What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Who said that I thought saying "certainly" made something certain?

What makes something certain is when it is certain. Someone describing that certainty have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.

My statement, as it stands, is correct - and even further reinforced by the FACT that "evil" is subjective.

There you go again. "My statement is correct." Excuse me? Do you mean grammatically correct? Because if not - if you simply mean "I am right" - then maybe I should simply take the stance "no you are not, you are wrong" and we can just take it in turns to repeat those statements until we're bored, eh?

Originally Posted by Aramike

You'd do best to illustrate why I'm wrong and abandon attempts at empty, glib rhetoric.

I already did, but I'm happy to go over it in more detail.
Now, excuse my while I delete the rest of your insults and get to the next relevant part of your post...

Originally Posted by Aramike

This question is highly misleading and is purely intended to make a statement, rather than honestly examine the issue.

Do you mean the first (proper) thought experiment or the second, made-up one? The first is your sniper/bomb scenario distilled into a simple form (not my own - I quoted it from a famous thought experiment) and it's meant to illustrate why killing the bad guy with the sniper rifle is not such a clear-cut case of "good doing" as you seem to think. The problem is that if you pull the lever, or shoot the guy, you're responsible for that death and you're a murderer, but if you don't then you're not responsible for the other two deaths (or million deaths). So which is the moral choice? I couldn't say, but given that the issue is one of personal responsibility I don't think that dodging the issue by handing the decision to someone else would count as moral by either those who would pull the lever or those who wouldn't, which is what my second "made up" example was saying.

As for the rest of your post, please, spare me the propaganda?

[Stealhead]

Solider: is a sworn member of a nation-state military and generaly must obey orders and cant refuse to perform an order or leave his duty(cant quit) in most cases is considered to be the property of said nation state(Roman soliders had brands US Soliders are goverment property) Since they are owned by a nation they can not always perform thier duty for various reasons(public op. tax cost . low manpower)Soliders do recive pay and benifits for thier service but the primary motivation for performing thier duty is protection of ones nation and its intrests and ideals. In some cases Soliders willing joined in others he was required by his nation-states laws and may or may not be fully "into" it in other cases if the Solider was pressed into service he may accept that this is his birthright and a required duty of being a citizen.a Solider may not have to kill to perform his duty though it is likely he will kill those who intend to inflict mortal harm his unit/nation.Though by and large his very nature of being can cause another nation-state to consider if attacking is even worth the risk.( are our Soliders more able than this nation-states Soliders? Can we defeat them to achive our nation-states goals?)

Mercanary: is a solider or better skilled combatant that is hired is not a current but very often is a former Solider is most often employed by a contrator(NGO) that is in turn contracted by a nation-state or NGO to perform a duty that either employing nation-state cant afford to fully employ its military to perform for variuos reasons. Or in the case on an NGO it may lack mercanires itself.Mercs and their contractors offer thier combat/security/protection skills in exchange for payment. A merc may also have an intrest to protect his nation state and if employed by a contractor like Black Water he will have some form of contract but no where nearly as binding as that of a Soliders or may take money from who ever pays if he is not employed by a contractor(free agent).In a western world setting a merc is most often part of an NGO(Black Water) and still has a chain of command and must obey the NGOs rules and regs so they are more or less a military style org. that does not answer directly to a nation state but often is employed buy some part of a nation state(DOD employes Black Water) an NGO merc contractor also has a form of esprit De corps(if you are going to be killing someone and doing it with friends and co-workers might as well enjoy it you could give employee of the month to the merc that gets the longest range kill or the one that kills the largets amount of opponents by using the least amount of ordanace I like the idea of the last one) .Then last but not least we have The French Foriegn Legion all memebrs are by tradtion not French(though 40% are and claimed to be French Canadian or Belgain upon enlistment) it is a quasi mercanry force. All mercanaries willingly become employed and leave employment(not the FFL) at will though at times if they leave at will they may be in breach of the employers contract and could suffer a loss in pay or relenquish a bonus.A Mercanry may not have to kill to perform his duty.

Assiassin: Member of a muslim org. whose job it was to kill in a sneaky skillful manner crusaders during the holy crusades/Jihads of medievil times though they later took work form Christians and Muslims. assiassin: any person who kills by suprise attack mostly a prominate person being the victim. the assiassian could be a solider a mercanary a nut case a cia agent anyone. they get paid they may do it for a polaictial reason or for no real reason at all. Both an Assiassian and an assiassian must kill to fully perfrom thier "duty" and in most cases it is prefered he not be taken alive he must either escape clean preferabliy after succesfuly taking out his target or be killed by targets protection or kill himself if this is the only way to avoid capture.

It is not my goal to making any form of political statement in this post I only mention the US and Black Water becasue they are well known examples. Nor am I attempting to express my view on the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though during my military career I was involved. Nor am i trying to express my views on relgion. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

NOTE: Solider = A direct combatant that is a memeber of a nation -state military not just a US Army Solider. In this posting.

NOTE: a mercanary NGO is often called a Private Military Contractor rather Geroge Orwellian, this type of merc is consided to be far more trustworthy than a band of merry men mercs.PMCs can often be as capable and at times more capable than a given military uint as PMC employees often are former SPECOPS and therefore far more skilled than the "avergae joe" Solider.

I dont really care what the orginal poster "wanted" but I find many of the replys very dazzeling. I say post what you want this is nice why pretend to be snooty know it all you dont need facny words to say what you want keep it simple stupid.this has turned into several peopl eposting and 2 guys having a hissy fit sissy arguement where they are trying to out high IQ the other guys answer. Did you know that Stalin was born in Gerogia? how the hell did he get all the way across the enitre Atlantic Ocean to get to Russia?

[Aramike]

There you go again. "My statement is correct." Excuse me? Do you mean grammatically correct? Because if not - if you simply mean "I am right" - then maybe I should simply take the stance "no you are not, you are wrong" and we can just take it in turns to repeat those statements until we're bored, eh?

That depends on the statement itself, which you seem to be content to bypass.

If one says 2+2=4, and then says that said expression is correct, they would be correct. If one wishes to challenge the statement, then it is up to them to provide why the statement is wrong rather than your absurd assertion that (in equivocation) "simply stating 2+2=4 doesn't make it true".

What makes that statement true is that 2+2=4.

Such is my statement that not all killing is evil. If I can find ANY case in which it is not (made easier by the fact that evil itself is subjective), than my statement is true.

This is not difficult, and that fact that you are attempting to muddle it displays your inability to actually contest the statement itself.

I already did, but I'm happy to go over it in more detail.
Now, excuse my while I delete the rest of your insults and get to the next relevant part of your post...

One should definitely have thicker skin if one attempts a discussion on a controversial topic.

Do you mean the first (proper) thought experiment or the second, made-up one? The first is your sniper/bomb scenario distilled into a simple form (not my own - I quoted it from a famous thought experiment) and it's meant to illustrate why killing the bad guy with the sniper rifle is not such a clear-cut case of "good doing" as you seem to think. The problem is that if you pull the lever, or shoot the guy, you're responsible for that death and you're a murderer, but if you don't then you're not responsible for the other two deaths (or million deaths).

It is indeed a case of doing good, if (by your own definition) it is the INTENT and not the result that matters.

Take the sniper case, for instance.

Intent: Save a million lives.
Action: Kill the sniper.
Result: (Immediate) A million lives saves. (Long Term) Undeterminable.

Considering that any and all actions can have long term, evil, unforseeable consequences, it makes little logical sense to include them in any discussion on good and evil. This it part of Chaos Theory, also occassionally known as the Butterfly Effect. Try reversing your own arguments, and you'll see that you've confused the issue so incredibly deeply that only the result you are looking for makes sense to you.

As for the rest of your post, please, spare me the propaganda?

This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion. This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to espouse your misguided belief that a noble profession is evil, thinly veiled as a question. As such, you have attempted to disregard any and all answers that don't fit with your preconception, regardless of the validity of the answers themselves.

That is, by nature, intellectually dishonest. And, in this case, extremely transparent.

In todays modern armies soldiers volunteer for their duty.

Assasins, are those who work for hire only. The Max von Sydow character in 'Three days of the Condor', is an example. Bear in mind that that is illegal by US operatives, or we wouldn't have the Gitmo issue.

Mercenaries are NGO's, hired by governments to do tasks which would be considered too risky by the mothers of the regular army. 'The Dogs of War' is a good example.

Like diplomacy they all have their place in the world going back centuries.

Just a thought on the three categories, to me it seems that soldier and mercenary are almost the one and the same and the two overlap in many ways. Basically it could be said that the merc is often paid more, and that's about the only real difference. I'm talking in very plain terms here.

Whereas the assassin IMO is different from the two. I guess an assassin can be anything from Lee Harvey Oswald or Carlos the Jackal to a local thug hired by the estranged wife to bump off the cheating husband. Quite often the more famous assassins aren't in it for the money but some political or other reasons.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

That depends on the statement itself, which you seem to be content to bypass.

I've read back through our posts and I'm not sure what you think I bypassed. Do you mean this?

Originally Posted by Aramike

This would assume that a soldier's work is criminal, which it is not. Distasteful does not equal criminal, nor does it equate to evil.

If so, I bypassed it because it is itself a bypass; it's an attempt to drag my point into semantics. Simply replace the word "crimes" in my statement with "acts" okay? Then we can move on from semantics. As far as I'm concerned, it makes the same point either way.

Originally Posted by Aramike

If one says 2+2=4, and then says that said expression is correct, they would be correct. If one wishes to challenge the statement, then it is up to them to provide why the statement is wrong rather than your absurd assertion that (in equivocation) "simply stating 2+2=4 doesn't make it true".

What makes that statement true is that 2+2=4.

Such is my statement that not all killing is evil.

You're drawing parallels between "2+2=4" and "not all killing is evil"?

Originally Posted by Aramike

If I can find ANY case in which it is not (made easier by the fact that evil itself is subjective), than my statement is true.

Yes, agreed.

Originally Posted by Aramike

This is not difficult, and that fact that you are attempting to muddle it displays your inability to actually contest the statement itself.One should definitely have thicker skin if one attempts a discussion on a controversial topic.

Hmm, again you're making things personal. Given your tendency to do this, I'm not sure I'm the one without a "thick enough skin" here.

Originally Posted by Aramike

It is indeed a case of doing good, if (by your own definition) it is the INTENT and not the result that matters.

Take the sniper case, for instance.

Intent: Save a million lives.
Action: Kill the sniper.
Result: (Immediate) A million lives saves. (Long Term) Undeterminable.

Considering that any and all actions can have long term, evil, unforseeable consequences, it makes little logical sense to include them in any discussion on good and evil. This it part of Chaos Theory, also occassionally known as the Butterfly Effect. Try reversing your own arguments, and you'll see that you've confused the issue so incredibly deeply that only the result you are looking for makes sense to you.This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion.

Again personal, although this time at least you're going somewhere beyond mere insults so allow me to respond to that bit first. It's interesting (to me) that you think I have a prerendered conclusion. I assure you, I don't. Furthermore, the thing I find most concerning about your posts is that you do. You are certain about these things! Which I find remarkable!

Anyway, to get back on track, and since you say I am confusing the issue please allow me to respond to what you said and hopefully clarifying my point without using metaphors or substitutes or whatever:

Firstly, I'm not certain that killing is ever a good thing, and your assertion that killing to save lives is "good" is not an argument, it's just a statement that you blindly accept as true. Yes, the intent matters, but you have not shown that the intent to save a million lives is justification for taking one. By your own admission you see it as an equivalent to "2+2=4", something that is simply true "by definition". I do not.

Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it. Either way he does not make the decision. Furthermore, I would assert that if a soldier is absolved of the blame of an immoral murder by the fact that he is under orders then by the same token he is stripped of the credit for any "moral killings" that he also performs under orders.

The two "thought experiments" I put forward were meant to illustrate these two points.

Originally Posted by Aramike

That is, by the why, the most sure sign of a weak mind.

More personal attacks? Easy, tiger.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion. This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to espouse your misguided belief that a noble profession is evil, thinly veiled as a question. As such, you have attempted to disregard any and all answers that don't fit with your preconception, regardless of the validity of the answers themselves.

That is, by nature, intellectually dishonest. And, in this case, extremely transparent.

I didn't realise I'd "thinly veiled" anything. It wasn't until people started posting dictionary definitions that I realised that I hadn't made it clear what I was trying to discuss. See, for example, my exchanges with Steve and Golden Rivet in this thread. I think you'll find I'm not "thinly veiling" anything, in fact I suggested in response to Steve's post that maybe I should have worded the OP more clearly so as to get more genuine discussion and less dictionary definitions. You have understood perfectly what it is I want to discuss, as have several others, although you seem to have taken it very personally... but then this is a rather touchy subject as you said, so that's to be expected.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Killing is always distasteful, but it certainly is not always evil

correct... if a rapist intrudes into my home and attempts to harm my family, should i not shoot him dead simply because killing him would be distasteful?


and OLC... to what video are you referring?

[onelifecrisis]

The one you posted the crying thread. It was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

[GoldenRivet]

i came to the realization of which video you were speaking of almost immediately after i posted.

i certainly did not post that video of solders images to the song "proud to be an American" to stir anyone to anger, disbelief or disgust.

i'll give you a quote

"Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a
human being."
- Kahlil Gibran

that idea which i feel is represented in the song and the slideshow- is what moves me to tears sir.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

i came to the realization of which video you were speaking of almost immediately after i posted.

i certainly did not post that video of solders images to the song "proud to be an American" to stir anyone to anger, disbelief or disgust.

i'll give you a quote

"Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a
human being."
- Kahlil Gibran

that idea which i feel is represented in the song and the slideshow- is what moves me to tears sir.

Umm...
Ooops?
Thanks for clarifying. But, as I said, it was the straw that broke the camels back (even if it was a misunderstood straw [that's one seriously broken metaphor]) so I'm glad I started this discussion.

[GoldenRivet]

as am i, like i said - i didnt intend to upset anyone, least of all you.

im glad you started the discussion as well, it was very... stimulating.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

correct... if a rapist intrudes into my home and attempts to harm my family, should i not shoot him dead simply because killing him would be distasteful?


and OLC... to what video are you referring?

That's specifically my point - it stinks to have to take a human life, but the consequences of not doing so are worse.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Aramike

That's specifically my point - it stinks to have to take a human life, but the consequences of not doing so are worse.

exactly

Originally Posted by Aramike

That's specifically my point - it stinks to have to take a human life, but the consequences of not doing so are worse.

It takes many hours to remove the built in reluctance to take human life, unless you are an abortion doctor sworn to uphold the hypocratic oath.
Part of basic training is about breaking down the natural instinct which is built into everyone reguarding killing other human beings.