Haditha - Moral Question

[Berzerker]

Okay, if this was a massacre of innocent people perpetrated by emotionally wore out soldiers in retaliation for the death of a comrade, what if the effect is to reduce logistical support for the insurgents by the general population? Isn't this how many occupiers suppress insurgencies? They make an example out of a town loyal to enemies of the occupation. Brutal? For sure, but does it work or does it just fuel the opposition? If it does work, and I think it works more often than not, wouldn't killing 20-30 people save lives in the long run? Isn't this for the greater good? No, I'm not saying this was intentional, I'm just thinking of cause and effect and reflecting on the tactics of history's world powers...

So, for the sake of my question assume the tactic of wiping out small numbers of people to suppress an insurgency works better than trying to avoid hurting the innocent. Wouldn't the greater good require enough attacks on the innocent in unfriendly towns to teach them not to hang around or help the insurgents?

[snoopy369]

No.

[Berzerker]

because.....?

[Lancer]

When the nazis marched into Holland and a sniper was active in a town, they killed ten or a hundred or whatever for every one of theirs killed. The sniping stopped.

This works, but after that you're just a bunch of nazis.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The problem of your analogy is that it assumes a kind of war that ended in 1945, if not in 1918: the kind of war in which fighting occurs between soldiers, and civilians are on the sidelines.

WWI was the last war in which people who were clearly soldiers squared off against each other in venues that were clearly battlefields. Over the course of the 20th century, war evolved into an event wherin everyone is a potential combatant and everyplace is a potential battlefield.

Wiping out a town as a "lesson" only works if other towns imagine that they can stay on the sidelines. But that's not how it's working in Iraq, anymore than it did in Vietnam. The lesson learned from a massacre of civilians is not "we shouldn't help the insurgents" but instead "The Americans are even willing to kill our women and children; we must fight back." Thus are insurgents made, not suppressed. So much for the greater good.

[Berzerker]

You didn't answer the question, instead you argued the tactic doesn't work. Assume it does for the sake of my question...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You didn't answer the question, instead you argued the tactic doesn't work. Assume it does for the sake of my question...

Oh, well if you're going to be that way...no.

First of all, if the means of supressing the insurgency is killing women and children, then its hard to argue that surpessing the insurgency is in fact the greater good.

Beyond that, since you've framed this as a moral question, let's drag in Jesus: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

[SlowwHand]

Beyond that, I also bring up again, you can't tell who is the innocent.

Who's to blame? The enemy or the innocent? At that point, are there any innocent.?
When you can't tell, the questions are profound.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Beyond that, I also bring up again, you can't tell who is the innocent.

Who's to blame? The enemy or the innocent? At that point, are there any innocent.?
When you can't tell, the questions are profound.

Given your pititful remarks in the other thread covering this topic, I'm surprised you find such questions as this profound, period.

[SlowwHand]

I've said near the same in any thread. To tell the players, you need a program.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I've said near the same in any thread. To tell the players, you need a program.

You mean like your comment where Marines only make mistakes in instances where the Marines are the victims but never acknowledging that Marines have made mistakes where others are the victims?

[Berzerker]

Oh, well if you're going to be that way...no.

Because...?

First of all, if the means of supressing the insurgency is killing women and children, then its hard to argue that surpessing the insurgency is in fact the greater good.

You're still arguing the tactic doesn't work. I'm asking if it does work, what does the greater good require?

[SlowwHand]

MrFun, they can't err on the side of caution. They get once chance in any situation. There is no eraser.

[Ted Striker]

First of all I can't endorse this tactic as it's beyond morally reprehensible. Though I know you don't endore it either Berz you just want to discuss it.

The tactic works well in the short term but the problems it creates in the long term well overwhelms those short term gains at least by a factor of ten.

Once news get out about what you did, people are going to hate you on a scale that no gun will ever be able to fear into not fighting.

People who were moderates and on the sidelines are going to join the forces arrayed against you.

You may be able to quiet them now but someday they are going to get their revenge.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
MrFun, they can't err on the side of caution. They get once chance in any situation. There is no eraser.

Thanks . . . . . .






as if I always thought that there was some magical eraser in the first place.