U.S. Soldier Loses it.....

[Mr. T]

You're missing the point. To be able to kill another human being, you need to be "broken". No level of motivation gets someone ready for that.

[myk]

Ah, so the US didn't just invent electricity and nuclear energy, they also invented killing... all for Vietnam!

The book is biased in referring to US sources and studies, taking the US military as the object of study. That is, this object involves the type of invading behavior the US perpetrated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and for which its been desensitizing its military in recent history, yet Grossman draws conclusions about killing in general instead of applying it to this object. It's best to stick to practical facts and not generalize.

The strategies and requirements for a war of invasion or aggression are not the same as those for home defense, nor do they have the same moral support, so they produce different effects on the minds of fighters involved. People who tend to be committing atrocities and crimes against humanity become mentally depraved.

[DoomUK]

I think anyone should be able to make a clear distinction between killing someone in organised armed combat and randomly slaughtering a bunch of unarmed families in their homes, even if they think that all killing of people is ultimately wrong.

[Mr. T]

I don't want to be sidetracked by your worthless wall of text, considering your last paragraph is exactly my point. Anyone who would do this kind of thing must be mentally ill.

Why punish the "bad apple" for a systemic failure? Sure it will get the heat off the military's ass (cf Abu Ghraib), but the real question is how many innocents have to be humiliated or murdered before someone asks why?

[Maes]

DoomUK said:

clear distinction between killing someone in organised armed combat and randomly slaughtering a bunch of unarmed families in their homes

It's precisely that moral legitimization of combat (or hunting) that separates man from beast. Man is supposed to do everything for a "good" reason, and tries to find deeper meanings in everything he does, making almost any action a ritual. You should watch Savage man, savage beast for a very good exposure of the concept.

That's why violence in ritualized and organized form is not only acceptable, but glorified in almost all human societies. What is not acceptable are random outbursts of violence with no apparent reason, or for reasons that society or the opponent does not recognize. When there's mutual recognition of a "why we fight" cause, then we are speaking of "respect between opponents", as is the case of war between sovereign countries, while e.g. guerilla groups are delegitimized and not respected.

A random murder rarely gets any sympathy or attempt at moral justification. Even in the case of Breivik, his adamant appeal to a specific cause will probably result in a lighter/fairer treatment (and most importantly, more outside support) than if he was deemed completely unstable or psychotic.

Even in the case of the US soldier that lost it, he might eventually come up with a justification/higher purpose behind his act, if anything to be at peace with himself.

[myk]

Mr. T said:
Why punish the "bad apple" for a systemic failure? Sure it will get the heat off the military's ass (cf Abu Ghraib), but the real question is how many innocents have to be humiliated or murdered before someone asks why?

While you an I agree there's a systemic failure, many others don't see it or don't agree, and a trial on the guy would be one (but not the only) way to help bring this to light, or to put it to the test. In addition, regardless of the context, anyone not interested in having this behavior spread or become even more prevalent will want to restrict it through the judicial system, a formal and civilized way.

A trial on the soldier can lead to (further?) responsibilities on top, that can lead all the way to the general politics involved.

[StevieWolfe]

Read the story.

Don't care.

[Reisal]

Gee thanks for setting us back the trust of the Afghan people, you fucking moron.

[Darkman 4]

Mr. Chris said:

Gee thanks for setting us back the trust of the Afghan people, you fucking moron.

It's not like the Afghan people trusted the USA much after they accidentally incinerated some of their holy books. This is just the final nail in the coffin.

[Maes]

Darkman 4 said:

It's not like the Afghan people trusted the USA much after they invaded their country, bringing only death and misery by using what could, for all we know, be just the biggest aviation accident in history as an excuse

FTFY

[Technician]

Mr. Chris said:

Gee thanks for setting us back the trust of the Afghan people, you fucking moron.

They haven't trusted the west. Ever.

[GreyGhost]

Don't know if the Afghans have had a reason to trust westerners since Alexander the Great passed through on his way to India. Apart from the lapis lazuli mines, Afghanistan seems to have spent most of recorded history as a stopover point for armies that are heading somewhere else.