How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Banquo's Ghost]

"Hatred" is the wrong term. "Uncaring" is a better one.

And I do differentiate between a defender and an invader, and one who had a choice and one who did not.

But that differentiation is not what you wrote:

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

That implies soldiers, regardless of motivation, should be considered dead (and by extension, I suppose, undeserving of any rights or compassion). I can't see the moral reasoning for that statement, and "because I don't care" brings no illumination. It's a kind of nihilism, and therefore strikes me as morally bankrupt.

So does every soldier. Including enemy soldiers. The thing is I should only care about "my own", right? I don't have to care about "the enemy"?

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I refuse to care about German soldiers who lost their lives in WW2, Vietcong soldiers who lost their lives in the Vietnam war, NATO soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan or Taliban soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Most people only care about one of those four. I don't see how I'm morally bankrupt or shameful because I don't care about any of them.

I have never said that you should care only about your own. Soldiers are trained to objectify an enemy so that they too "don't care" about the lives they are required to take. That training however, does not in most cases remove the moral dilemma that killing in a cause brings to one's psyche. For you to dismiss all such men and women with such casual disdain strikes me as a rather brutal generalisation.

But then that is the tragedy of hard-line socialism - it always comes down to caring more about the concepts than the human beings, despite bleating loudly that the latter's interests are it's raison d'etre.

[Fragony]

Let's try not to dogpile on top of HoreTore. We may not agree with his views, but I don't think he's said anything all that offensive here. In one sense, I agree with HoreTore; soldiers who sign up for a mission which involves being in someone else's lands, where they may be ordered to fire upon the enemy, are legitimate targets. There is always the option not to interfere in other countries; not that I agree with it all the time.

I think he's trying to express himself freely; which I do believe is a right many of these soldiers themselves would admit they are trying to preserve.

There is, and I believe, a legitimate alternative viewpoint of pacifism which regards soldiers fighting in war to be on the wrong path. Mohandas Gandhi was a person who believed in this; for example. And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country, nor was he a shameful man. He was a saint in my opinion.

We should respect HoreTore's right to disagree with our viewpoint, in whole or in part, that there is a legitimate use for armed soldiers, if used correctly and within reason and with strict ethical and moral guidelines. But he can freely speak out against the use of violence, and while I may not agree with him completely, I sympathize with certain sentiments.

I don't agree with the way he's presenting his arguments, but I think it's possible for there to be more than one valid opinion on the use of force, where we may all peacefully and politely coexist with the alternative viewpoint without acting all offended. I've heard people say far worse and far less gracefully too, might I add.

Ya. Bit surprised by the outrage I am perfectly fine with his words, opinions don't kill. I am ten times as immoral. If dutch troops kill Taliban do you really think I mourn the loss of life, they have moms to but and die. I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

[HoreTore]

That implies soldiers, regardless of motivation, should be considered dead (and by extension, I suppose, undeserving of any rights or compassion). I can't see the moral reasoning for that statement, and "because I don't care" brings no illumination. It's a kind of nihilism, and therefore strikes me as morally bankrupt.

No, that implies that I do my mourning when they sign the contract.

But anyway, Banqou, since you say that socialists don't care about human beings, I take it you're not a socialist? And that would mean that you weep for the fallen Taliban soldiers, right? Every last one of them? And.... That would also mean that you're willing to protect them, right? Because weeping at people's death and not wanting to do anything to prevent their deaths, that strikes me as kinda... How'd you put it? "Morally bankrupt"?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ya. Bit surprised by the outrage I am perfectly fine with his words, opinions don't kill. I am ten times as immoral. If dutch troops kill Taliban do you really think I mourn the loss of life, they have moms to but and die. I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

I consider the needless loss of any life to be a tragedy. These are all human beings. All precautions should be taken to avoid the needless loss of life. Whether it impacts you emotionally or not; lives do matter and it is at the very least illogical to destroy senselessly.

A dollar bill has no emotional impact on me, but if I were to burn it, it would be a senseless waste. Destruction without purpose, or destroying the wrong target, is at the very least a bad mistake, and at worst a crime. Now instead of one dollar bill, imagine a hundred thousand, burning them one at a time with deliberate intent. Seems a hundred thousand times more wasteful, and a lot more of a crime. Now imagine instead of silly paper money, these are living human beings, which are valued immeasurably more than a dollar, and cannot even be quantified in such terms.

It is an unfathomable waste, and a cruel cruel bit of ignorance, to have no reaction to senseless death. If you don't care, that's fine; just make sure you don't vote or anything. If apathy is the watchword, follow through and remain totally neutral. Don't speak out for or against it; and don't affect the democratic process, should there be one.

[HoreTore]

[Fragony]

It is an unfathomable waste, and a cruel cruel bit of ignorance, to have no reaction to senseless death.

That is why I'm not going to take the higher moral ground. There isn't anything noble about what we are doing there it just needs to be done.

[Askthepizzaguy]

That is why I'm not going to take the higher moral ground. There isn't anything noble about what we are doing there it just needs to be done.

If it isn't noble, then why are we doing it? Why does what need to be done? If the Taliban are the enemy, and we pushed them out of power, isn't our duty simply to aid the Afghan government against the Taliban fighters and get permission from Pakistan to wipe out the last pockets of armed terrorist resistance? There's no need to sit in their nation for decades making no progress. Either get the job done and leave, and do it right, or don't do it at all. And if we don't care about Afghan civilians; why not just carpet bomb them until they are all dead? We're bound to hit Taliban eventually.

To run a legitimate war, you have to care about details like human lives. They aren't just details. I'm not trying to shut you down, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for, if anything; and if you're arguing it in a way I understand. No biggie either way.

[InsaneApache]

But then that is the tragedy of hard-line socialism - it always comes down to caring more about the concepts than the human beings, despite bleating loudly that the latter's interests are it's raison d'etre.

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

[Fragony]

If it isn't noble, then why are we doing it? Why does what need to be done?

Killing these terrorist opponents needs to be done. Because if we don't we will have to it it in 10 years with cosiderably more loss of life.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

I think the right also believe their cause to be just, and they do pretty much whatever when they are in power, too.



Any of your partisan groups believe in their cause, I'd suspect; and I find partisans cause the most damage to us all.

Killing hatebeards needs to be done. Because if we don't we will have to it it in 10 years with cosiderably more loss of life.

According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "inappropriate group bashing term"?

[HoreTore]

According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "inappropriate group bashing term"?

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

I don't think it's necessary to say "no offense", frags, you know we all love you

[Askthepizzaguy]

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

I don't think it's necessary to say "no offense", frags, you know we all love you

@HoreTore or Fragony, (anyone really)

I dislike the gross oversimplification of a person's cultural, social, ethical, moral, religious, legal, government, and global philosophy/worldview into the false dichotomy of "left" and "right". It seems like a lazy way of referring to a very vague concept without having to actually state what you believe or where you stand, and it lends itself to false assumptions; such as- if a person is a right winger, they must of course support the death penalty and oppose stem cell research.

I always thought people were entitled to have individual views on things, and weren't all cookie-cutter carbon copies of the stereotypical "liberal" and "conservative", if those words have any meaning whatsoever.

Back to the topic: Wouldn't a liberal who supports tolerance and free speech and progressive ideology oppose radical religious extremism more than your typical member of the "christian right"? I mean, the "liberal left" has less in common with Muslims than the "right" does. I think you'll find actually a great many of the "liberals" will oppose intolerant radical militant religious extremism just as much as "conservatives" do, and will support efforts to disarm or destroy these threats to civilized society. I think that there is room for disagreement as to how to go about doing so; such as being careful not to carpet bomb civilians, and not torturing people, for one.

Engaging in immoral and fear-based tactics like bombing civilians from the air is not how you fight extremism; it's how you spread it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But anyway, Banqou, since you say that socialists don't care about human beings, I take it you're not a socialist? And that would mean that you weep for the fallen Taliban soldiers, right? Every last one of them? And.... That would also mean that you're willing to protect them, right? Because weeping at people's death and not wanting to do anything to prevent their deaths, that strikes me as kinda... How'd you put it? "Morally bankrupt"?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the above paragraph, but I'll try to respond as I understand your point.

Firstly, no I'm not a socialist. However, I fail to understand why not being so automatically requires one to "weep" for the Taliban.

I am opposed to the war in Afghanistan, though I had some sympathy for reasons of the original attack. A continued occupation is foolish, in my opinion. I have campaigned against such wars. However, I think I have been consistent in my approach when mourning all loss of life. I understand why the Taliban take up arms, and would remove NATO soldiers from harm's way because we achieve nothing save more death. I would also mourn the dead yet to come when the likely murderous Islamic regime that the Taliban would instigate began its orgy of revenge.

I have taken up arms in defence of the things I believed in. I fought in a war against invasion by a dictatorship, and defended to the best of my ability the civilians of both my countries caught up in terrorism. I killed in that defence, and the faces of those dead men haunt me still - not because I was wrong, but because they were still human beings however much they wanted to kill me first. They are part of my life, and I feel it the more keenly because I lost someone dear to me too. I wish none of it had to happen.

Nowadays, I spend much of my time supporting Amnesty International to help preserve rights and human life. You may well consider writing letters, fund-raising and campaigning to be trivial but I feel part of something that I have seen bring results.

Your hatred of the war in Afghanistan should not extend to the men and women who are doing their best to bring a better life to the people of that benighted country - however Sisyphean that task. And you still haven't provided the moral framework for the statement you made, which is why I applied the term "morally bankrupt".

Of course, I would like us to be in the position where no-one has to die in wars or jails, pointlessly or otherwise. It's a rare soldier that having seen war and death, wishes it to go on needlessly. I have done, and continue to do, what I can to make that vision a reality. Maybe I have made wrong decisions. But at least I cannot be accused of "not caring".

[Subotan]

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

...Just like whenever social conservatives get into power, they try and enforce their morals upon everyone else

[rory_20_uk]

people with strong beliefs always do. Part of a strong belief is that everyone else is either misinformed or just plain wrong.

[Fragony]

people you seem to disparage so much[/COLOR]"?

Term Deleted is how we call them here, muslim extremists. This is pretty dangerous you know, the Afghan may be a dirt poor, but all these red flowers you when you watch pictures from Afghanistan, what do you think that is? That would be opium, in hands of the Taliban, and for whoever they are usefull for they are sitting on the greatest opium-production of the world. Unlimited funds. This is much more dangerous then some people think it is, all middle-east nations are artificial states. Taliban is gaining influence in Pakistan, now what does pakistan just happen to have. What will be the reaction?

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

Of course non taken

[Fragony]

double post huh, I'll guess I'll try another time

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have taken up arms in defence of the things I believed in. I fought in a war against invasion by a dictatorship, and defended to the best of my ability the civilians of both my countries caught up in terrorism. I killed in that defence, and the faces of those dead men haunt me still - not because I was wrong, but because they were still human beings however much they wanted to kill me first. They are part of my life, and I feel it the more keenly because I lost someone dear to me too. I wish none of it had to happen.

Nowadays, I spend much of my time supporting Amnesty International to help preserve rights and human life. You may well consider writing letters, fund-raising and campaigning to be trivial but I feel part of something that I have seen bring results.

Your hatred of the war in Afghanistan should not extend to the men and women who are doing their best to bring a better life to the people of that benighted country - however Sisyphean that task. And you still haven't provided the moral framework for the statement you made, which is why I applied the term "morally bankrupt".

Of course, I would like us to be in the position where no-one has to die in wars or jails, pointlessly or otherwise. It's a rare soldier that having seen war and death, wishes it to go on needlessly. I have done, and continue to do, what I can to make that vision a reality. Maybe I have made wrong decisions. But at least I cannot be accused of "not caring".

I was going to write something about the soldier's mindset as I have encountered it, but Banquo is far more eloquent as usual.

I would add that in a democracy with a volanteer military many who join up do so on the principle that, If I don't do it someone else will have to."

Such men and women deserve our respect, regardless of their actions.

[Husar]

I would add that in a democracy with a volanteer military many who join up do so on the principle that, If I don't do it someone else will have to."

Or: If I can't find any other job, that one will have to do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well put, BG, well put.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

HoreTore, when you watch a football game, are you upset when "your side" scores a goal if the other goalkeeper looks sad?

[Incongruous]

The Taliban are looking to impose a regime of holy terror upon a helpless population of peasants, they are not deserving of any rsepect, their credo is brutality and fear. Any act which they carry out in order to bring to fruition these wishes is an act of Terrorism. Soldiers sign up not to die, but to fight, it is not right that they killed trying to protect the construction of vital infrastructure.

[Hax]

I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

What if our country was invaded and some of your friends killed? Or maybe your family?

One of the things that annoys me the most about the war (in Afghanistan) is the fact that whenever a Dutch soldier dies it's frontpage news. Isn't that the point of being a soldier? Fighting for your country with weapons. Death is not so uncommon on a battlefield. If you don't want soldiers to die, why join a war in the first place?

[Fragony]

What if our country was invaded and some of your friends killed? Or maybe your family?

Then I would be mighty upset. As for frontpage news, it doesn't happen that often that one of our troops get killed, so it's news when they do. If it wouldn't be reported people would complain about information being denied to us.

[rajpoot]

I tried reading through, but since the pages are long, I'll stick with replying to the questions of the first post.......
The terrorists are soldiers, in a sense.....they do not belong to any 'official' army, but are usually the members of some terrorist group.....a better word for such soldiers would be 'militants'.....that's what we call them here anyway.
When a terrorist fights a proper soldier, it's just a skirmish, it's not actually terrorism. But more often than not, these skirmishes happen when these militants are trying to propagate terrorism.....when they attack civilians.....that now is a terrorist attack, and that is shameful.

And no soldiers don't fight to die. They fight to win. Death of some is an inevitable outcome, but it doesn't mean one get's cold and uncaring about it. Just because your family knows that you have some deadly disease and are going to die within a few months, does not mean they won't mourn you when you finally die.
Death of the terrorist fighting for the opposite side is something only a party neutral to both sides can worry about, but that does not mean that anyone is being unfair......to state an example, if the people would have had their say, the chap captured after Bombay attacks would've been lynched......yet, they're going through the legal procedures even for him......what does this say? That even though one we might hate someone, that does not necessarily prevent us from treating them justly.

[Husar]

Soldiers sign up not to die, but to fight, it is not right that they killed trying to protect the construction of vital infrastructure.

Well, guess what, that goes both ways.
The Taliban sign up to create the world that they believe god wants us to live in, they do not deserve to be killed because they are fighting for their core values. In fact, when a man fights to protect the values he believes in, isn't that most heroic and adorable? And they're the underdogs on top of it, yet make the whole world talk about them because they are so successful.

And no soldiers don't fight to die. They fight to win. Death of some is an inevitable outcome, but it doesn't mean one get's cold and uncaring about it.

The other soldiers fight to win as well and their families cry as well. So how exactly does that help me decide which side to support if I try to be objective?

[rajpoot]

Well, you support the side whose ideology you support ofcourse, unless you're neutral and want to help everyone like the Red Cross, then you help everyone and speak against war and for peace......

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, guess what, that goes both ways.
The Taliban sign up to create the world that they believe god wants us to live in, they do not deserve to be killed because they are fighting for their core values. In fact, when a man fights to protect the values he believes in, isn't that most heroic and adorable? And they're the underdogs on top of it, yet make the whole world talk about them because they are so successful.

I think the small fact they want to kill us is why we [or most of us] don't support them.

[Kralizec]

I agree. Terrorism may be hard to define accurately but it clearly doesn't cover attacks on military targets.

I was somewhat annoyed the other day, a Dutch soldier had just died because some Afghans had fired a rocket into the Dutch camp. Our PM called it a "cowardly" attack wich struck me as being BS rethoric.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quite simply they are terrorists, until they fight off an invasion from one of our enemies, then they are correctly identified as freedom fighters...

If only causing terror is the definition of terrorism then any army that conducts an invasion is filled with terrorists, if it is only causing terror that is terrorism then can someone explain where shock and awe differs from terrorism ?

As far as im concerned killing a foriegn soldier (who is part of an invading army) is not terrorism, they may be in the wrong and it may be a tragic loss of life but such things are not terrorism...

This is pretty dangerous you know, the Afghan may be a dirt poor, but all these red flowers you when you watch pictures from Afghanistan, what do you think that is? That would be opium, in hands of the Taliban, and for whoever they are usefull for they are sitting on the greatest opium-production of the world.

Errm didn't the Taliban all but eradicate poppy production, then when we removed the Taliban poppys spring up everywhere... you can accuse the taliban of alot of things but they were far more effective and seemed to care far more about eradicating poppys than us...

Though I wouldn't rule them out taking advantadge of poppys to fund thier way back into power, as shown by numerous examples when people think they are in the right and need something extra they are willing to abandon certain morals (America torturing for example)

All losses in war are mourned equally by me, with the exception of maybe someone like Saddam or Osama I mourn a british solidier as much as an Afghan resistance fighter...