Morality is the basis of my questioning, and in fact of this very thread as originally conceived - or so I assume.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are US drone pilots war criminals?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
Morality is the basis of my questioning, and in fact of this very thread as originally conceived - or so I assume.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
The tangent, or so i was a thinking, was what does morality have to do with winning?
Is it immoral to win?
Or is the immorality in how one goes about winning?
In war? Yes, quite often. War is a very tricky thing to justify in the moral sense.
That, too, happens often. Particularly these days when war is usually a matter of having the most military expense.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So, you do not know what "winning" is other than it is immoral?
I don't understand your question.
dust1n
Zindīq
As far as this particular thread goes, so?
A.) If the point of war is to win, it's really inconsequential how many of one's own people to die. To point of war is to win, not save one's own lives. B.) And I don't understand your answer... the point of war, the purpose of it, and purpose of carrying out is to win it? Wouldn't that rather circular? "We are going to start this war for the purposes of winning it."
What formal training, on what subject?
I don't think Luis was referring to commanders, I think he was referring to the actual soldiers.
But, to answer your question, there is no consistent answer to that question in which in all circumstances the answer does not change.
If we are talking about bombing civilians, I don't really see anything ethical about any of the manners one is going about doing it.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
There are litteraly no words with which I can use to respond to this other than I pray that you are never placed in any position of power over other people.
Have a nice day.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
An interesting article recently published from the perspective of someone who was (formerly) responsible for controlling some functions of the drones during strikes (warning 5 pages)
Confessions of an American Drone Operator
Confessions of an American Drone Operator
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Since when is America in war with Pakistan, Somali, Yemen and several other countries?
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Since when is America in war with Pakistan, Somali, Yemen and several other countries?
Good point. That's one of the more scary aspects of this "War on Terror": unlike the opposition of something tangible and objective such as, say, the Soviet Union, the "War on Terror" can potentially never end, because "Terrorism" is such a subjective thing.
As the saying goes: "One person's Terrorist is another person's Freedom Fighter."
We are now in a position where the US could strike anyone in any nation, for an indefinite period of time, because almost anyone can be considered a "Terrorist" by someone else.
:cover:
He is only pointing out the limitations of your take. War is not like chess where it matters not how many pieces one loses as long as a checkmate is still ensured.
Last edited:
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
If I am going to have to constantly add qualifiers to my posts, that any reasonable person would assume without having to be told, then there is no point in continuing.
Juhurka
Member
No wonder the world is in so much trouble, those in charge actually think like you.
You sound confused, trying to define war with just two examples is wrong. Defending your self from those who threaten you does not fall in to any of your above mentioned examples.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
In terms of Foreign Policy? GWB v2.0. :yes:
I take it you are joking? There is no other reasonable explanation for this post of yours.
The Commander in Chief of a set of Armed Forces shaped by several generations of criminal thinking and far too much influence from military industry.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Is he also a war criminal, yes or no?
Setting aside the "war" part (since, as I've pointed out, there was no war), if he ordered or directly authorized the strikes, then I'd say he's just as guilty of murder as someone who hires a hitman.
And even if he only had indirect involvement, I could see a case for some sort of conspiracy-related offense... though that would probably depend on specifics I haven't seen personally.
I certainly think that Obama has blood on his hands in one form or another.
Tis easy for fans of big government to blame the "military industrial complex"....it takes away the culpability of voters & leaders they elect. Recently, Bush & a bi-partisan Congress sent us into dual wars. Obama continued these wars. Having worked for defense contractors designing weapon systems & other doodads, I just don't see them as having this level of influence. So I find it incredibly lame that people will vote for Obama, & then blame the evil capitalists for Obama's decision to continue the wars. I see it simply...if you oppose these needless wars, then vote for someone who really opposes them.