Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Killing is killing: method irrelevant.

re: Killing is killing: method irrelevant.
RobVG — (archived)

Well, you could easily argue that just about all battle methodology is torture. For instance our bullets are non-expanding, designed to pass through the body but still shatter bones creating a painfully alive wounded liability for the enemy.

Torture allows the victims the luxury of pain over an extended period. It has been used by many of the greatest monsters in the history of the world. Is this the company we seek to keep?

Our own Minutemen who used the tactic of sniping from cover were considered 'monsters' by the British for refusing to line up and trade bullets.

Let me ask you this, you need to take a bridge without damaging it. It's defended by the enemy. You have a option that will accomplish your task without killing any of your own men. Do you send your men forward to fight conventionally and risk getting them killed or do you call in that option?

Demanding more humane methods of killing makes no more sense to me than our ability to separate the soldier from the civilian to codify our acceptance of war.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)