Split From: American Contractor Beheaded

I would suggest that these murders, while certaily deplorable, do not equate to "executions" - more specifically with the stlye of execution visited upon Mr. Berg.

:m: Peace.
 
Dead is dead. The only difference I see, and it’s relatively insignificant, is that the contractor’s death was further exploited with the video.
 
goofyfish said:
I would suggest that these murders, while certaily deplorable, do not equate to "executions" - more specifically with the stlye of execution visited upon Mr. Berg.
Click to expand...

you kinda lost me, how is it not an execution? or I suppose a better question is, what is it if not an execution?
 
You don't see a difference between apparently random acts of violence compared to a staged execusion with videotape, a prepared statement and a triumphant display of the decapitated body? I believe your examples show thoughtless vigilantism, as compared to the premeditated execution of an individual as a means of extorting capitulation to a group's demands.

:m: Peace.
 
It’s not extortion to me if the demand is reasonable, like “release our innocent relatives you’re torturing.” Not that he should have been killed. In this case the video may do more good than harm.
 
An interesting perspective. I'll give it some thought - but I have
difficulty accepting justifications based upon moral relativism.

:m: Peace.
 
I had to look that up, again. Yeah, that's the way I think. For example, Americans are extra incensed because he was beheaded. They’d have less problem with it had he been shot. For Iraqis it could be the opposite, so I dismiss the beheading as worse than any other quick execution.
 
It is not the manner of killing to me, but the theatrics involved.
We agree to disagree - but I still intend to think about your point of view.

:m: Peace.
 
Keep in mind there’s a war going on there. If Mexico invaded Texas and drove out the government, the remaining Texans would get out their shotguns and resist, becoming “insurgents” in the minds of the Mexicans. Being the underdog, the Texans would have to use extra cunning & ruthlessness to have a chance, and you can bet they’d string up some Mexicans and get a video of that to the Mexican media.

And don’t forget the theatrics of shock and awe.
 
Do you have a problem if I split the tail end of this thread to Ethics? I think it raises interesting discussion.
 
zanket said:
..you can bet they’d string up some Mexicans and get a video of that to the Mexican media.
Click to expand...
So it is okay to murder an innocent individual to stop actions being perpetrated by a group to which his only apparent tie is nationality?
 
goofyfish said:
So it is okay to murder an innocent individual to stop actions being perpetrated by a group to which his only apparent tie is nationality?
Click to expand...

I don't think that that was his point. It seems to me that he's just saying that it's not such a unique or horrific tragedy as people are making it out to be. Generally I'd have to agree. That doesn't mean that I think it was right by any means, and I certainly wish it hadn't happened, and that the men who did it are eventually caught, and shot dead, but I'm not loosing sleep over the event, and I'm not exactly shocked that it happened (not so much as how it happened).
 
goofyfish said:
So it is okay to murder an innocent individual to stop actions being perpetrated by a group to which his only apparent tie is nationality?
Click to expand...

Truman thought so with Hiroshima. Oh but that wasn't murder now was it? Okay-ness is a personal choice, not an absolute, so I can speak only for myself. I condone violence only defensively. The goal in my ideal defensive war is to minimize casualties on both sides. Killing innocents can accomplish that if better methods fail.

My point was, you & others seem revulsed by this event but I bet you wouldn’t be if the shoe were on the other foot. To many Americans the Enola Gay pilots are heroes. Are they to you?
 
No they are not.

A quick review of this thread should pretty well let you know where I stand on that one. So, pushing that clutter aside, and pushing aside the fact that I actually would be repulsed if the shoe was on the other foot, I would like to know if you feel it is okay to murder an innocent individual to stop actions being perpetrated by a group to which his only apparent tie is nationality? This is what you seemed to suggest in the other thread. I am not looking to condemn a personal viewpoint - I truly am interested in discussing it, if that is the case.

:m: Peace.
 
I thought I answered that. Yes, I think it is okay, when it minimizes casualties on both sides and better methods have failed.
 
two men go in and one comes out it's the way of the dome(mad max beyond the thunder dome)
never in the fields of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few(winston churchill)
the thoughts of the many outweigh the thoughts of few(mr spook( star trek))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top