US General Says It's Fun To Shoot People

[Pooeypants]

If I were in a war, I'd be in the labs making the bioweapons which would kill thousands if not millions.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Patton said it best:

"The object of war is not to die for your country, rather it's to make the other bastard die for his first."

The moment we let sentimentality cloud the minds of our soldiers, the body count rises.

Good intentions have very little bareing on the field of battle.

[Scribbler1]

And, like I said, Patton is revered as a great soldier and American to this day.

I think this wouldn't be that much of a debate if Mattis had made the same comments in WW2. It's likely that this is due to the current WAR and not the words. If you're against the war then anyone advocating killing the enemy in THIS war would be met with the same opposition.

[bishop]

"The object of war is not to die for your country, rather it's to make the other bastard die for his first."

incidentally, our troops in iraq are not dying for our country, they're dying for someone else's...


there's a certain fascism about talking about killing the enemy as if it's like going duck hunting. i do agree that the fewer abusive sob's in the world, the better.. a bit of humility would be in order.. like guiliano said, this guy's setting a horrible moral example for his young (and impressionable) troops to follow.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Too bad our Politicians are too neanderthal to resolve issues without murdering innocents.
War creates a chaos that makes it easier to steal, so they really arent looking for an alternative.

We are programmed for war from infancy, with violent cartoons and marketing of toy weapons. We are told that war is good. Patriotic. Bullshit.

Have you guys heard about this: Ward Churchill's Essay and Statement: Updated...Again If there isnt a thread started for this, I may start one. This professor is right, yet he even has the governor calling for his resignation? He is basically saying we need to look at how we are treating others abroad, because it will come home to roost.

War is an unnecesary evil. Especially for the agressor. The invaded have a right to defend themselves. The invaded should not be demonized.

[bishop]

yeah, we have a thread about that one: The Truth is not Politically Correct

others have said what he said with a whole lot more tact.. i'd go for a balanced view like chalmers johnson.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Personally, I think that mindset is a LOT more widespread than we think, owing to the fact that the "enemy" is often demonized by the government and military to the point I'd expect a lot of these guys to want to start annihilating the "enemy" before they're out of boot camp! If your JOB is to shoot these people it is counterproductive to tell you the "other side" is just a bunch of regular folks like yourself, with families and regular lives.

ok what i disagree with is that the general in this instance is placing all fundamentalist muslims, such as those subscribing to teachings aligned with the taliban leaders, in the same boat and saying how much he enjoys killing them.

can anyone spot the major problem here? the enemy in afghanistan has never been properly defined. who is it exactly?

sure there's al qaeda, and then there were the taliban who supported them, and now this guy is going further than that onto muslims who encouraged women to wear the burka.

sounds like a war on islam to me...

[Vee]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You dont see a connection here? Nothing noble about blood sport.

aren't morals/ethics subjective.

Isn't he standing by his beliefs and being honest and isn't being honest showing integrity?

[tinybear]

Hmm, honestly brutal and brutally honest? Either way he's a killer.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Vee aren't morals/ethics subjective. Isn't he standing by his beliefs and being honest and isn't being honest showing integrity?

I agree. I'd rather strongly disagree with someone who is honest with me than agree with a liar.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Vee Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You dont see a connection here? Nothing noble about blood sport. aren't morals/ethics subjective. Isn't he standing by his beliefs and being honest and isn't being honest showing integrity?

Honesty isnt exactly the character defect we were talking about. I bet Jeffrey Dahlmer was a real sweetheart to lure his victims into his lair. Dahlmer wasnt arrested for lying.
I realize the General has a license to kill, but is he allowed unrestrained pleasure with his victims?
I am a peacenik so I am not versed in Military code of Justice(?), but arent there certain perameters of conduct that regulate the celebration festivities surrounding a fresh kill? Isnt the General supposed to be an example of respect?
Doesnt the enemy have certain Universal Human Rights and Geneva protections?

If the troops leaders are sadists,
how much can we really expect from our troops?

[gr8fuldaniel]

I guess if the, Commander in Chief (disgusting) can be a juvinile delinquent, I guess a 3 star General can be too. All the way down to the torturers.

Link President Bush announced the attack ........... Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. "Feels good," he said.

[rmnunez]

Before it was just "fun", now gr8 says its "unrestrained pleasure", I suppose the general will climax next.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Vee aren't morals/ethics subjective.

morals are subjective and apply to the individual's personal philosophy, experience and beliefs, while ethics apply to the situation or circumstance.

eg., it is unethical for a doctor to violate patient-doctor confidentiality. that isn't subjective.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I realize the General has a license to kill, but is he allowed unrestrained pleasure with his victims?

I'm very sure there is no mention in any rulebook as to what emotions you can have and when you can have them. This guy only verbalized what a LOT of soldiers feel when they score a kill. His only mistake was saying it where it could be recorded.

but arent there certain perameters of conduct that regulate the celebration festivities surrounding a fresh kill?

It's not like he said he did a little end zone dance after killing someone and he didn't say he felt that way every time he killed. We should remember that fact.

Doesnt the enemy have certain Universal Human Rights and Geneva protections?

I don't think there are "protections" against being killed by the opposing military in battle and as I said, there are no rules as to how you should feel. The General never to my knowledge said he killed people in any way different from everyone else, so there wouldn't be any "human rights" violations. Except of course for the biggest human rights violation, and that is killing someone deliberately, but that's war.
If some treaty says you are not supposed to KILL the enemy then that would be a violation, but you STILL can't regulate how the soldier feels.

[gr8fuldaniel]

OK, Scribbler that all makes sense. Except in public life we have penalties that multiply if a hate motive applies. The reason for this is because Hate is a disease of irrationality that condemns without subjective or objective discretion. Hate only needs an appearance and no real evidence, to damn.
We have no business fighting this guerilla war, to start with.

giuliano brought up a good point in post #47:

Quote by: giuliano, ok what i disagree with is that the general in this instance is placing all fundamentalist muslims, such as those subscribing to teachings aligned with the taliban leaders, in the same boat and saying how much he enjoys killing them. can anyone spot the major problem here? the enemy in afghanistan has never been properly defined. who is it exactly? sure there's al qaeda, and then there were the taliban who supported them, and now this guy is going further than that onto muslims who encouraged women to wear the burka. sounds like a war on islam to me...

With the Nazi hate crimes only some 60 years ago, isnt there some military code to prevent ethnic targets?
I found this on the FBI website. Guidelines for hate crimes[pdf, 29 page]:

B. Objective Evidence that the Crime was Motivated by Bias An important distinction must be made when reporting a hate crime. The mere fact that the offender is biased against the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and/or ethnicity/national origin does not mean that a hate crime was involved. Rather, the offender’s criminal act must have been motivated, in whole or in part, by his/her bias. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime was the result of the offender’s bias. Therefore, before an incident can be reported as a hate crime, sufficient objective facts must be present to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by bias. While no single fact may be conclusive, facts such as the following, particularly when combined, are supportive of a finding of bias: page 5 1. The offender and the victim were of different race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and/or ethnicity/national origin. For example, the victim was black and the offender was white.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I may be wrong about this:

Quote by: me, Hate is a disease of irrationality that condemns without subjective or objective discretion

Quote by: dictionary, sub.jec.tive, adj. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

Hate seems to be a mental disease, but it may be spiritual in nature. If it is ONLY spiritual, then is it "taking place in a person's mind"?
Oh brother, I may be out of my league on this one.
Does hate originate in the ego or the id?
Somebody help me out here

[Matt W]

This sounds more appropriate for Philosophy & Religion...the nature of hate. Tough one!

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Matt W, This sounds more appropriate for Philosophy & Religion...the nature of hate. Tough one!

Maybe, but I think we can consider hate in a topic of WAR too.
I would like to just dismiss war as satanic and call it off. But its not up to me. So I talk about it. Who will we hate enough to kill en masse
I think I found the answer to my riddle:

Main Entry: su·per·ego Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'E-(")gO also 'sü-p&r-", -'eg-(")O Function: noun : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is only partly conscious, represents internalization of parental conscience and the rules of society, and functions to reward and punish through a system of moral attitudes, conscience, and a sense of guilt —compare EGO, ID

So, it looks like hate may be a malfunctioning Superego.

[Matt W]

:eek:

Too heavy duty for me, I'm afraid. Unless I dig out my Pschology notes from uni...

Hmm.