Originally Posted by R Leo

It's simple...they don't.

I know a young man who returned from Desert Storm looking forward to a post-military career in law enforcement. That career was indefinitely delayed because of employer concerns about his 'shoot first' training.

A different kind of collateral damage.

Originally Posted by Lebenz

But is it a choice made by folks who value life, of folks who find pleasure in killing?

Originally Posted by John Doe

...I wonder if you guys leave your comfy homes and cabins and ever discourse in person with guys like the one quoted in the article to find out what they meant, and tell them your opinions?

Originally Posted by John Doe

I have read the first 10 or so posts on this thread, and identify this post with spin that maybe only a lawyer could appreciate.

I don't think the cherry-picked comments of the marine express fun and joy in murder. Rather, I interpret the serviceman as being psyched at the possibility of saving fellow Americans (and possibly himself), by gaining an advantage in a combative situation. Furthermore, your use of the term murder is ludicrous.

Why does the reason we are over there have to take over the point of this thread? The soldier who made the comment ya'll find so offensive doesn't have a choice--he has only a job to do, and it sounds like the guy did a hell of a job.

I wonder if you guys leave your comfy homes and cabins and ever discourse in person with guys like the one quoted in the article to find out what they meant, and tell them your opinions?

Originally Posted by suginami

Great story.

Has anyone but me read Michael Yon's blog in Iraq? Full of great stories like that.

Originally Posted by Jim Anderson

I think the soldiers reaction at killing an insurgent is better than an insurgents reaction a killing a soldier.

Originally Posted by Lebenz

I understand that in combat murder is a necessity...

Originally Posted by Lebenz

Ah, so you need not only justification but direct observation of events to make a decision. And in the case of your GF even that wasn't sufficient. I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Lebenz

First hero worship or “icons” is a facade for the weak minded and I’m pretty sure you know it.
Second, you appear to be suggesting that for you, independent thought means naught when placed next to peer pressure and convenience. That implies your decision process comes down to the “what’s in it for me?” justification. Is that correct? Not that that is unusual.



So far Jeff is the only one asserting moral superiority in this thread, and he stupidly fumbled it as a tool of attack. Yet if you find murder, let alone mass murder to fall under the category of an arbitrary choice, well, that is a reflection of your values. There is no “that which we believe to be correct” at all because you pointed out that above, self-interest, your “what can I live with” is all that matters. I agree that is a common ploy of justification used to camouflage dismissal. But it is still a ploy and nothing else.

Thousands of years ago the pyramids of Egypt were built by slaves and their frequently crushed bodies were literally used as mortar for the massive stonework. I’m sure some thought there was a moral value to the process, perhaps appeasing the gods and so forth. The pyramids themselves were nothing other than a testament to death employed as an exercise in vanity for the Pharos. You are saying that the only thing that has changed is that we don’t use slaves.

I’m going to return to my original point. If someone views murder as a source of joy, they are sick in the head. Period.

Originally Posted by dculkin

What's with the "comfy homes" crap? It's so judgmental. In my opinion the invasion of Iraq was a huge moral and strategic mistake. On the rare occasions that I have encountered people who have been to Iraq or who have loved ones in Iraq, I have generally kept my opinions to myself. To do otherwise would be rude and unappreciative, IMHO. I did get into a spirited discussion with one gentleman who fought in Iraq. He has been a soldier for decades and is a died-in-the-wool Republican. Our spirited discussion was started with his expressing the view that the invasion of Iraq was a fraud. That was his word, not mine.

Now, why am I willing to express my opposition to the war on-line and shy away from doing so face-to-face? Maybe I'm a chicken. Maybe I'm just being polite to people who have made a sacrifice for me.

Originally Posted by Lebenz

It is good to have law to turn to, and oh so convenient when it grants legality to murder.

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'm not making myself clear.

I think personal interest/belief/morality will come into conflict with the society in which we live from time ot time. The right and wrong of it are based on what the individual believes is right or wrong and whether one can live with the consequences of however they one wishes to deal with the conflict. Sometimes we suck it up and find and sometimes we bend and go with the flow.

If somebody believes that a particular instance or form or cultural method or reason for extinguishing life is murder, then for that person to be involved is complicit to murder.


Now let's resolve Paragraph 1 with Paragraph 2 and see if I am able to convey what I believe is the source of the apparent disparity in views.

Bot

Originally Posted by Botnst

That's cheap, making an assertion appear as fact.

What is murder, Tracy?

Would you say unjust taking of human life?
Illegal taking of human life?
Any unwelcome taking of human life?
Any taking of human life?