murder or justification in the war?

[mechanic]

morally right does not exist but to the individual.

no reason or discussion can ever define a concrete set of morals outside of the individual.

[gyrene81]

Again, it's a question of it being morally right vs it being understandable.  These are two distinct things.

-Penguin

you're wrong...the question is was it justifiable...morality would insinuate there were some sort of societal laws in place to dictate proper action and there weren't.

[MarineUS]

guys don't bother arguing with ack. It's obvious he is so brainwashed with his own ideas that he is completely incapable of seeing anything other than his own viewpoint.

This moron said "If they had not bombed us, we would not have needed to go to war which means no need for the A-Bomb to be dropped." - yeah cool. We all get what you're saying

The guy saying dropping the bomb because, Hitler was born is in the EXACT same category as what ACK said, but the better analogy would have been Tojo.

Yes if they had not bomber Pearl we more than likely would not have gone to war with them (yet - remember they nearly completed imperialistic conquest in all of the Pacific).
Quit trying to save the already sunken ship of your poorly typed and proposed generalization.



The ULTIMATE decision behind dropping the atomic bomb was because the Japanese did not believe in surrender and normally fought to the last man which lead to insanely high casualties....and invading their homeland would have been almost suicide. The amount of life that would have been lost on a Japanese homeland invasion would have bee catastrophic.

Again such generalization is like saying we purposely dropped Napalm on tons of Vietnamese people because we had a beef with communism. When you generalize it and leave out the facts it does nothing but prove your own lack of intellect, thought process and ability to learn.

Did you comprehend that or are you so severely damaged that no matter how "slow" I typed or if I broke it down Barney style that you STILL would not be able to see past your own cloud of bull$h!t?

[Penguin]

you're wrong...the question is was it justifiable...morality would insinuate there were some sort of societal laws in place to dictate proper action and there weren't.

Oops. 

-Penguin

[Tyrannis]

guys don't bother arguing with ack. It's obvious he is so brainwashed with his own ideas that he is completely incapable of seeing anything other than his own viewpoint.

This moron said "If they had not bombed us, we would not have needed to go to war which means no need for the A-Bomb to be dropped." - yeah cool. We all get what you're saying

The guy saying dropping the bomb because, Hitler was born is in the EXACT same category as what ACK said, but the better analogy would have been Tojo.

Yes if they had not bomber Pearl we more than likely would not have gone to war with them (yet - remember they nearly completed imperialistic conquest in all of the Pacific).
Quit trying to save the already sunken ship of your poorly typed and proposed generalization.



The ULTIMATE decision behind dropping the atomic bomb was because the Japanese did not believe in surrender and normally fought to the last man which lead to insanely high casualties....and invading their homeland would have been almost suicide. The amount of life that would have been lost on a Japanese homeland invasion would have bee catastrophic.

Again such generalization is like saying we purposely dropped Napalm on tons of Vietnamese people because we had a beef with communism. When you generalize it and leave out the facts it does nothing but prove your own lack of intellect, thought process and ability to learn.

Did you comprehend that or are you so severely damaged that no matter how "slow" I typed or if I broke it down Barney style that you STILL would not be able to see past your own cloud of bull$h!t?

i may be wrong, but when they were creating the invasion plans for japan, didnt they estimate that somewheres around 1 million american lives would of been lost, had we actually invaded?

[MarineUS]

yes.

[Yossarian]

And I'll repeat that you're not a very intelligent little kid.  Maybe you should get one of your parents to read my post for you and have them explain it to you slowly in simple terms that you can understand.

I cba to read the rest of what you posted (since quite frankly it isn't relevant to this post), but I'd just like to inform you that beating up on kids a fraction of your age is not cool, and gives me the very strong impression that you're a world-class salamander*.  And no, I don't care that you don't care about my opinion.

*jerk

[mechanic]

 

[Yossarian]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

 

All hail amazing word filters!

[hlbly]

Let me tell you why I think the scenario is unrealistic . The U.S. Army would bring up what ever ordinance that was necessary to blast the sniper from his hole . A sniper is only safe as long as his position is unknown . If it would have been necessary to bring up 8" arty that's what would have happened . Remember this is the Armed Force that coined the term reconnaissance by fire . I can cite a few historical examples in the pacific , mind you , where 155 mm guns were used just for this purpose . Read "With The Old Breed" ,by Eugene Sledge .

[Tyrannis]

Let me tell you why I think the scenario is unrealistic . The U.S. Army would bring up what ever ordinance that was necessary to blast the sniper from his hole . A sniper is only safe as long as his position is unknown . If it would have been necessary to bring up 8" arty that's what would have happened . Remember this is the Armed Force that coined the term reconnaissance by fire . I can cite a few historical examples in the pacific , mind you , where 155 mm guns were used just for this purpose . Read "With The Old Breed" ,by Eugene Sledge .

the sniper was surounded, and cut off from any chance of escape, it wasent like he could sit there, snipe a couple ppl. then run to the safety of his own army. he was trapped.

im guessing this fact was he reason why the soldiers gave the sniper a chance to surrender peacefully, but like i said. he shot the messenger right infront of the windmill.


now, at the time the messenger got shot, they most likely didnt know wether he was dead or alive at the time.


would you really want to start shelling that position when you had a shot messenger/friend who could possably of been alive so close to it?

[VonMessa]

Understandable?  Absolutely

Morally right?   No.

Justified? Probably, given the context

Would I have done it (having been in similar situations, myself)?

You're damn skippy

I would have retired that sumbiatch in the time it would take one to say Auf Wiedersehen

[Stalwart]

Were I a soldier, I would do exactly what I was ordered.

Were I an NCO, I would smash his melon with the butt of my rifle.

Were I an officer, I would order that he be taken to HQ for interrogation, orders to the contrary notwithstanding.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

There is no such thing as morale in war. It's perverted. You're OBLIGED to kill on an order, yet you commit a crime if you do it against an order. You're killing anyway.

I guess the correct thing to do with the OP sniper would have been to arrest the sniper, have him tried as war criminal (for shooting the messenger) and THEN executing him anyway.

On the other hand place yourself in the position of the sniper. You have your orders to kill as many as you can. The enemies have killed multiple of your friends so you have no remorse returning fire. Yet you want to survive yourself.

Isn't it just insane? War may make great games and great movies but in real life it is the expletive removed by the language filter nanny.

[gyrene81]

uh ripley...slight correction...there is "morale" in war...has to do with the mental state of the troops..."moral or morality" was the word you were looking for...funny how a single letter completely changes the meaning of a word.

military personnel are supposed to be guided by the uniform code of military justice and whatever international "human rights" treaties or laws their country recognizes as valid in war time first...their own moral standards come second...depending on the individual and the situation, it could all be nothing more than a footnote for them to think about when it's over...

as far as "war crime" trial for that sniper had he been taken prisoner...i seriously doubt any such event would have occurred simply because shooting a messenger under a white flag was no worse than shooting a medic on the battlefield...it wasn't supposed to happen, but it did...on all sides. snipers weren't supposed to target officers specifically either...but it happened.

you don't train a man to kill, then hand him a weapon and send him into battle alone and expect him to make random judgement calls...he is going to follow orders and his use his training to the best of his ability, and his personal moral code of right/wrong is going to determine what he does.