Sloppy moral relativism in the wake of death

Bev says:

06:15am | 27/10/11

For one I agree with you.

MarkS says:

08:01am | 27/10/11

Bah Humbug

The law is whatever the ones with the most guns say it is. Dressing people up in drag & staging an entertaining play, does not magically make something that was not OK, now OK.

T S Sebastien says:

10:55am | 27/10/11

@Alcotrel. I get what you are saying but I am not sure the Eichman trial is a good example. Concepts of international justice went out the window when Israeli agents kidnapped him illegally from a third country meaning the trial can also be viewed as revenge. In the context of other Israeli actions at the time (i.e. targeted assasinations accross the globe) it can be viewed as part of the Israeli Governments general policy of ensuring that the cost of attacking Israel/Jews was violent retribution.
Not quite mob violence and Eichman got what was comming to him but had he been captured as part of the Nuremburg trials would have been better.

Wynston Cruso says:

11:31am | 27/10/11

It’s 14 million now? Seems this figure is increasing all the time. Then, history is written by the ‘victor’.

boggles says:

12:19pm | 27/10/11

Wynston
14,276,800 military deaths for the Allies.
What Acotrel neglected to mention were the   25,686,900 civilian deaths.

Ras Putin says:

01:48pm | 27/10/11

Acotrel - i agree with you, but you and the people replying to your blog must be youngsters,because more than 50 million people died as a result of Adolphs mania!  More than 25 million were Russians.

neo says:

03:33pm | 27/10/11

If you kill a despot as a punishment, you are not much better than him.

Pity the coward Hitler offed himself, I would much rather see him spend the rest of his life in a cell, thinking about what he’s done.

neo says:

03:35pm | 27/10/11

A bit more perspective, 1/4 of the population of Belarus was killed by Hitler’s forces. That’s right, 1/4 of the people in the country, 3/4 of them being civilians, women and children mostly. Think about that.

OchreBunyip says:

04:47pm | 28/10/11

@neo, killing civilians in war is a nasty business but why mention only women. Mentioning children I have no quibble with however are men not civilians as well? Is a woman’s death somehow more disturbing than a man’s death?

I raise it because I’ve seen this a couple of times this fortnight, seemingly men cannot be called civilians and it strikes me as odd.

andye says:

08:47am | 27/10/11

@rob - Hey this Latte is bitter!

Just like you.

fml says:

09:40am | 27/10/11

I see it as an indication of the next regime, If the leaders of the revolution were interested in creating a democratic system, they would of taken him to trial, instead they killed him and flaunted his deceased corpse.

The people that killed him, did so for blood lust, the people that killed him will be the secret police of the next regime. A basic tenant of democracy is the right to a fair trial irrespective of guilt. A basic tenant of tyranny is death without trial.

acotrel says:

11:53am | 27/10/11

@Frank
It’s not about morality.  It’s about acting with decorum, dignity, and style.  If Gaddafi had done things to my family, I’d have bumped him myself.  But I’d never dance on his grave, it is so uncool !  And it drags us down to his level.

Peter says:

12:29pm | 27/10/11

@fml - all you are saying is that a show trial is better for humanity than summary execution.  That may be true, in some cases, but not in Gaddafi’s or in Bin Laden’s.  I think it is better they got rid of him quick and now they can move on.  It’s been decades and decades, after all, and we are all very aware of the despot that he was.  A show trial would just give some idiots the chance to whip up counter-hysteria.  Not what Libya or the world needs right now.

fml says:

02:06pm | 27/10/11

Peter,

I am still undecided whether a show trial would have whipped up hysteria, In the case of bin-laden, yes, as he had dedicated followers, Gadaffi’s situation would be more akin to Saddam Hussein’s removal in Iraq, the current insurgency is not due to people following him, but rather it is an internal power struggle, and it still too early to decide if Libya would be any different.

PsychoHyena says:

10:36am | 28/10/11

The tricky part is that while yes a trial would have been best, there are world governments that would never have allowed it, in either bin Laden’s or Gaddafi’s case.

The simple reason is because while these people were terrorists they were useful to certain countries with secret deals. Just look at the US and Iraq, the US and Al Qaeda.

You get some poor country who will do pretty much anything to get ahead, you provide them with the materials to research “banned” weapon systems, you then declare war on them for show and take the technology for yourself, it’s amazing how many documents get destroyed or lost in these missions.

Anna C says:

08:18am | 27/10/11

I agree with you Gordon. When these rebels took on this fight they knew that they would be signing their own death warrants (and their families) if they did not succeed. Gaddafi made that very clear.

To all the handwringers out there just remember that Gaddafi wouldn’t have thought twice about torturing and killing you and your family so why waste an ounce of sympathy on him? Gaddafi was an evil tyrant who got what was coming to him. I just wish they had made him suffer a bit more before they killed him. If you ask me he got off lightly.

acotrel says:

11:59am | 27/10/11

@Gordon
‘This scumbag killed family and friends of the fighters. I would have stuck the knife in as well.’

Not the point. - Would you have danced on his grave ?  It’s the sort of thing Hamas might do.
It makes a statement.  However in the case of BIn Laden a better one could be made by burying a pig with him.  But that would only escalate violence further.

Hughesee says:

01:08pm | 27/10/11

@acotrel
Yes I imagine all the pigs of the world would have risen up in violent protest at the treatment of one of their flock

MatthewM says:

09:56am | 27/10/11

In the sense of a logical fallacy:  To my satisfaction there wasn’t sufficient argument given to substantiate why the comparison was “similar”, yet we were to assume that it was so that he could then ask “Where has our collective humanity gone?”  Not providing evidence to the underlying premise of a question yet representing it as already proven is a logical fallacy, and in this instance the verb “to beg” is applicable.

All I’ve tried to show here that the moral comparison is bunk and not in fact similar.

chungo mung says:

11:20am | 27/10/11

It is funny that so far today, the Punch’s most commented upon piece is the one that refers to bogans. People are upset that the lefty intellectuals have directed their lofty arrogance at a perceived subset of the culture, and here, we Punchers stand to defend them and their honor.

Meanwhile the same people don’t mind projecting similarly - upon people who have suffered in ways that are beyond the C.G.I and hollywood storylines that make up our 1st worlds experience of such oppression.

We CANNOT begin to comprehend the life and experiences of a nation that has been under the Iron-Fist-Dictatorship of a Brigadier cum Colonel madman. But we can (it seems) judge with the same lofty, intellectual, disconnected, arrogance that upsets us (when it is turned upon fellow Australians) if it involves an ‘other’ in terms of race, religion and culture.

I don’t like what happened to Ghadaffi, it is not something I would keep in my playbook, but I am absolutely nobody to comment on such things (in a way that puts other people down and fails to deliver genuine empathy) having lived so securely in my comfy Western world where my fears and struggles are none - compared to those that we are referring to.

acotrel says:

12:03pm | 27/10/11

@chungo mung
‘It is funny that so far today, the Punch’s most commented upon piece is the one that refers to bogans.’

You guys will do anything to have a go at our Julia.  At least she’s not a hipster like Abbott !

RyaN says:

10:48am | 27/10/11

@fml: Please do show us evidence where one side is intentionally targeting civilians and is not admitting to it. Please don’t miss the emphasis on the word “intentionally”. Show the intent.

fml says:

12:08pm | 27/10/11

The second battle of fallujah and the use of white phosphorous, The US govt denies using it against civilians, but admits to using it against insurgents.

So that is my point, I admit the line between using against insurgents and civilians is somewhat blurred. It was used against suspected insurgents, and places where insurgents were suspected to be hiding.
Which is double speak for, we dont know if they are insurgents or not, lets attack anyway.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:53pm | 27/10/11

Agent orange did a pretty job of killing a few hundred thousand people.

OchreBunyip says:

04:52pm | 28/10/11

The US routinely admits to using surgical strikes on cafes and restaurants to kill known terrorists usually with drones, and glosses over the civilians that were also in the buildings at the time. As far as I know the US has not invented bomb fragments that only kill the bad guys.

Collateral damage is the term used to mean “we killed civilians as well but we don’t think it was important”.

fml says:

10:07am | 27/10/11

Its called Manifest Destiny.

marley says:

10:28am | 27/10/11

I believe, if you check the stats, you will find that the Taliban have killed far more civilians than the Americans have.

chungo mung says:

11:06am | 27/10/11

c’mon marley, ‘“check the stats”? Like ‘the stats’ are some all conclusive thing that both sides objectively put together and unanimously agreed upon. It is ignorance to believe all the tripe that you agree with because it supports your views.

andye says:

11:33am | 27/10/11

@marley - If you are comparing the USA to the Taliban to demonstrate moral superiority you are comparing against a pretty rotten benchmark.

Peter says:

11:36am | 27/10/11

Nic, you’re argument is against War in general, because it is a horrible business which hurts people - even those who are innocent of any wrongdoing.  That is fair enough.  But there is a moral Grand Canyon between the two positions of (1) purposely setting out to kill innocent human beings and (2) doing everything you can to avoid doing that in the course of fighting a war against very bad people who are, as a matter of fact, setting out to kill innocent people for religous reasons.  Can you not get that?  It’s actually pretty obvious.

Erick says:

11:53am | 27/10/11

@Nic - It’s nowhere near “hundreds of thousands”. It’s much less than were murdered by the regimes that were overthrown by American liberation.

@chungo mung - Check the stats.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:59pm | 27/10/11

@Erick

Numerous accounts are over 100,000 civilian deaths for Iraq alone, and thats not upto date figures either. Not bad for an illegal war started on lies.

marley says:

02:50pm | 27/10/11

@chungo mung - yeah, the Taliban are a pretty rotten benchmark.  So, is it more reprehensible to fight them, or to leave Afghanistan and let the civilians take their chances?  Both options are unpalatable, and civilians are going to die either way.  Whichever side you support, your hands will not be clean. 

That’s why I get tired of simplistic assignment of blame for everything on the Americans, as though there were no other side to the story.  Look at the cold hard facts and apportion blame as it is due - but don’t pretend that there’s a nice clean solution in which everyone gets to live happily ever after.

chungo mung says:

02:55pm | 27/10/11

@eric - see above

chungo mung says:

03:34pm | 27/10/11

@Marley, I only criticized your use of this amazing thing called “the facts” because I think use of statistics is an absolutely bullshit game played by people with only one intention - to back what they believe. And a dangerous game when one considers the methods and guidelines that pertain to the gathering of statistics - esp in a warzone.

I like most of us, am aware that no-ones hands will remain clean, I never said any of what your rebutal goes to. I too am tired of the simplistic application of facts as you - but I refer to the simplistic approach of both sides.

Why is there such a disparity of figures regarding the death of civillians in Iraq? Because both sides lean the figures to their own subjective expressions and we the public in the middle are usually ignorant enough to believe the numbers that best suit our worldview.

There is also some argument regarding dirty hands and deaths of civillians caused by American forces when you consider the merits of Obamas approach to Lybia v the merits of Bush’s approach to Iraq.

RyaN says:

10:54am | 27/10/11

@fml: So “US foreign policy in the middle east since the 50’s” gives justification to murder +3000 civilians. Not to mention dance in the streets about it after?

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:02am | 27/10/11

@RyaN

If america had orchestrated overthrows of Government in your counrty or supplied weapons which have killed people im sure you way of thinking would be different.

In regards to dancing in the street on the murder of 3,000 people, agree, there should never be a place for that

fml says:

11:12am | 27/10/11

No Ryan,

Quite the opposite, I can see evidence of the reasons behind the behavior by both sides, but i unequivocally say that dancing in the street is not an act of human decency.

Mr Seyit’s article was saying just this. This article is saying hey, wait a minute we are justified in our dancing.

Now i ask you Ryan, why do you mention +3000 civilians? do you wish to make this a numbers game? If so you have to be aware of the numbers that the Americans have killed furthering their own interests.
What we have done with the issue of terrorism is we have turned it into another Goodies V’s Baddies Western flick. We are denying the cause when developing a reason for the effect. We do this because it is profitable.

While Mr Seyit’s article didnt tackle the issue of cause vs effect, rather he decided to concentrate on the issue of human morality. Mr Mathew on the other hand, justifies the effect of one side while completely ignoring the cause. I do not see how it is possible to take the moral high ground with out introspection.

RyaN says:

11:15am | 27/10/11

@SimonFromLakemba: They did, along with the British government and the Australian government, Malcolm Fraser to be exact. They installed a viscous dictator as part of the prize too, his name is Mugabe. And no I don’t feel different, I still hate communism and terrorists and would never murder innocent civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYL6aTK3k6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7YV_0XEY8U

andye says:

11:44am | 27/10/11

@RyaN - So does the deaths of 3000 civilians justify the deaths of even more civilians?

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:44pm | 27/10/11

@RyaN

Guess you were lucky enough to get out if thats the case, some people arnt so lucky.

Proves my point, over throwing governments have worked a treat!

Mugabe is just lucky he doesnt have oil and isnt near Israel, so hes safe.

RyaN says:

01:09pm | 27/10/11

@andye: No it does not, jees what part of “intentionally targeting civilians” didn’t you get? Unless I am not following you that is?

RyaN says:

02:01pm | 27/10/11

@SimonFromLakemba: Perhaps, but I can tell you one thing that is certain, I will be having a large party the day Mugabe is gone and I will make a special trip to Zimbabwe to piss on his dead grave. Same goes for Fraser.

Peter says:

11:05am | 27/10/11

No way, Simon,  it is totally different and I’ll tell you why.  If our side (ie. the US) had set out on purpose to kill innocent civilians they’d have dropped a few nuclear weapons and hey presto you’d have millions and millions dead in an instant.  But we don’t do that, do we.  Whereas if the Bin Laden’s of this world had access to such power, they wouldn’t hesitate.  That’s why they are despicable and we are quite right to rejoice the day they leave the planet for good.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:51pm | 27/10/11

Um WW2? pretty sure a few bombs that killed a few people there were dropped.

Also im sure my gfs family would love to talk to you about their family that were killed by the USA by carpet bombing in the secret Laos war.

Still dont know how your post any way relfects on mine though

Peter says:

10:36am | 28/10/11

@Simon, admittedly, it is pretty hard to address your comment head on because, if you go back and read it, you don’t really come out and saying anything in particular.  What you seem to be implying, however, is that both sides are morally the same because they both kill innocents.  I say that’s not true because - surely - morality comes down to intent, and I point out that if we were morally the same than “our side” could have easily wiped out entire populations in a matter of hours but we did not. 

And I’m glad you pointed out WWII because it was the aftermath of that war, the decisions that were made, the war crimes that were committed, the targeting of civilians for eg., which revolutionized our way of thinking about war and amplified our belief in the need to protect innocent people.  That is why we go out of our way now to avoid “collateral damage” and if you look into it you would find that the West is almost preoccupied with this issue. We have a marvellous system of justice, we protect the innocent as much as we reasonably can, and we should be proud of that.  So, enough already.  We are not the same as “them”.

Peter says:

11:48am | 27/10/11

Actually, that is not true at all.  It does matter.  Absolutely.  If a member of your family was accidently shot by a policeman whilst he was trying to apprehend a murderous criminal, you’d not be happy about it, but you’d probably forgive the policeman because he was trying to help.  But if your family member was killed by that policeman, on purpose, for no good reason, you wouldn’t forgive him.  That is because the moral distinction matters a great deal.  Of course you’d still be upset.  Not much you can do about that.

Bev says:

01:57pm | 27/10/11

Goes back a long way.  Lawrence in Arabia issued ammunition to the arabs he organized.  None was left at the end of each day.  If the didn’t use it on the Turks they shot it in the air

fml says:

02:15pm | 27/10/11

Thats what happens when all you know about the middle east is garnered from the channel 9 news.

hot tub political machine says:

02:41pm | 27/10/11

“To even think these people have the capability to conduct themselves in a civilised way is attributing something to them they just don’t possess.”

I think the moderators missed that one. You might enjoy some of the more “interesting” blogs than one which doesn’t subscribe to the inhumanity of certain humans

Shane* says:

02:48pm | 27/10/11

You beat me to it fml.

What an ignorant comment, subotic. Those ‘middle eastern desert dwelling nomads’ have made some of the great scientific, philosophical, medical and literary breakthroughs in human history. They’re no more predisposed to uncivilised behaviour than you or I.

fml says:

02:14pm | 27/10/11

By a knife no less.