Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

You make the call

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:39:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:35:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did we witness a murder, or was this justifiable homicide?

http://www.liveleak.com...

Actually on second thoughts I am not watching that, killing unless justified by such things as self-defence etc is murder in my opinion.

(Plus what sort of website is that the English is Izbionic, speaking of which my ideology permits me to make moral statements).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:48:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:39:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:35:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did we witness a murder, or was this justifiable homicide?

http://www.liveleak.com...

Actually on second thoughts I am not watching that, killing unless justified by such things as self-defence etc is murder in my opinion.:

That's the million dollar question though... Was it in fact justified, which requires one to analyze the video to make that determination?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:53:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:48:09 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:39:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:35:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did we witness a murder, or was this justifiable homicide?

http://www.liveleak.com...

Actually on second thoughts I am not watching that, killing unless justified by such things as self-defence etc is murder in my opinion.:

That's the million dollar question though... Was it in fact justified, which requires one to analyze the video to make that determination?

I make it a point of principle not to watch snuff movies, sorry.

However even if was justified in the specific situation the war itself is immoral, there was no reason for those soldiers to be there.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:06:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I make it a point of principle not to watch snuff movies, sorry.:

It isn't gory at all, if that's your concern. You hear a shot, a man falls. The image is zoomed out at least 50 meters. There's no blood, no screaming. But if you still don't feel comfortable watching it, I respect that.

However even if was justified in the specific situation the war itself is immoral, there was no reason for those soldiers to be there.:

No argument there. In fact, I meant to add a disclaimer initially that, barring US and UK involvement at all, if you were a soldier on the ground would it have been justified?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 12:23:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:35:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did we witness a murder, or was this justifiable homicide?

http://www.liveleak.com...

Insufficient evidence provided by an obviously biased source. It's clear the soldiers (even after the man was shot) were concerned for their own safety (possibly fearing a suicide vest) and the puff of black smoke.... may support that concern.

As a former Marine who never had to engage in a situation like that, I can't say i would have done antything differently. The "shoot that MF'er" comment is something that would have been discouraged in my units training.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 2:32:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Finally watched it. Murder.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 7:55:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 12:23:09 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:35:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did we witness a murder, or was this justifiable homicide?

http://www.liveleak.com...

Insufficient evidence provided by an obviously biased source. It's clear the soldiers (even after the man was shot) were concerned for their own safety (possibly fearing a suicide vest) and the puff of black smoke.... may support that concern.:

That's my contention too. Aside from the obvious, that the optimal situation would not to be there at all, troops don't really have much of a choice. Given the circumstances, the man's eratic and aggressive behavior, the fact that many do carry suicide vests and possibly are trying to draw troops in (essentially baiting them), the fact that they fired at least two warning shots prior, etc., leads me to believe that they in fact followed Standard Operating Procedure. It may have been justifiable.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 10:51:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 7:55:21 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:23:09 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:35:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did we witness a murder, or was this justifiable homicide?

http://www.liveleak.com...

Insufficient evidence provided by an obviously biased source. It's clear the soldiers (even after the man was shot) were concerned for their own safety (possibly fearing a suicide vest) and the puff of black smoke.... may support that concern.:

That's my contention too. Aside from the obvious, that the optimal situation would not to be there at all, troops don't really have much of a choice. Given the circumstances, the man's eratic and aggressive behavior, the fact that many do carry suicide vests and possibly are trying to draw troops in (essentially baiting them), the fact that they fired at least two warning shots prior, etc., leads me to believe that they in fact followed Standard Operating Procedure. It may have been justifiable.

There was no obvious threat, no reason to suspect that the man was armed or that he had a bomb vest. It was cold blooded murder.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 11:08:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There was no obvious threat, no reason to suspect that the man was armed or that he had a bomb vest. It was cold blooded murder.:

Looking at it from a law enforcement perspective, there's no way one could justify it. In a wartime setting, things are slightly different. Honestly, I could see a case either way, but I lean towards your perspective.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 11:35:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 11:08:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There was no obvious threat, no reason to suspect that the man was armed or that he had a bomb vest. It was cold blooded murder.:

Looking at it from a law enforcement perspective, there's no way one could justify it. In a wartime setting, things are slightly different. Honestly, I could see a case either way, but I lean towards your perspective.

But the situation was in effect a law enforcement situation. It was not an actual battle was it? The soldiers were the occupying/controlling force and so were fulfilling what are effectively order, or law enforcement issues.

Now yes the man could be a suicide bomber, there was no indication of that. He was being annoying he apparenty was blocking the road, causing some sort of disturbance.

I believe the correct respone was for him to be approached by a soldier and reasoned with, this subjects the soldier to greater risk than just gunning him down, but a soldier is duty bound to place civilian life above his own. (IMO). By reasoned with, intimidation or physical force would be acceptable.

I also believe that the British army would generally not have gunned the man down, but more often that not the American one would. Neither force can claim the moral highground however.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 11:47:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But the situation was in effect a law enforcement situation. It was not an actual battle was it?:

It's a combat zone, replete with insurgents trying kill them, so I see it more of a war.

I believe the correct respone was for him to be approached by a soldier and reasoned with:

But you cannot just approach people like that, and you have to appreciate why there are these rules in place. Obviously a suicide bomber is not going to want to bring undue attention. They wear loose clothing that easily conceal bombs. Now, of course that is not justification to assume he has a bomb. However, they were talking to him and did fire warning shots. And then they fired a disabling shot too. All of that was before they shot him. And yet after all of that the man continued on.

I also believe that the British army would generally not have gunned the man down, but more often that not the American one would. Neither force can claim the moral highground however.:

There are certainly rules of engagement, and more often than not, the insurgency exploits Westernized morality when it comes to this. I can tell you that the Marines did follow SOP. Verbal warnings, followed up by warning shots, followed up a disabling shot.

I'm not 100% convinced we can just call it flat-out murder, and if it is, it's murder in the 3rd degree.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 11:50:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 11:47:53 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But the situation was in effect a law enforcement situation. It was not an actual battle was it?:

It's a combat zone, replete with insurgents trying kill them, so I see it more of a war.

I believe the correct respone was for him to be approached by a soldier and reasoned with:

But you cannot just approach people like that, and you have to appreciate why there are these rules in place. Obviously a suicide bomber is not going to want to bring undue attention. They wear loose clothing that easily conceal bombs. Now, of course that is not justification to assume he has a bomb. However, they were talking to him and did fire warning shots. And then they fired a disabling shot too. All of that was before they shot him. And yet after all of that the man continued on.

I also believe that the British army would generally not have gunned the man down, but more often that not the American one would. Neither force can claim the moral highground however.:

There are certainly rules of engagement, and more often than not, the insurgency exploits Westernized morality when it comes to this. I can tell you that the Marines did follow SOP. Verbal warnings, followed up by warning shots, followed up a disabling shot.

I'm not 100% convinced we can just call it flat-out murder, and if it is, it's murder in the 3rd degree.

When I saw the title and the 1st post, I thought the question was going to be "you're an army commander, you make the call"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 11:47:53 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But the situation was in effect a law enforcement situation. It was not an actual battle was it?:

It's a combat zone, replete with insurgents trying kill them, so I see it more of a war.

It's not a direct combat zone though is it, it's an urban street in the country you are trying to occupy. Occupation has it's own rules of engagement.


I believe the correct respone was for him to be approached by a soldier and reasoned with:

But you cannot just approach people like that, and you have to appreciate why there are these rules in place. Obviously a suicide bomber is not going to want to bring undue attention. They wear loose clothing that easily conceal bombs. Now, of course that is not justification to assume he has a bomb. However, they were talking to him and did fire warning shots. And then they fired a disabling shot too. All of that was before they shot him. And yet after all of that the man continued on.

In most situations the annoying old man will be an annoying old man, not a suicide bomber. To occupy a country successfully you either have to pretty much commit mass genocide or actually the courage to engage with the people and that involves soldiers talking to the people one on one.

I also believe that the British army would generally not have gunned the man down, but more often that not the American one would. Neither force can claim the moral highground however.:

There are certainly rules of engagement, and more often than not, the insurgency exploits Westernized morality when it comes to this. I can tell you that the Marines did follow SOP. Verbal warnings, followed up by warning shots, followed up a disabling shot.

Well they didn't in fallajah!

I'm not 100% convinced we can just call it flat-out murder, and if it is, it's murder in the 3rd degree.

That would be a heat of passion murder, it does not look like it to me.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 11:35:10 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/17/2011 11:08:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There was no obvious threat, no reason to suspect that the man was armed or that he had a bomb vest. It was cold blooded murder.:

Looking at it from a law enforcement perspective, there's no way one could justify it. In a wartime setting, things are slightly different. Honestly, I could see a case either way, but I lean towards your perspective.

But the situation was in effect a law enforcement situation. It was not an actual battle was it? The soldiers were the occupying/controlling force and so were fulfilling what are effectively order, or law enforcement issues.

Now yes the man could be a suicide bomber, there was no indication of that. He was being annoying he apparenty was blocking the road, causing some sort of disturbance.

I believe the correct respone was for him to be approached by a soldier and reasoned with, this subjects the soldier to greater risk than just gunning him down, but a soldier is duty bound to place civilian life above his own. (IMO). By reasoned with, intimidation or physical force would be acceptable.

I also believe that the British army would generally not have gunned the man down, but more often that not the American one would. Neither force can claim the moral highground however.

The problem is that when a civilian behaves aggressively to a soldier, he is no longer an "innocent civilian".

Free speech does not apply when guns are involved.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:04:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 12:02:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/17/2011 11:35:10 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/17/2011 11:08:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There was no obvious threat, no reason to suspect that the man was armed or that he had a bomb vest. It was cold blooded murder.:

Looking at it from a law enforcement perspective, there's no way one could justify it. In a wartime setting, things are slightly different. Honestly, I could see a case either way, but I lean towards your perspective.

But the situation was in effect a law enforcement situation. It was not an actual battle was it? The soldiers were the occupying/controlling force and so were fulfilling what are effectively order, or law enforcement issues.

Now yes the man could be a suicide bomber, there was no indication of that. He was being annoying he apparenty was blocking the road, causing some sort of disturbance.

I believe the correct respone was for him to be approached by a soldier and reasoned with, this subjects the soldier to greater risk than just gunning him down, but a soldier is duty bound to place civilian life above his own. (IMO). By reasoned with, intimidation or physical force would be acceptable.

I also believe that the British army would generally not have gunned the man down, but more often that not the American one would. Neither force can claim the moral highground however.

The problem is that when a civilian behaves aggressively to a soldier, he is no longer an "innocent civilian".

Free speech does not apply when guns are involved.

It depends on what the aggression is, if the aggression is simply verbal he does not cross the line into being a combatant.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.