Morality In Warfare

Remove all ads!

I certainly can. However, there are literally hundreds of mosques in Falluja alone - and I doubt all of them are hundreds of years old. I certainly would expect more respect to be paid to a structure that was say, 500 years old as opposed to one built 50 years ago. But the fact remains that if insurgents didn't enter these ancient structures, they wouldn't have been destroyed. Also, I truly wonder how many of these "ancient mosques" have been damaged or destroyed.

@ Faraaz - I just don't understand. Christians hold their religion in reverence - not the buildings or structures where that religion is practiced. You can pray at home as well as you can pray in church. One church (provided it is of the same denomination) is pretty much the equivalent of another. For example, I'm Catholic, and the mass is the same no matter where I attend church. However, I put no "reverence" onto the particular church I go to, beyond that I would prefer it not be blown up while I am within it.

 

@Darkwolf:

I really do not know where to begin with a reply, so I will just work my through as I can...

Firstly, I would like to state that I live in Sydney currently, where I'm doing my University degree. And even here, when I say my name is Faraaz Ahmed, there's people who look at me twice, just because I'm Muslim, apparently. (I asked one of my other mates why, and he told me.)

Of course, as you say, it will be very hard for me to prove that the US has an official anti-Islamic policy, and I apologise if I offended you, it was truly not my intention. However, for things to have come to a head where people view Muslims as the "villains" so to speak, is directly a consequence of the reaction of the US to 9/11, and the progression of events which have followed, would you not agree?

Again, the main point I mentioned in my previous post was the US and its "alleged" oppression of Islam, as stated by me. True, I may have been over the top, and true, I may have been inaccurate in my allegations, but you yourself agreed that there was a very strong anti-muslim sentiment in the US post-9/11. Also, you have agreed that the US has always wanted to bring the Middle East under its dominion.

Alright then, if you say that what I said is not true, then I would like to relate an incident which happened last year. Myself and my cousin both had a place at Georgia Tech. for Electronics engineering, and we had our letters of admission in hand. When we visited the American consulate to apply for our visa, our paperwork was processed immediately, because everything was, in their words, "perfectly in order".

When we arrived at the consulate, we were asked to wait for a week, when we were supposed to receive our visas immediately, and then we were interrogated at length as to our purpose for the visit to the US, with the sentiment being made clear that we supposedly had an ulterior motive for going to the States. After this, we were fingerprinted, and a check was made with the police department on our prior criminal records, if any. Finally, we received our Visas after another 7 days in waiting.

After the entire ordeal, when we discussed this with our friends, (one of who is currently in the University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign) he was surprised, because he was not fingerprinted, OR questioned. He applied for his visa a 3 weeks after I did. He was not a Muslim.

I have heard of many such incidents as recently as 2 months ago. Hence, I am sorry, but as much as I would like to believe what you say, I think we should agree to disagree.

@Aldeth: Ah...therein lies the difference. We do care whether we are in it or not, if it is going to be destroyed...Think of it this way. The mosques are a symbolism of Iraq, and their destruction of them is being viewed, (accurate or inaccurately is subjective, depending on the point of view) as a slap to the face of Islam. I really don't know how to explain it differently.

@Darkthrone:

That being the quote in question, I found that quote to imply that Muslims consider people who are NOT muslims, or rather Infidels, to be less than human. Would you not think that kind of generalisation is offensive?

Edit: PS: I'm off for some last minute revision, any and all replies/flames will be addressed in due course of time...which is when I reach India again, so...if I don't seem to reply for a long period of time, never fear...the thread will be resurrected, hopefully by Friday.

PPS: Relax guys, its only a debate.



[ November 16, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

 

Well, I haven't addressed them, because frankly I don't see what they've got to do me. I wasn't talking about Fallujia, I was talking about morality in warfare. Well, it seems that these topic has turned into a Fallujia thread, it's not what I was talking about. So, I don't see why I should comment on your concerns, as they have nothing to do with what I wrote, but what rather with what you presumed I wrote. And that's about it.

 

Unless you are suggesting that you would prefer to be inside a mosque when it is destroyed as opposed to somewhere else (a highly unusual preference), then I fail to see any difference whatsoever. And if that truly is your preference, I fail to see why reverence for the structure would make you have that preference. I mean there are some structures I view with reverence: Say, the Twin Towers, Mount Rushmore, the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China - truly they are accomplishments that are a testament to man's ingenuity and resourcefulness. However, just because I feel that way doesn't mean I'd want to be in/near any of them if they were destroyed.

 

@NonSequitur:

Indeed, it can be a part of chaotic destruction or part of a more organised pattern, serving purposes such as genocide - so far as masses of common people go, or humiliation, as in case of ancient rulers of conquered lands and their families. No matter, however, if it starts in the head of Joe Grunt or in the office of a genocidal leader, it still has no justification whatsoever, which is my exact point here. Rape is not collateral damage and should be addressed in a way so harsh as possible. No tolerance here, no matter what.

 

OK, I am in full on pissed off mode now.
Iraq charity worker feared killed

You know what, I have had it with all the crying for the poor abused Moslems in Iraq and the supposed "war crimes" commited by the US soldiers BS. The press spends days and weeks going into the graphic details of the abuses of prisoners and rape of children, and yet the murder of Margaret Hassan (and the other kidnap victims) will be forgotten in a day. I will not speculate on the agenda of the media, but these terrorists are clueless if they think that this is going be forgotten or going to help accomplish any of their stated goals.

Are these people completely stupid, killing a non-combatant who was there to help the people of Iraq? This does nothing for their goal, unless their real goal is to propagate the hostilities. I am not saying that it justifies the incidences where our soldiers crossed the line, but this is so far beyond anything that we have done!

Where is the public outcry in the Middle East about this? These terrorists could not survive if the general populace turned against them and exposed where they are hiding. How can these homicidal maniacs continue to gain support? I am sorry, but these executions, especially this one, are not justifiable, they are not even rational.

Someone explain to me what possible benefit the Iraqi people can see in going back to a dictatorship like Saddam or a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban.

If indeed you have traveled beyond us, rest in peace Margaret Hassan.

 

Everybody read Darkwolf's post as it will probably be the only time you hear about this. People are still talking about the rape of the teenage girl even though nobody has found any evidence that it happened. All we are going to hear for the forseeable future is about the soldier who shot the unarmed insurgeant.

 

From our (the west) point of view they have nothing to gain from a dictatorship or a theocracy but if they decide that they want a baathist regime or a theocratic islamic state, it their own right and nobody has the right to tell them no.

There is one golden rule in journalism. When a dog bites a human, this isn't news. When a human bites a dog, this is news.

 

@ Chev: No disagreement here.

@ TGS/Darkwolf: Nor here, about Margaret Hassan. However, Darkwolf, I think you may have answered your own question:

One more thing...

Ironically, the only things I can think of are either religion or patriotism. Since, as Faraaz said, it's improper to think of these murdering bastards as true followers of Islam, I'm guessing it's the latter. A hypothetical: would you turn in an insurgent if you lived in an occupied country? I would think the answer is "no". If not, then why? If you can convince people that turning you in equates to selling out their own country (arguably literally, in this case), you can at least get them to turn a blind eye, if not provide some tacit support even if they don't truly agree with you.

Not that that's entirely rational, but then again, not much really is, in my experience. At the least, it is understandable.

 

You missed "fear", NS. It's a powerful motivator.

Note also that a number of the "insurgents" are not native Iraqis.

 

Indeed, it is. I would argue that it was implicit, but you're right, AMaster. I don't imagine any of the guerrilla fighters in Iraq would take kindly to being informed on, and it's well-known what they do to people. Threats to a person or their family/friends are an effective leveraging tool, although hardly desirable practice.

The point about patriotism still stands, but maybe I should clarify it slightly; you appeal to the citizens' sense of patriotism. Rather than defending "your" homeland, you are defending theirs, and it is still in their interests not to turn on you.

 

One reason that there is more information about the allied's atrocies is because when they do so, they will be put in jail for one year maximum, but the Iraqis will probably be killed by the allies, in one way or another. Plus, once again, the allies are supposed to be the GOOD side on this, why are their mouth writing checks their asses can't check in?

Even in Vietnam, the only man who was put in jail after the slaughter of an entire village was released one year after he got his sentence, and IIRC, it was for 10 or 20 years. If that's American justice for you, then thanks, but no thanks.

 

agreed...

 

@Caleb: Mai Li is a major black mark for anyone in the military and stresses the importance of the Geneva Convention. LT Carray should have been executed (IMHO). Many people in America were outraged that Pres Nixon let him out of prison. I don't think many American would agree that LT Carray received his "just rewards" and I for one would consider that an example of American justice gone wrong.

Hassan's death is all the more tragic knowing she devoted the last 30 years of her life helping the Iraqi's and was a supportive member of the Bahgdad community (her husband was Iraqi).

 

Tal...ever the voice of reason...

Couldn't agree with you more.

A second point, since the topic here in particular aims to discuss morality in warfare...I would say that it is essentially a paradox, because war is the basic opposite of morality in almost every way.

PS: Thank heavens for broadband hubs, else I wouldn't be whiling away my time while waiting for my flight on SP!

 

Apparently there were demonstrations and protests to this effect in Iraq and Baghdad. I only learned of this last night, on the ABC (non-mainstream) news in Melbourne. Sadly, they don't seem to have worked and serve only to confirm the point that the insurgents do not have "the liberation of Iraq for Iraqis" as even an ethical consideration - Margaret Hassan was an Iraqi citizen (IIRC).

This is why it's worthy of discussion - it's about picking a defensible path through a trough of unpalatable options and moral murkiness. It's bad enough that human beings feel some things are important enough to kill for, to dominate or intimidate or torture for (yes, I'm being sanctimonious, I realise - but I'm being as impartial as possible). When civilians get caught up in it, it's much worse. If we tossed out the rulebook, it'd be easy - but then, how could we claim to be engaging in a "just" war?

[ November 18, 2004, 07:08: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

mhm. CNN covered them. Briefly.

Thing is, we do toss out the rulebook whenever it's expedient to do so. It's just a question of doing whatever the leaders feel is necessary to achieve victory.

 

Hence, the reason why I started this thread, AMaster.

I believe that the "Coalition of the Willing" is trying to promote itself as having the moral high ground in Iraq. No surprises there. The murder of non-combatants by militant insurgents helps fuel this promotion, but it must also be fed with justifiable (or at least, defensible) military policy and action to retain this. It is this "moral high ground" which gives the war any sense of legitimacy - without it, there will be little support at home for sending their young people off to die in a fruitless or undesirable campaign. Of course, staying the (arguably) ethical course means a reduction in efficiency - as TGS said, a couple of neutron bombs and the fight is over, and you don't even have long-term radioactivity to worry about. Frying a city "because we can", however, suggests that you're indifferent to human life or collateral human damage - particularly if there's any civilians around, and since the insurgents are not uniformed or a recognisable force, you have to work off assumptions. Kill enough non-combatants and people everywhere turn on you as a butcher.

This thread was never intended to be about simple choices. Expedience often wins out over values in every aspect of life - and I wouldn't blame soldiers at the front saying "Screw the rules!" when they feel their life is in danger, because I don't doubt I'd feel the same way. Yet we cling to rules, validations and justifications for unethical behaviour, and in war, the consequences of those behaviours are probably as high as it gets. Individuals can make mistakes (although I feel Lt. Calley was a scapegoat for My Lai - one man should not have borne all the responsibility for that atrocity), but it is the ethics and morality of warfare that creates the situations which may lead to them. Tossing out the rulebook when it's expedient to do so isn't uncommon, but there are costs and consequences to that.

[ November 18, 2004, 07:21: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

This might be the most astute thing anyone has said on this topic. Nearly every nation entering a war would prefer to play by the rules so to speak, but very few nations would continue playing by the rules if they feel like it might cost them a victory. It's more like, "We'll play by the rules, so long as we can win just as easily by doing so."

EDIT: One good thing that is going on right now is the US is bringing in food and giving it to the Iraqis. However, there's a catch. They are giving everyone gunpowder tests on their hands before they give them any food. If you test positive, it shows you've been in contact with gunpowder (most likely from firing a gun) recently. Don't worry - we'll still give them food, but it will be from a prison cell.

EDIT: Found the link - it's mostly about the attack, but the last few paragraphs on the bottom concern how the food is handed out, and the gunpowder tests. Read it here.

[ November 18, 2004, 15:38: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]