Sawing off heads worse than pushing buttons?

Great Debates
1

You’ll recall (because no one could forget!) that there was a period of time when some of the “insurgents” in Iraq were cutting off people’s heads and would show it to the world via the Internet. I never watched any of them myself, but many American’s – especially radio talk show hosts – were basically saying (at the time) that because some of them were doing this great, ghastly evil that it proved that we were/are better than them and their cause(s).

But the thing is, why is decapitating someone in such a way morally worse than (our) guys safely sitting 300-miles away in war ships wearing fancy cuff links and spit-shined shoes … while going through their battle routines as “professionals” to launch cruise missiles that killed and horribly maimed those where they struck?

Please don’t mistake me for cheering for the bad guys and not our super heroes, 'cause I TOTALLY support our fighters! I just raise the question because to me it seemed odd that so many talk show people were caught up with something that I didn’t understand, as if they didn’t take into account the kind of terror our missiles and bombs caused many simply because our side had a different image, a more “clean and professional” one. Kinda makes no sense on the order that one will sometimes hear people say about a mugger, “Yeah, he beat up an old lady over only $5” (as if it somehow would have been okay if it had been $500).

Anyway, God Bless America (and let’s get out of there soon!)!

2

[QUOTE=benny73]
You’ll recall (because no one could forget!) that there was a period of time when some of the “insurgents” in Iraq were cutting off people’s heads and would show it to the world via the Internet. I never watched any of them myself, but many American’s – especially radio talk show hosts – were basically saying (at the time) that because some of them were doing this great, ghastly evil that it proved that we were/are better than them and their cause(s).

But the thing is, why is decapitating someone in such a way morally worse than (our) guys safely sitting 300-miles away in war ships wearing fancy cuff links and spit-shined shoes … while going through their battle routines as “professionals” to launch cruise missiles that killed and horribly maimed those where they struck?

Please don’t mistake me for cheering for the bad guys and not our super heroes, 'cause I TOTALLY support our fighters! I just raise the question because to me it seemed odd that so many talk show people were caught up with something that I didn’t understand, as if they didn’t take into account the kind of terror our missiles and bombs caused many simply because our side had a different image, a more “clean and professional” one. Kinda makes no sense on the order that one will sometimes hear people say about a mugger, “Yeah, he beat up an old lady over only $5” (as if it somehow would have been okay if it had been $500).

Anyway, God Bless America (and let’s get out of there soon!)!
[/QUOTE]

This is more of a debate than a question, and it will surely be moved to Great Debates by a moderator.

I think your general sentiment is correct - killing is killing. Whether it’s done from afar or up close doesn’t change it at all, in my opinion. The missiles and bombs that we drop on Iraq are just as brutal as the beheadings that we see in videos.

The bombs and missiles seem less brutal because they’re done impersonally. They kill anonymously, and this is more palatable than the idea of someone being beheaded. Also, beheading is viewed as primitive and barbaric, whereas our mechanized warfare seems like a simple extension of technology, and therefore familiar.

I think, though, that you may want to ease off the statements about our “super heroes” and evaluate your position that the Iraqis are bad guys. We were the ones that went in there in the first place and started a war that has lead to chaos and disaster - why exactly are we the “super heroes” and the insurgents the “bad guys?” All soldiers are the same - humans. What they are fighting for may vary, but they all deserve respect.

3

I do regard our troops as super heroes in the sense that their lives are being put out there in the most hellish of situations brought on by politicians that, for the most part, make me sick. As for those that are fighting against our troops goes, they ARE the bad guys on account of wanting to hurt our fellow Americans who only want to establish a government that will allow Iraqis to live in peace and have representation of their wishes, as dignified people.

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum.

4

Your two sentences contradict each other. Either the politicians have lofty goals or they are putting people (on both sides) through hell for bad ones.

We can agree to disagree on the heroism of soldiers.

5

I would say it is a matter of intent and perspective. Many of our bombs and missiles are intended for military targets and active insurgents. Not journalists and tourists. They are casualties of war, and aren’t seen as some personal insult or political statement (of course some acts of war may be, but that is a different debate I think).

Capturing a civilian or even a military person and then killing them is seen as wrong because our society (supposedly) views killing POWs as wrong. Doing so in a manner that is specifically aimed at a response is beyond that of simply taking out a terrorist cell with military intelligence backed information and equipment.

You can argue, rightly in most cases, that all killing is wrong. Unfortunately much of society and the powers that be see some war and killing as necessary. This isn’t so much of a debate if you have that viewpoint, but if you realize that limiting when and how killing is acceptable, then it becomes obvious why brutally murdering a POW on television to get a reaction is wrong, while taking out an enemy force is generally acceptable (and there are many unacceptable ways of doing so).

6

This is in the wrong forum. Anyway, decapitation is considered an especially, deliberately cruel way of killing someone. There have been threads debating whether a person remains concious after beheading and if so, it must be a horrific thing to experience. Sawing the heads off in particular as I’ve heard has happened here is slow and way beyond even a normal beheading. I would think that some kinds of deaths from bombs, such as vaporization or taking a fragment and bleeding to death wouldn’t be that bad.

I think the reaction would be different if they simply shot the hostages, or something similar. It would be viewed as wrong by people on one side of the debate over the war, but probably not as something barbaric and beyond the normal horrors of war. Although, there’s also the issue that some of these hostages were reporters and whatnot, non-combatants. Although that’s a little iffy I think if we do things like bombing that are bound to kill some number of non-combatants. And, ultimately if one side is wrong then I don’t think killing “combatants” is all that great anyway.

7

[QUOTE=benny73]
than (our) guys safely sitting 300-miles away in war ships wearing fancy cuff links and spit-shined shoes
[/QUOTE]
Naval uniforms do not include “fancy cuff links”. Heck, they don’t even have long sleeves on the normal daily uniforms for a ship in a combat zone in a hot climate like the Persian Gulf.

That’s about the only part of your post that I can see has a factual answer. This probably belongs in the opinion area (IMHO) or even the Pit.

8

Sawing off someone’s head is going out of your way to inflict pain–it reflects a barbarous and almost inhuman sadism. Like it or not, people are capable of distancing themselves from actions that take human life indirectly or at a distance. The pilot who drops a bomb doesn’t think himself as a cold-blooded killer. It’s tough for the guy sawing off a guy’s head to think the same way. He knows he’s killing someone, and he’s enjoying it.

It’s the same reason we get outraged when we hear a news story about some local psycho who set a cat on fire, while mindlessly chewing through a hamburger.

9

Better as a Great Debate. Moved.

samclem GQ Moderator

10

[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
I would say it is a matter of intent and perspective. Many of our bombs and missiles are intended for military targets and active insurgents. Not journalists and tourists. They are casualties of war, and aren’t seen as some personal insult or political statement (of course some acts of war may be, but that is a different debate I think).
[/quote]
They aren’t seen that way by you. I’ve heard quotes from Iraqis about how they think we are just killing for the sake of killing, or that we are deliberately trying to destroy them as a people. And I’ve heard people claim since the war started that the US military is deliberately killing journalists that they don’t like.

[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
Capturing a civilian or even a military person and then killing them is seen as wrong because our society (supposedly) views killing POWs as wrong.
[/quote]
Only if they are our people. We have no problem with torturing and killing other nation’s people.

11

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They aren’t seen that way by you. I’ve heard quotes from Iraqis about how they think we are just killing for the sake of killing, or that we are deliberately trying to destroy them as a people. And I’ve heard people claim since the war started that the US military is deliberately killing journalists that they don’t like.

[/quote]

That’s a good point. I’m not saying I support this war specifically.

Well, the particular people in power don’t SEEM to have any problems torturing people, and/or a very small minority of the troops are demented psychopaths that take it upon themselves to torture and kill other nation’s people. As a whole though, it is generally accepted that torture is wrong. I wouldn’t say that because a particular administration may or may not choose to ignore the accepted rules of war, that all administrations do.

Personally, I feel that killing already captured troops is wrong(no matter the nationality), torturing them even more so. Killing troops that are trying to kill you- A-Ok, killing them when they surrender, very bad.

12

Actually, some people don’t think sawing off heads is worse than button pushing. In the movie Patton, when asked by a reporter about the mechanization of warfare, the general lamented that it there would no longer be any honor or courage in warfare, just survivors (don’t know if such a conversation occurred IRL).

Some people (generally those on the recieving end) generally view it cowardly to kill your enemies with long range cruise missles and aircraft. I can see a certain logic to that. A sword rarely causes collateral damage.

13

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They aren’t seen that way by you. I’ve heard quotes from Iraqis about how they think we are just killing for the sake of killing, or that we are deliberately trying to destroy them as a people. And I’ve heard people claim since the war started that the US military is deliberately killing journalists that they don’t like.

[/quote]

Well, if some people say it’s true then I guess it must be true. I hear people who claim that the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, and that Dr. Pepper and Mr. Pibb are the same things, that doesn’t make it true.
Marc

14

If you deliberately launch an explosive device into a civilian area, you are responsible for the deaths of civilians. Even if there was a legitimate military target nearby. Ditto for ordering someone else to launch said explosive device.

If you say “what are you supposed to do about the military target in the civilian area?”, my answer is that that is something to consider before you go to war. If you are not willing to spend the resources necessary to take out the military target without dropping a huge explosive device in a civilian area, you either don’t go to war, or accept responsibility for the deaths of civilians. But dropping bombs on civilians, and then trying to pin the responsibility on the enemy, is a crybaby pussy way to try to rationalize that you are not responsible so you can sleep at night. Carries no weight with me though.

15

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
If you deliberately launch an explosive device into a civilian area, you are responsible for the deaths of civilians. Even if there was a legitimate military target nearby. Ditto for ordering someone else to launch said explosive device.

If you say “what are you supposed to do about the military target in the civilian area?”, my answer is that that is something to consider before you go to war. If you are not willing to spend the resources necessary to take out the military target without dropping a huge explosive device in a civilian area, you either don’t go to war, or accept responsibility for the deaths of civilians. But dropping bombs on civilians, and then trying to pin the responsibility on the enemy, is a crybaby pussy way to try to rationalize that you are not responsible so you can sleep at night. Carries no weight with me though.
[/QUOTE]

Quite. Like the recent incidents with bombing compounds in Afghanistan and killing women and children. If you drop a 2000lb bomb on a civilian compound you fully intend to kill everyone in it. Their deaths are the absolutely inevitable result of giving the order or pulling the trigger.

There’s no ‘whoops, my bad’ about it regardless of hand-washing, meaningless phrases like ‘collateral damage’.

16

I guess nobody can conduct wars then. Because there’s always going to be collatoral damage even if you’re just using rifles and bayonets. I don’t really get upset at the use of IEDs to target military convoys, even if it happens to kill some civilians in the process, because that’s just a part of doing war. Well, I’m upset, but I don’t condemn them for using what I see as a legitimate tactic.

Marc

17

[QUOTE=MGibson]
I guess nobody can conduct wars then. Because there’s always going to be collatoral damage even if you’re just using rifles and bayonets. I don’t really get upset at the use of IEDs to target military convoys, even if it happens to kill some civilians in the process, because that’s just a part of doing war. Well, I’m upset, but I don’t condemn them for using what I see as a legitimate tactic.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Cause bayonets and 1000 pound bombs are the same. :rolleyes:

18

[QUOTE=MGibson]
I guess nobody can conduct wars then. Because there’s always going to be collatoral damage even if you’re just using rifles and bayonets. I don’t really get upset at the use of IEDs to target military convoys, even if it happens to kill some civilians in the process, because that’s just a part of doing war. Well, I’m upset, but I don’t condemn them for using what I see as a legitimate tactic.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

So presumably when wherever you are comes under enemy attack, you won’t mind at all that you, your friends and your relatives become collateral damage.

Or is there just a smidgen of a chance that you feel this way from the safety and comfort of your own perspective?

19

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Well, if some people say it’s true then I guess it must be true. I hear people who claim that the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, and that Dr. Pepper and Mr. Pibb are the same things, that doesn’t make it true.
Marc
[/QUOTE]

There is this. While there is no conclusive prove they were intentionally targeted (I don’t believe they were as a BBC office was almost hit too), some believe it was an intentional attack against a news corp. that give the US unfavorable press. Not entirely credible but more reasonable the the fake moon landing crowd.

20

a
About 3 months ago it was reported almost in passing, that a 3-year-old Iraqi boy “was burned to char.” For some reason hearing that sort of thing, along with seeing (on TV) our troops minus their limbs, causes me to think about how it is that one day God will judge Bush for getting us in there. I especially am mindful of that news conference in which he was standing there making a lame joke about his tie as a foreign dignitary looked on, and that was only one day after two of our soldiers’ bodies were found, with indications that they’d been gruesomely tortured.

I just don’t get Bush. And I don’t get why it is that our (?) government always has its nose in other countries business. It seems like whenever someone raises the question as to why we can’t just have a government that limits itself to the interest of this country, we get some geopolitical gobbledegook Kissinger (sp?) type of crap answer. I say stop giving our hard-earned tax dollars away and get out of Korea, Germany, England, Iraq … and get to the job of filling a few pot holes and fixing bridges etc. x one-million in this country.