[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,
"murder is culture-dependent". Ah.

"... Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is. ..."

It is, because whether or not an act of killing is socially acceptable or not, depends on the values of that society and culture. The Aztecs massacred prisoners by the thousands during their rites, which was acceptable for them because they saw it as a way to communicate with their deity. For us, it would be unacceptable to do so. In Islam the killing of dhimmis under certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but encouraged, and in the days of the Grenada intermezzo it could happen that a Muslim who slaughtered another Muslim, would be executed, but if a dhimmi was killed just for fun, the murderer had to fear no legal sanctions because he did not do something that was considered as "immoral" by Quranic standards.

Moral is an artifical, abstract quality system, Catfish, it did not fell down fromt he sky, it is not engraved in stone, it is highly subjective, it does not compare to nature's laws. Two weeks ago I linked to an experiment that showed that moral behavior even can be influenced by something as external and physical like magnetism effecting certain brain areas. the subjects rated the apparent poisening of an unsuspicious person as morally "fine".

You maybe remember that I said often, in discussions, that for right these reasons, our society must be more hesitent to see every culture as of the same cultural value like our own, and that we must not tolerate everything in a foreign culture just because it is called a "culture". It still can be not only an inferior, backwardish culture, but also an inhumane and barbaric culture. There are differences between cultures, and some are more inhumane than others, and of lesser worth in this understanding.

1st There indeed is a human mind, and it clearly has a conception of what murder is.

Does not matter beyond human mind. Ask your dog if it ever has heared of your morals, or ask that star in the sky.

This "death from above" god like behaviour of remote-killing civilians is just that - murder.

In this case of this video, I tend to agree, like i said before. In other circumstances, killing people intentionally, can be seen as legal (a question of laws exclusively), or morally justifiable (fighting done in war). Take the Dutch at Srebrenica. Today, their inaction is seen as a moral failure. You know what happened there due to the Dutch and the UN mission in general failing so miserably. If they would have fought and killed Serbs in order to protect the Bosnian civilians - would this then also be "murder" for you? What differs the committing of a genocide then from fighting in defence of the victims? And how to justify the war against the Third Reich?

Dealing in absolutes you can, if you want, and claim it all to be "murder". But it will not lead you very far, not in this life and this world you live in.

You seem to take an absolute approach on war, ruling it out under all circumstances, even if the price for not fighting it might be higher than the price of accepting it. Okay, that is your opinion then, and I see it different. I never claimed to be an unconditional pacifist - I am not. I do not believe in "just wars", war is never just, and it always also effects innocents. I only differ between wars of need - and wars of choice, that are wanted but not needed.

2nd those generalized statements are coming out of the blue, and have no right or justification in itself, other than you just say it and declare it a universal truth or wisdom.

No, you are the one claiming universal rules here, haven't you just said that it all is just "murder", and that there always is a human mind, implying that by that "fact" that all nature is revolving around human philosophic considerations and conceptions that beyond human thinking have no meaning and realiy at all? What I say, is much more relative, and depending on the reality you are in. I am pragmatist. Claiming eternal truths I leave to religious infallibles like the pope.

" ... Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. ..."
Sounds reasonable, but it only sounds this way. Who says this, you ? Sun Tzu ? This is plain rubbish for justifying anything.

So far you just give a rant, but no argument proving me wrong.

There can only be one unversal "morale"

Why?

, otherwise warfare as such is pretty useless.

How's that?

You are enforcing your morale, will, thinking, common sense, way of life, onto others.

I give argument for why I think the way I do, and I oppose your absolutistic stand on your one and only universal moral as a cultural subjectivism that you are not aware of. If you would have been raised in some fanatic family of some kind and have not known anything different than what that fanatic community is teaching you, your moral thinking today would be different.

" ... It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands. ..."

But this is just what we see in the video - a new strategy that unfortunately creates odium.

I do not see a strategy in that video, but an act of murder committed by soldiers that I cannot bring into congruence with what I said about the morals of war. This killing incident to me is not an act of war (="fighting"), but murder. Thus my harsh judgement that I have voiced earlier in this thread. To me they are not acting as soldiers in conformity with the needs of war, but like criminals. And that'S why I would court martial them.

You do not get dirt on your hands, it is all far away. No need for infiltration, using real people spying, or gathering intelligence by going in and deal with real people. It is instant judgement from above killing electronic dots. It all becomes an ego shooter. Same is done with remotely-controlled drones, where the "pilot" finishes off a few sand ******s at his home bureau, and then goes down to dinner with his family. They call it war porn. How can one watch this and not be disgusted ?

Now you switch to a completely different level, from the morals of peace over the morals of war to the tools and means and tactics of war.

Well. This is a war being fought. You try to kill the enemy, you try to hurt him as bad as you can. you try to do it in safe ways, maximising the damage to him by minimising the risk to your own side. That often translates into maximum firepower from the greatest distance possible, both get's judged versus the chance to really acchieve the mission objectives: you use as much firepower and approach as close as is needed to achcieve the mission objective. that way, a war gets won. Fight by some romantic ideas of "man versus man" and images of idealism and dealing fair with the nenemy - and lose and die. For me, there is no nobless or gallantry in war, only fighting, needs and fulfilling duties. It's mean and dirty. Thats why it is called not a condition of peace, but a war.

You are right, war is disgusting. I strongly recommend to stay away from it as long as you do not have very, very good reasons. "I shall not be a guest of war, but war shall be my guest, uninvited", says Lao Tse. Don't go to war because you desire it. Only go to war because you must.

Whether or not the Iraq war can be won anymore, or if this stupid hrase "war on terror" means something that can be won militarily, or needs more intel operation, infiltration, is a different debate. To me it is about counter terror operations. But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are there, fought competently or not, picked wisely or not - they are real. My opinions on them you can read in threads from today back to 2003. I have opposed the Iraq war from day one on, and I have criticised the way Afghanistan has been approached from beginning on. the lebanon war I first supported, than understood how ill-prepared and thus: chanceless the Israelis were, then I u-turned and took a stand against it, for it was destruction done for no use. Either do war right, or don't do it all so - so that the destruction and horror and the killing being done is not in vain.

I do not believe in humane ways to wage wars, like I also do not believe in "just wars". To me it is an on-off-issue. Either it is off, good for you. Or it is "on", then may god have mercy with you for I would will to let loose all hell against you if that is needed to overcome you.

It's like holding a pistol to your head and have a finger on the trigger. You either do it, or not. Half-hearted wars - can only go lost and end in failures. the UN missions and Afghanistan are good examples.