posted
Reagrding the " I feel recall " legend, about a sniper who has just shot someone, recently covered by Snopes.
Snopes goes along the lines of " The narrative thus delivers a measure of comfort, in that all feel reassured of their own safety, knowing they are defended by fighting men like these. "
It actually stuck me as just the opposite- the soldier depicted is heartless and "robotic." Far from being comfortable, it serves to scare me and show just how dangerous the military can be. But then I lived in Northern Ireland, where the military was an ever present danger. And it WAS a danger. I don't have any respect for the IRA or the Pro-British groups either, but the idea that a solider would feel nothing when killing a person is not a comforting thought.
I also feel that how a person reacts to that anecdote really depends on their current views on the war on terror. If it is taken that engaging various groups in Afganistan and Iraq is the right thing then unemotionally killing them is also the right thing. If not, then...
Posts: 320 | From: Ireland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at the story from the perspective of somebody living in Northern Ireland, I can see why you'd take it that way.
I also understand that you want to look at things from the perspective of "How does one feel about the war on terror, Afghanistan etc".
However, bear in mind that this (updated )faux tale of a US soldier was writen with Americans in mind.
Personally, since a dozen people from those "various groups" decided to come over to the United States and commit mass murder on an unbelievable scale, with the only emotion they felt being "ALLAHU ACKBAR!", then I choose to react to that anecdote with the old saying about tempting the wind.
-------------------- For England, for home and for the prize! Posts: 15 | From: Cape Coral-Fort Myers Florida | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that one. Why shouldn't you tempt the wind? What happens if you do?
BTW, not all Americans feel the same way about the war (although polls now seem to indicate that a solid majority is against it). And do you have any evidence that the mass murder of 9/11 was committed by "various groups" in Afganistan or Iran?
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It actually stuck me as just the opposite- the soldier depicted is heartless and "robotic." Far from being comfortable, it serves to scare me and show just how dangerous the military can be.
If that were the point, then the anecdote would have the sniper killing an "Iraqi" or some other victim who might be viewed sympathetically (or who might even be assumed an innocent bystander rather than a combatant). But the tale has the sniper killing an "al-Qaeda member," the modern equivalent of a Nazi on the Bad Guy Scale. Clearly the reader is expected to agree with the pro-military viewpoint.
posted
There is a similar situation in the movie "Full Metal Jacket" where a helicopter machine gunner is asked " How can you shoot women and children? " He replies " Easy, you just don't aim as high. "
I realsie, of course, that the fact that it is "women and children" actually make it a classic anti-military quote. But the nature of the tale remains the same- the soldier is unemotional and practical about taking life.
Posts: 320 | From: Ireland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chloe: I don't know that one. Why shouldn't you tempt the wind? What happens if you do?
BTW, not all Americans feel the same way about the war (although polls now seem to indicate that a solid majority is against it). And do you have any evidence that the mass murder of 9/11 was committed by "various groups" in Afganistan or Iran?
I've actually corrupted an Old Testament scripture "They sow the wind, And reap the whirlwind."
Or to repeat the non-existant Yamamoto quote: "I fear all we have done is awaken a slumbering giant and filled him with a terrible resolve"
In other words, I find it highly ironic that terrorist groups can gleefully and deliberately target and slaughter thousands of American civilians. But when an American soldier drills a bullet into a terrorist's head and doesn't feel any remorse for it, he is vilified as a mindless robot.
Let me ask you this: Would you feel remorse for the execution of a serial pedophile?
quote:Originally posted by snopes: But the tale has the sniper killing an "al-Qaeda member," the modern equivalent of a Nazi on the Bad Guy Scale. Clearly the reader is expected to agree with the pro-military viewpoint.
- snopes
I'm confused, are you saying that the story is deliberately trying to manipulate the reader's feelings and opinion?
-------------------- For England, for home and for the prize! Posts: 15 | From: Cape Coral-Fort Myers Florida | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TopHatter: In other words, I find it highly ironic that terrorist groups can gleefully and deliberately target and slaughter thousands of American civilians. But when an American soldier drills a bullet into a terrorist's head and doesn't feel any remorse for it, he is vilified as a mindless robot.
Is it inconsistent to believe that both would be wrong? (Not making an argument for that but I don't see anything "ironic" about one.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this may be my personal problem, but my "feelings" here are somewhat strange:
First, let me state, I am one of those who is for the "good guys", part of the majority, When I played Blood Bowl, I realized it was hip among some groups to be "bad". It never was "hip" for me.
But: when anyone is painted so one dimensional as "good" in the eyes of the writer, so obviously not a person, the I despise them and their actions which I wouldn't have done if the whole setup wasn't so silly.
In the story, we have a soldier killing an "Al-Qaeda member" (how did he know before) instead of at least a "suspect". We have an obnoxiously biased reporter. That's too much. If the setup were less silly, I'd have some sympathy for said sniper - like "what should he answer on such a question" - but would still be sceptical of "technical robotic machines" without emotions just doing their job (although I understand that for some jobs, like especially the military, you cannot think too much). But the story as is is too fabricated, too much worshipping a hero.
Which also answers my stance on TopHatter's last question.
But maybe that's really me. After all, I often catch myself, after hearing an account of some argument or similar, to be sympathizing with the other side, because I though, the report of the incidents was just too biased.
Also what Ganzfeld said.
Ulkomaalainen
-------------------- Movie characters never make typing mistakes. Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: QUOTE]Is it inconsistent to believe that both would be wrong? (Not making an argument for that but I don't see anything "ironic" about one.)
I don't think it's inconsistant. It's certainly a morally superior - albeit naive - position for a person to take. And it'll probably last right right up until al-Qaida commits another act of mass murder half a block from said person's home.
Perhaps ironic is an incorrect word to use. If so, I apologize.
-------------------- For England, for home and for the prize! Posts: 15 | From: Cape Coral-Fort Myers Florida | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how people come to such a short story with different opinions and come away with such different perceptions. I agree with snopes that the set-up of the story was supposed to invoke a pro-military feeling but I didn't feel it worked at all since it was so obviously a set-up.
Rather than engendering any sort of particular image of the sniper I found myself wondering what he actually felt and whether it was explicable in any easy way. I wondered if he regretted using such a glib throw-away line or whether it represented his contempt for the reporter asking such an asinine question in the first place. I also wondered how he would feel about the idea that a single off-the-cuff remark would be taken up to become a type of embryonic war-glurge to be sent to thousands of people for them to use to entrench their own ideas and to dismiss others.
I know that people tell these sorts of stories to reinforce their own world views. These little snippets form the mortar which hold together our bigger assumptions about how the world works. It just seems to me that this one in particular actually offered the chance to learn a lot about the human experience but actually produced nothing of significance at all.
Drop-feeling reflective today-bear
-------------------- " The villagers had said justice had been done, and she'd lost patience and told them to go home, then, and pray to whatever gods they believed in that it was never done to them. -- (Terry Pratchett) Posts: 823 | From: Hobart, Tasmania | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dropbear: I agree with snopes that the set-up of the story was supposed to invoke a pro-military feeling but I didn't feel it worked at all since it was so obviously a set-up.
I can definitely agree with that. Whatever my feelings for or against a particular subject, I absolutely despise being set up or manipulated into forming an opinion.
My own particular take on this story is that of the "what an idiot reporter" variety.
It sounds like a plausible story (even as your UL Detector is flashing bright red) because that's how the media sometimes comes off:
A family has just lost their home and all material objects to a fire and the reporter shoves a microphone in their face and says: "How does this make you feel?"
-------------------- For England, for home and for the prize! Posts: 15 | From: Cape Coral-Fort Myers Florida | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snopes: But the tale has the sniper killing an "al-Qaeda member," the modern equivalent of a Nazi on the Bad Guy Scale. - snopes
If you accept the viewpoint that there are "goodies" and "baddies" in the world, sure. I understand than many people do indeed see the war on terror in these terms.
I do think that there are certain perceptions of baddies- The Nazis themselves created their own "bad guy scale" balming all the worlds problems on the evil "communists."
Posts: 320 | From: Ireland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, I find it highly ironic that terrorist groups can gleefully and deliberately target and slaughter thousands of American civilians. But when an American soldier drills a bullet into a terrorist's head and doesn't feel any remorse for it, he is vilified as a mindless robot.
I think we can be fairly sure that the man the sniper gunned down did not take an active role in the WTC incident.
Once we get to the point where we don't feel anything when we kill an enemy, we have lost the war. Sure, we can make the enemy lose too, but we can't win.
Even if, and that's probably a huge if as the al Qaida is mostly a media thing with very little power today, that guy was an al Qaida member, it is unlikely that he has ever taken part in any terror activities.
If we start to see the issue as two sides with different opinions, it's easier to find a solution with less blood. Once we go into "we are the ultimate good fighting against the devil himself", we have pretty much ruled out any solution that does not involve mass murders. I don't know why this has to be repeated so much, but one must try to understand one's enemy. It's effing obvious to me. If it can be handled as a simple difference of opinions, then the problem can be solved in a much more civilized way.
Oh, by the way, don't forget that this did not start with the WTC incident. It did not even start with the second gulf war (Iraq vs Quwait and USA). There is a long history of resentment in the Arab world for getting drawn into the wars of the west, for getting their borders arbitrarily rearranged, for west and east meddling in their internal affairs and so on. They are not fighting against US freedom, they are fighting for their own freedom and for independence from the nations which has wronged them in the past. So, al Qaida choose a bad way to do this, a way that does not in any way represent what the average Arab thinks is reasonable, but overreacting without understanding the issue will not solve anything.
Sorry for going inte rant mode, but demonizing your opponent has never led to anything good.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Troberg, but demonizing your opponent has led to increased morale for "our" side and increased will to continue the fight.
You are obviously not a military member. For those who deal directly with the enemy, to properly do their job, they HAVE to be able to turn off their feelings, or they couldn't do their job.
As a very wise leader told me, "Turn off your heart. That isn't a person, it is a target. This is the biggest video-game in the world. Every time you eliminate a target, take a mental picture of the scene, and file it away for later. After the game is over, go back and look through the pictures, and turn the targets back into people. You don't have that luxury right now." SFC Smith, thank you again.
It is up to the LEADERS and POLITICIANS and CIVILIANS to keep their hearts in full view at all times. But when the bullets fly, soldiers, sailors, seamen and Marines CAN'T be sympathetic. The people that have problems with turning their hearts back on afterward are the ones that have the most problem with coming back to the "real" world.
Is it cold and heartless?? You betcha! Because it HAS to be.
Regarding demonizing your opponent, it has ALWAYS been done, and not only will it continue, it SHOULD. To turn the enemy into a big-fat, poopy-head is to take away their humanity. It is wrong to kill a "human", but not to kill a poopy-head. That is why we have long created derogatory terms for our enemy... Nips, Krauts, Gooks, Rag-heads... it goes back millenia. Savages, animals, bastards... it is human nature to do this as a survival method.
This being said, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that this situation isn't new.
And I am sorry for going into anti-rant mode as well, but not understanding the argument has never led to anything good.
-------------------- Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...
Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it. Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First let me say that I am not now, nor have I ever been a sniper, but as a target shooter I have some experience with taking difficult shots. It is virtually impossible to shoot accuractely while distracted or upset. Shooting is a very Zen activity. You blur your focus of the target to concentrate on the sight. You control your breathing. You get in sync with the motion of the sight caused by your pulse, your muscle trembling and your breathing. You gradually, and steadily squeeze the trigger. Once you have all this in sync, a shot happens, if you did it right the shot comes almost as a surprise. You simply cannot do this if you allow yourself to think about, or feel, anything. Especially if missing means that someone is going to return fire.
-------------------- 'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: I think we can be fairly sure that the man the sniper gunned down did not take an active role in the WTC incident.
First of all, NO KIDDING. Not only are we talking about an urban legend here, but even if we weren't, I think we all kinda knew that. The point is, our fictional al-Qaida sniper victim is a member of an organization that has a splendid track record of suicide attacks on anything they don't agree with. Women and children in the area? No problem, they don't mind. So when our sniper in the story drills a bullet between his eyes, maybe he stopped that terrorist from walking into a crowded marketplace in Kandahar...or Boston...or Hannover...or Göteborg.
Second, I'd really appreciate it if you could refer to 9/11 as anything but an "incident".
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Even if, and that's probably a huge if as the al Qaida is mostly a media thing with very little power today, that guy was an al Qaida member, it is unlikely that he has ever taken part in any terror activities.
"Mostly a media thing" That's comforting to know. It's also dead wrong. Whether tied directly to al-Qaida or not, why don't you just take a good look at this little list starting from September 11 2001 on through to today. Don't bother reading the Iraq-related stuff, I'll give you those as a freebie.
Terrorist attacks and plots And I'm glad you feel so secure that our fictional terrorist is "unlikely" to have taken part in actual operations. I guess he must have joined up for the retirement benefits.
-------------------- For England, for home and for the prize! Posts: 15 | From: Cape Coral-Fort Myers Florida | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, while I think that Al Qaeda should not be discounted as a potential - or real - threat to "societies as we know them", this list hardly contains any information about Al Qaeda attacks. And Troberg did not discount terrorism per se as a "media thing", but especially the Al Qaeda threat.
-------------------- Movie characters never make typing mistakes. Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Malruhn Sorry, Troberg, but demonizing your opponent has led to increased morale for "our" side and increased will to continue the fight.
You are obviously not a military member. For those who deal directly with the enemy, to properly do their job, they HAVE to be able to turn off their feelings, or they couldn't do their job.
You are right, I'm not a military man and most likely I will never be. Even if I got involved in a war, my mindset is much more geared towards guerilla resistance than organized warfare.
However, I have friends who have been at war, in UN duty, for their homeland and people who just got enough of the news and volonteered to get a chance to fix things. They have seen war up close, and those I have discussed the issue with have all said that treating the opponents as humans who they happen to have a disagreement with is what has kept them, for lack of a better word, from getting emotionally disturbed. Yes, they felt it when they killed, but they could later look back at it and feel that they fought the right way.
When you fight an equal, there is no shame in winning. When you shoot a target and as a byproduct kills someone, you have just not thought enough about what you're doing. Once you lose respect for your enemy, you are no longer a fighter, you're just a killer.
quote:Tophatter So when our sniper in the story drills a bullet between his eyes, maybe he stopped that terrorist from walking into a crowded marketplace in Kandahar...or Boston...or Hannover...or Göteborg.
Göteborg? Theres a lot of people there, I'm sure we can spare some.
quote:Tophatter Second, I'd really appreciate it if you could refer to 9/11 as anything but an "incident".
Why not? It's an accurate description (perhaps it should be called several incidents as it was several separate events).
Calling it an incident is certainly not trivializing it, there are several events commonly called incidents that are much worse.
quote:Ulkomaalainen Actually, while I think that Al Qaeda should not be discounted as a potential - or real - threat to "societies as we know them", this list hardly contains any information about Al Qaeda attacks. And Troberg did not discount terrorism per se as a "media thing", but especially the Al Qaeda threat.
The point I was trying to get across is that the terrorists perhaps can make some succesful attacks, perhaps killing some people, but they will not topple nations or ways of life if we don't overreact and help them by giving them the attention they need and by deconstructing our own values because we get caught up in a siege mentality.
And as you said, few of the attacks are al Qaida. Probably, even fewer are al Qaida "proper", most are probably lone hotheads or small independent groups claiming to be al Qaida. The real al Qaida are hunted day and night and are probably in hiding unable to do anything actively.
The interesting thing is that all these tag-along groups are created by the drastic responses against al Qaida. If it had been handled like the police business it is, al Qaida would have been gone and forgotten by now, but when you invade nations to catch a handful of men, people get pissed off. Drastic response is good for the home opinion, but bad for foreign relations.
Edit: Fixed bad UBB tag
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have folks here read Lt. Col. Grossman's book On Killing? It as an excellent, excellent study of dehumanization in warfare. And one of the key points in the book is the fact that modern military training (read: since Vietnam) has greatly increased the degree to which armies have been able to make soldiers effective killing machines. Most armies, historically, have to some degree been paralyzed by the average soldier's unwillingness to kill, and we have found a number of methods to get past that. Which raises a very important discussion for today's world....is this a good thing, or not?
Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you DO feel recoil (just not much with my dinky little M-4). Any other emotions regarding the killing of an enemy combatant would be mine alone, and I'd not share them with someone from mass media.
-------------------- "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." Posts: 2776 | From: LSA Anaconda, Iraq | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: The point I was trying to get across is that the terrorists perhaps can make some succesful attacks, perhaps killing some people, but they will not topple nations or ways of life if we don't overreact and help them by giving them the attention they need and by deconstructing our own values because we get caught up in a siege mentality.
And as you said, few of the attacks are al Qaida. Probably, even fewer are al Qaida "proper", most are probably lone hotheads or small independent groups claiming to be al Qaida. The real al Qaida are hunted day and night and are probably in hiding unable to do anything actively.
The interesting thing is that all these tag-along groups are created by the drastic responses against al Qaida. If it had been handled like the police business it is, al Qaida would have been gone and forgotten by now, but when you invade nations to catch a handful of men, people get pissed off. Drastic response is good for the home opinion, but bad for foreign relations.
Edit: Fixed bad UBB tag
That "treat it like police business, it's not a real threat" was how we responded when the WTC was attacked the first time. Seems to have been real effective.
In World War Two, the Nazis killed Six million Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and various other minorities over the course of several years.
Now, terroriest could kill easily twice that number in a matter of seconds with a single nuclear weapon used on a major city. And they are exactly the kind of people who would use Nukes (or Chems, or Bios) if they got ahold of them. Trivializing the danger that even a few wackos present is not a smart move.
-------------------- "I felt a great disturbance in this farce..." Nodwick in Lich Wars: the Henchman Strikes Back Posts: 167 | From: Myrtle Creek, Oregon ( the State of Confusion) | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EthanMitchell: Have folks here read Lt. Col. Grossman's book On Killing? It as an excellent, excellent study of dehumanization in warfare. And one of the key points in the book is the fact that modern military training (read: since Vietnam) has greatly increased the degree to which armies have been able to make soldiers effective killing machines. Most armies, historically, have to some degree been paralyzed by the average soldier's unwillingness to kill, and we have found a number of methods to get past that. Which raises a very important discussion for today's world....is this a good thing, or not?
It was recomended to me by another board member, Desert Rat. Although I have yet to sit and read it, I intend to.
Malruhn and Cannon Fodder have both made VERY powerful points, each in their own way.
I continue to feel that it is not the place of the civillian to pass judgement on the emotional make-up of the soldier. If they appear cold, heartless or cruel, it may very well be that which keeps them alive in the field. If it were my son or daughter behind the scope I'd pray that they could turn off the emotion, do the job and get the fuck outta harm's way.
ETA: It occured to me that it is relevant to the above point to say that I am not a member of the military nor is any of my immediate family currently.
And, as Malruhnquoted, I'd hope that when they do get to open their mental picture book, that they were also given the tools to deal with the emotions.
Lastly (enough of my blabber, i'm making myself think too much), remember that the quote from the OP was directed at Joe Average. It was meant to evoke a "Hell, Yeah!!" emotion from those who don't critically analyze things (like, uh, we do here...for instance ).Mix one part al Quaida, Two parts smug reporter, and a dash of brutal reality...bake until crisp...yields one fine Hell Yeah Glurge.
-------------------- As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. Posts: 1679 | From: Illinois | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
But, if it happened in real life, whether a friend, spouse or some reporter asked about "how does it feel to kill people", the answer would be correct, the perfect answer.
We don't want people going into war with a conscience. They need to shoot before they get shot, not sit and ponder who they are shooting, whether or not they are killing a father, husband, son etc. They are killing the enemy.
Psychologically, it's absolutely essential to be withdrawn from it as possible.
-------------------- Dr.Cox: I don't know if they taught you this in the land of fairies and puppy dog tails where you obviously, if not grew up, then at least spent most of your summers, but you're in the real world now! M'kay? Posts: 42 | From: N. Carolina | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Princessa: Yes, it was pro military and very fakish, We don't want people going into war with a conscience.
I do. Of course, I don't want them to stand around waiting to get shot. Nor do I want them to be traumatized by their actions in battle, insofar as those actions are just (or at the very least honest mistakes). But I certainly want every soldier to be trained in the Geneva conventions and other US laws that require the soldier to have a conscience.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the origins (or merely similarity) of the sniper story, I think Susan Kerry may be on to something in her reference to the Full Metal Jacket scene. If I'm remebering correctly, Michael Herr helped with the script for FMJ and Herr tells a similar story in his book "Dispatches". As a door gunner fires into a rice paddy, Herr ask him how he can shoot women and children (or old people) and the gunner replies, "Easy, just don't lead them as much." The way Herr tells the story, it was my impression that it was an incident he actually witnessed. It would seem the desensitizing mindset, if not the literal truth in the sniper story, is at least an extension of somethhing that's been around for a while.
-------------------- I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent... Posts: 138 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the origins (or merely similarity) of the sniper story, I think Susan Kerry may be on to something in her reference to the Full Metal Jacket scene. If I'm remebering correctly, Michael Herr helped with the script for FMJ and Herr tells a similar story in his book "Dispatches". As a door gunner fires into a rice paddy, Herr ask him how he can shoot women and children (or old people) and the gunner replies, "Easy, just don't lead them as much." The way Herr tells the story, it was my impression that it was an incident he actually witnessed. It would seem the desensitizing mindset, if not the literal truth in the sniper story, is at least an extension of somethhing that's been around for a while.
-------------------- I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent... Posts: 138 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I cannot judge, being a civilian all my life, I wonder, whether it is possible at all for any "normal" human being who normally holds a conscience to turn it off. And whether, by any techniques, it is possible to actively and intentionally kill people without breaking down later on, one way or the other.
-------------------- Movie characters never make typing mistakes. Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I am a smelly conservative, I do consider myself to be pretty "normal".
That being said, yes, it is possible for a "normal" person to repress their conscience. Their success rate is pretty varied.
To be able to pull a trigger is an exercise in repressing one's conscience. The guy that shoots an enemy soldier and falls down in tears couldn't keep it surpressed. The guy that comes home and becomes the psychopath, never learned to turn it back on.
And, Dogwater, the military counsellors have been doing a great job for the last fifteen years or more. Also, with more senior vets that were "successful" in turning on and off their consciences can pass thier knowledge to the younger soldiers, thereby increasing the numbers of people who are "successful".
I put "successful" in quotes purely to show that from a humane attitude, it would very easily be a "failure" as a human being to be able to take life so easily.
"How's That??"
-------------------- Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...
Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it. Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ulkomaalainen: While I cannot judge, being a civilian all my life, I wonder, whether it is possible at all for any "normal" human being who normally holds a conscience to turn it off. And whether, by any techniques, it is possible to actively and intentionally kill people without breaking down later on, one way or the other.
I'll let you in on a little personal note. Twice in my career I have been thisclose to situations that had life or death consequences. And this is what goes through your head.
Training.
We practice so often and so efficiently that at the moment you are under fire you react in accordance with your training. You will react with an almost reflexive action that your brain does not immediately comprehend. Yet, two hours later, when the adrenaline has worn off, and you have had time to process your thoughts, you then have to deal with the human aspects of your actions.
Looking at morality and conscience from another perspective: what do you think about a man in his house with his family who kills a home intruder? Was he justified (not getting into the minutiae, but general feelings)? Most would say yes. But a human life was taken. The man reacted without thought for a few moments, and he would have to deal with his actions later.
Posts: 2064 | From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, when something happens you react according to training. This makes it so much more important that the training incorporates the laws of war and moral distinctions.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Training ought to cover relevant laws and morals but one big problem is when soldiers are ordered to do something that their training was never intended to cover, as when ordinary foot soldiers are asked to be prison guards or, worse, interrogators.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, these are areas that require very special training.
I saw a TV program some years ago about a study where a test group, specifically selected as stable and with a solid mentality, were divided into "prisoners" and "guards" in a fake prison. The "guards" were told that they were to maintain order. The study had to be aborted within a day or two as the situation got totally out of hands and the "guards" started to abuse the "prisoners".
I got the impression it was a famous study of some kind, anyone who knows more?
If guards can go so much wrong from such a seemingly simple order, imagine what a person trained to kill might do when he get the order to get information from a suspected enemy. People do stange and horrible things when they are put into a situation they are not prepared to handle.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was an interesting experiment but I have to agree with most criticism of the experiment. I'm not so sure the example of the experiment applies to real life cases of prisoner abuse or other abuse by people in authority.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[flame]](graemlins/flame.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).Mix one part al Quaida, Two parts smug reporter, and a dash of brutal reality...bake until crisp...yields one fine Hell Yeah Glurge.
