someone responsible for their actions, and conduct their operations in accordance with the law of war). Therefore, they are not afforded prisoner of war status. However, the law of war requires that we treat captured terrorists humanely. Terrorists can be tried under local criminal law or under military jurisdiction by a court-martial or a military tribunal"

So,there is no way a terrorist can be called a soldier,by ANY stretch of the imagination.

I would also suggest you read the Geneva convention,and see what it says about terrorists.I would point this out to you though...
"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

FYI,Iraq and the rest of the middle Eastern countries are NOT bound by the convention.
Guerilla warfare is totally different.After the philippines fell in WW2,US and Filipino soldiers conducted guerilla warfare.They were supported by,and wore the uniforms of,their respective countries.

0 Replies

in every war regardless of the reasons or the outcome, the soldiers lose.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

use violence in an attempt to achieve political goals. Their intent is to bring about political change by creating a climate of fear within the society they oppose. The targeting of ... symbolic locations for a high-profile attack has long been the preferred method... "

Sounds phenomenally like the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Just had to take out one phrase. Interesting. It's all about perspective.

ok - so this wasn't edited 5 or 10 or 15 times - i'm having puter problems Embarrassed

0 Replies

I think there IS a difference in that terrorists deliberately target civilians.

Doesn't mean the civilian babies (and adults) are any less dead - but I think intent does make a moral difference.

Hmmm - I guess you could say the build up to the invasion was a terror tactic - being used against other ME regimes?

0 Replies

It was very sad, though, listening to US soldiers interviewed in Iraq - one said that the invasion into Baghdad was so terrifying that he and his colleagues were shooting anything that moved - his horror when he saw the results of that - the dead kids and civilians - was clearly turning into a terrible case of PTSD in front of my eyes. I wonder how surviving terrorists see their victims? We have heard them crowing - but, we have also seen regular soldiers (and American and other civilians) crowing about successful slaughter. Sigh.

A scarier interview was with a kid clearly turned on by the video game/adventure aspect of it all - kids in tanks storming Iraq with loud aggressive rock playing in their ears - very reminiscent of the helicopters and the Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalpyse Now, no? This one didn't seem to have come down from his adrenaline rush.

I am reminded of Graves, in Goodbye To All That (autobiographical work, with much of his expeience as a British Officer in WW I included), telling of seeing some of his men bayoneting Germans, shouting out, as they did so, seemingly in a trance state (read dissociated?) , the instructions they had shouted out as they bayoneted straw dummies in training.

0 Replies

In war if you are a rational being one would have to be disassociated while killing other human beings. This is the reason for training by the military. It is also why the military used to want 18 to 20 year olds. Easier to train and many dont think they just act.

0 Replies

kinda reminds me of my brother that spent years working for a major corporate empire that posted signs everywhere "think". so one day he did think and quit.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

in every war regardless of the reasons or the outcome, the soldiers lose.

Yes. And one fact that ought to deeply unsettle is the preponderance of reservists from poor and black families particularly when considered in contrast with the few children of senior politicians (or those politicians themselves, or more generally, the wealthy) who go into battle.

Soldiers are easy to come by. That's true here, true in 1930s Japan, true in Somalia, true with al Quaeda. They usually believe they are doing the 'right' thing, and they often behave with discipline and honor (the minders at Abu Ghraib, and the minders of those minders likely held that their activities were in aid of an honorable final good, just as would have the 'soldiers' who flew the airliners on 9-11 or the kamikaze pilots of the Japanese air force). Such certainty and such purpose are, clearly, too easy to generate within a population of humans. Because this is so, one cannot turn to an active soldier for answers to the moral questions of a war - they all believe (or mostly) that what they do is right and that the enemy is evil. The analogy of soldiers to chess pawns, one set white and one set black but otherwise identical, is a cliche, but an apt cliche. Chess is a game of war simulation, after all.

Anti-war sentiment - organized, vocal, and residing as a permanent cultural value - seems a necessary counter to the tendencies above. If young men (mainly) fall enmasse so easily to warfare, then everyone else ought to be chiding them not to make it so easy for the disconnected princelings at the top to use them for cannon fodder, setting lose the dogs of war upon all. Even if totally innocent country A is under threat of attack by greedy and war-mongering country B, and one can reasonably say that a general pacifist value presents a real danger to innocent country A, we can also say that the lack of such a general value within country B is the real, or greater, problem. War ought to be made, very, very difficult to initiate.

And that points to a fundamental moral (and practical) mis-step in modern American culture. The machinery of American government is now so intimately tied in with militarist private agencies and its economy is so dependent upon the interweave of these corporate entities and with the need for raw supplies and consumer markets outside of America's borders that the US has come to build and use its military might in aid of self-perpetuation rather than in aid of humanitarian of even defensive motives. In this sense, for example, the doctrine of pre-emptive war is both typically American and deeply anti-American.

0 Replies

Is it wrong to call a soldier "baby killer"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know