PDA

View Full Version : Coalition abuse (including s**ual) of Iraqi PoW


abdul
May 31, 2003, 08:51 PM
I was disgusted when i heard this information and that it hadnt even been discussed on the forum. Photographs have been obtained of PoW being abused.

this was initially reported by The Sun (right wing- tabloid)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/1,,2003250508,00.html


also reported by The Guardian (left wing- Broadsheet)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,967472,00.html

Giving you different perspectives

zimv20
May 31, 2003, 09:03 PM
wow, that's really awful. this is the first i've heard of that. so now we have reports of war crimes. i wonder how blair will handle it.

mactastic
May 31, 2003, 10:15 PM
Oh man thats sick. You know this kind of thing goes on though. Its not indicative of the whole military, once again its a few ass***** that really screw things up for the majority.

Zaid
Jun 2, 2003, 09:33 AM
This is truely appalling. I hope that the MoD thoroughly investigate this, and that all the soldiers involved are held fully accountable for war crimes. (not given some relatively light penalty like a discharge)

This along with the allegations of war crimes made against that colonel (can't remember his name) recently have really tarnished the army's reputation.

On an aside, how dumb would you have to be to have pics like that developed at a 1hr type place. the mind boggles

Macmaniac
Jun 2, 2003, 09:44 AM
Thats really fowl, unfortunanly there are people like this in every army:( Harsh penalties should be sought against these people, just because your the victor does not mean you have not commited war crimes.

zimv20
Jun 2, 2003, 12:17 PM
i wonder how many incidents like this there were. i can't believe everyone in the military is dumb enough to take the negatives to a 1 hr place. how many went uncaught?

mcrain
Jun 2, 2003, 01:42 PM
Don't you people know that no matter what the Bush and Blair regimes do to the Iraqi POWs, it's all right because they are "evil doers!"

This is just further proof that war should be avoided when possible, rather than rushed into like the Bush and Blair regimes want us to believe.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
This is just further proof that war should be avoided when possible, rather than rushed into like the Bush and Blair regimes want us to believe.

How do the actions of one sick mind dictate the foreign policy objectives of the respective administrations?

mcrain
Jun 2, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by job
How do the actions of one sick mind dictate the foreign policy objectives of the respective administrations?

Because as the head of the respective administrations, you should know that when you send 18-22 year old kids into war with guns, tanks and bombs, bad things happen. There hasn't been a war yet where people in the heat of battle or during a passionate moment haven't done something terrible.

Look at WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Somalia, everywhere.

War is a bad thing. As a commander in chief, you should know that, and you should try like heck to avoid it, if possible.

zimv20
Jun 2, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by mcrain

War is a bad thing. As a commander in chief, you should know that

maybe it would help to actually have combat experience.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by job
How do the actions of one sick mind dictate the foreign policy objectives of the respective administrations?

War has always created a revenge mentality amongst the troops. Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners. Every commander in chief knows that from the beginning. Cluster bombs in urban areas are clearly against the Geneva Convention, dozens of children have been killed by them, AFTER the war was declared over. That is an indication of a sick mind.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 07:52 PM
maybe it would help to actually have combat experience.


zimv20, it would help what? To stop a president from sending troops into battle? Truman had combat experience. Didn't stop him from intervention in Korea. Seems like Hitler had combat experience as well.

War is a bad thing. As a commander in chief, you should know that, and you should try like heck to avoid it, if possible.

mccrain,
What kind of idiot do you think does not know that war is a bad thing? It is quite foolish to think that Bush and Blair do not know that war is a bad thing. I would remind you of the words of someone who knows a bit more about being a war leader than you or I do.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. - Winston Churchill

Ugg,
Did the concept of an agreement to make wars safer ever strike you as rather ironic? Woodrow Wilson, I think it was, had the slogan Making the world safe for democracy during WWI. The Geneva Convention has behind it the idea of Making the world safe for wars.

zimv20
Jun 2, 2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan

What kind of idiot do you think does not know that war is a bad thing?


i'm not sure at all that bush knows that.

pivo6
Jun 2, 2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by macfan
...What kind of idiot do you think does not know that war is a bad thing? ...

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove to name 3.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 08:21 PM
zimv20,
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm not sure at all that bush knows that.

You're not at all sure? That's pretty sad that your political dislike for Bush makes you think that he doesn't know war is a bad thing. Again, why is it that you think that combat experience would "help."

mccrain will be along shortly to point out that the questin was addressed to him, and if I had wanted you to answer it instead, I would surely have said so! ;)

zimv20
Jun 2, 2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,
You're not at all sure? That's pretty sad that your political dislike for Bush makes you think that he doesn't know war is a bad thing.


i've seen no evidence of remorse or pause for thought. i have seen evidence of the contrary (the aforementioned "good" about syria, the "i feel good" about to war w/ iraq, helen thomas' comments)


Again, why is it that you think that combat experience would "help."


in the context of knowing the ramifications of sending soldiers to war, it may help in the understanding to have actually fought in one.

Rower_CPU
Jun 2, 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by macfan
mccrain will be along shortly to point out that the questin was addressed to him, and if I had wanted you to answer it instead, I would surely have said so! ;)

Because a discussion forum is a two-way dialog. :rolleyes:

Get over yourself. People on both sides of the debates here in the forums jump in and answer questions not specifically addressed to them. Your patronizing attitude is wearing thin.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners.

Second World War.

German POWs who were shipped back to the United States had more freedoms and were treated better than any other group of POWs from any other war.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 08:43 PM
Hitler was a decorated combat veteran. Hitler loved war before and after his combat experience. That right there is a pretty strong indicator of a... bad thing.

Bush only has half that equation, having never seen combat firsthand.

Having been through war and remembering it fondly is indicitive of a sickness.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by job
Second World War.

So there was NO amoral treatment of prisoners during World War II?

job
Jun 2, 2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
maybe it would help to actually have combat experience.

Shall we turn this into a petty, "lets list all of Bush's *shortcomings* thread?" Because if that's the way this is heading, then it will become just like every thread in the political forum.

I don't think 'ole Billie Clinton had any military experience either and yet he deployed the military more times in_peacetime_than any other president before him. Makes perfect sense.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So there was NO amoral treatment of prisoners during World War II?

I did not say that.

If you're going to quote me, quote everything I wrote.

I specifically stated the instances in which there were no "amoral" treatment of POWs.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i've seen no evidence of remorse or pause for thought. i have seen evidence of the contrary (the aforementioned "good" about syria, the "i feel good" about to war w/ iraq, helen thomas' comments)

Oh, come on! That's not fair! He did furl his brow and looked very concerned and upset during the speech after that "I feel good!" outburst. And it must have been such an exhausting display of emotion too because he was in bed sleeping 20 minutes afterwards.

in the context of knowing the ramifications of sending soldiers to war, it may help in the understanding to have actually fought in one.

What do you mean? Bush was defending Houston from Charlie! If it weren't for him, Texas would be a yellow communist satellite today!

zimv20
Jun 2, 2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by job
Shall we turn this into a petty, "lets list all of Bush's *shortcomings* thread?"

no, you're right. he _did_ get some (non-combat) military experience flying fighter jets. some 12 to 17 months less than he'd promised, but... aw, nuts! i did it again!

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by job
I did not say that.

If you're going to quote me, quote everything I wrote.


Okay.

Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners.

Second World War.

German POWs who were shipped back to the United States had more freedoms and were treated better than any other group of POWs from any other war.

So there was NO amoral treatment of POWs during WWII?

(There are instances where there is moral treatment of POWs in every war, but there is no war where there are no instances of amoral treatment)

job
Jun 2, 2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
There hasn't been a war yet where people in the heat of battle or during a passionate moment haven't done something terrible.

At the risk of sounding clichéd, "war is hell." Whether we like it or not, people are not perfect nor will that act as such under stressful conditions.

Somalia

Eh? Care to explain?

War is a bad thing. As a commander in chief, you should know that, and you should try like heck to avoid it, if possible.

Obviously, war ought to be avoided, but it was clear from the beginning that the destruction of the Baath party and Saddam's regime was the stated policy goal of the administration. Whether you like it or not, you knew it was coming. I'm not saying it is right, but we knew Bush was not going to avoid war with Iraq.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by job
I don't think 'ole Billie Clinton had any military experience either and yet he deployed the military more times in_peacetime_than any other president before him. Makes perfect sense.

Who deployed more troops -- Bush or Clinton?
Which president had eight years under his belt and which one has but two and a half?

job
Jun 2, 2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So there was NO amoral treatment of POWs during WWII?

In the instance I stated, there was no amoral treatment of POWs.

Examining the Second World War as a whole, there were numerous instances in which there was amoral treatment of POWs. The Japanese death marches. The Soviet-German POW slaughter, etc, etc.

My goal was to state an outstanding instance in which there was not an amoral treatment of prisoners. It doesn't reflect the war as a whole, but it certainly demonstrates that all POWs in war are not necessarily treated "amorally."

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by job
At the risk of sounding clichéd, "war is hell." Whether we like it or not, people are not perfect nor will that act as such under stressful conditions...I'm not saying it is right, but we knew Bush was not going to avoid war with Iraq.

But you won't say it was wrong either?

How can you say "war is hell" in one breath and then not damn someone who doesn't do everything in his power (and Bush held all the power in this case, despite the wistful quote from Churchill touted out earlier) to keep a leash on the purest evil known to man?

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by job
Second World War.

German POWs who were shipped back to the United States had more freedoms and were treated better than any other group of POWs from any other war.

The treatment of German prisoners in germany was atrocious. Norway, Poland, Denmark and Russia's treatment of German POWs was unbelievable. In Denmark they were used to clear land mines, by hand.

Please review your history books before you make such vapid claims.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Who deployed more troops -- Bush or Clinton?

Clinton. And some of the troops he deployed are still there. Bosnia and Kosovo anyone? And don't tell me they are there as "UN" forces. They answer to the United States.

Bush deployed more troops because he had to. Without the physical number of troops we had in the region, it would have been difficult to achieve the goals of the admininstration.

In this case, the number of troops is irrelavent. If Clinton had planned on toppling a regime, then we could compare numbers. Such a question is one sided as Clinton dealt with smaller, localized conflicts in which the number of troops needed was smaller.

Thus, my point still stands that Clinton, with absolutely no military experience deployed the military more times in peacetime than any other president before him.

Which president had eight years under his belt and which one has but two and a half?

See above. I stated that Clinton deployed the military more than any other president before him. Obviously Bush was not president before Clinton. I was comparing Clinton's actions to all the other previous presidents and administrations.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The treatment of German prisoners in germany was atrocious.

Read my post again. I stated that America's treatment of German POWs was fine.

I never said the German treatment of POWs was not amoral. In fact it was some of the worst.

Please review your history books before you make such vapid claims.

Please read my posts more carefully before making such of-the-wall posts.

abdul
Jun 2, 2003, 09:09 PM
is it fair to say that the wars that you are comparing to this one lasted a lot longer than two weeks, upto a decade, which would have caused a more severe psycological hatred towards the enemy in the kindess of people, also those wars the public were called up for military service, which is a totally different to people who are part of the military for a living

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The treatment of German prisoners in germany was atrocious. Norway, Poland, Denmark and Russia's treatment of German POWs was unbelievable. In Denmark they were used to clear land mines, by hand.

Please review your history books before you make such vapid claims.

Ugg,
If you read what he said, he specified those German POWs who were shipped back to the United States. They did have it pretty good as POWs went, although there were some problems. Please actually read what you are quoting before making a fool of yourself in replying to it.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by job
Read my post again. I stated that America's treatment of German POWs was fine.

I never said the German treatment of POWs was not amoral. In fact it was some of the worst.



Please read my posts more carefully before making such of-the-wall posts.

The American treatment of German POWs in Germany is what I was referring to. It is no secret that torture was a favored technique of American interrogators.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
But you won't say it was wrong either?

War is a nessecary evil. Are you saying that a country shouldn't defend itself? Or that American should not have gotten involved in the Second World War?

You obviously do not agree with the actions undertaken by the admininstration. As such, what would you have done to remove Saddam from power, or do you consider his "evil" lesser than that of war? Do/did you even consider him a threat?

How can you say "war is hell" in one breath and then not damn someone who doesn't do everything in his power (and Bush held all the power in this case, despite the wistful quote from Churchill touted out earlier) to keep a leash on the purest evil known to man?

The "war is hell" quote is from Sherman dating back to the Civil War, not Churchill.

Bush could have gone into Iraq before Resolution 1441. He didn't. He could have gone in alone, with no allies, without working to establish an alliance. He didn't. Powell did not have to go before the UN to defend the admininstration's stance. He may not have done everything in his power, but he certainly tried other avenues, or made it seem so. And, as I said earlier, Bush was going to go into Iraq, whether rain or shine, with or without support. Why would he attempt to stop war, when the stated goal of the administation was the removal of Saddam Hussien?

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The American treatment of German POWs in Germany is what I was referring to. It is no secret that torture was a favored technique of American interrogators.

That's why Germans were fleeing west in the hopes of surrendering to the Americans and British instead of the Russians.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by job
In the instance I stated, there was no amoral treatment of POWs.

Examining the Second World War as a whole, there were numerous instances in which there was amoral treatment of POWs. The Japanese death marches. The Soviet-German POW slaughter, etc, etc.

My goal was to state an outstanding instance in which there was not an amoral treatment of prisoners. It doesn't reflect the war as a whole, but it certainly demonstrates that all POWs in war are not necessarily treated "amorally."

One instance does not a clean war make, especially when you consider that WWII is remembered for its peculiar atrocities.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The American treatment of German POWs in Germany is what I was referring to. It is no secret that torture was a favored technique of American interrogators.

You are still missing the point aren't you?

I stated those who were shipped back the United States i.e. the majority of the POWs, had a very comfortable life. Some even remained in the United States and married American women. I made no mention of the POWs who remained in Germany, nor did I mention anything about the interrogation techniques of the American forces. Again, at the risk of sounding redundant, the German POWs who were shipped back to the United States had it good.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
One instance does not a clean war make, especially when you consider that WWII is remembered for its peculiar atrocities.

Right, but the original post made it seem that there was no moral treatment of prisoners throughout the war, which, as I have stated already, is false.

I never said the Second World War was a "clean war." I've seen the death camps for the Russian POWs. I've visited Soviet gulags. I lived 10 kilometers from Bergen-Belsen. I have seen the furnaces, the gas chambers, and the pitiful barracks for the Allied airmen in the Luft-Stalag camps. I have seen the atrocities with my own eyes. I know that the Second World War was not clean.

The American treatment of German POWs who were shipped back to the States was indeed moral and very comfortable.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Please actually read what you are quoting before making a fool of yourself in replying to it.

And please don't gasconade by acting as though you are the authority on who's making a fool of oneself.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by job
Right, but the original post made it seem that there was no moral treatment of prisoners throughout the war, which, as I have stated already, is false.

He said:

Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners.

World War II is not an answer to this challenge.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by job
You are still missing the point aren't you?

I stated those who were shipped back the United States i.e. the majority of the POWs, had a very comfortable life. Some even remained in the United States and married American women. I made no mention of the POWs who remained in Germany, nor did I mention anything about the interrogation techniques of the American forces. Again, at the risk of sounding redundant, the German POWs who were shipped back to the United States had it good.

Your response was to my question "Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners." You avoided the question by stating the above. It's not your redundancy that bothers me, rather your not answering the question.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
World War II is not an answer to this challenge.

I cited it because he made it seem that there never was any moral treatment of POWs in any war, which is not true. I stand by my point.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Your response was to my question "Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners." You avoided the question by stating the above. It's not your redundancy that bothers me, rather your not answering the question.

I already answered your question.

In case you missed it:

My goal was to state an outstanding instance in which there was not an amoral treatment of prisoners. It doesn't reflect the war as a whole, but it certainly demonstrates that all POWs in war are not necessarily treated "amorally."

My point is that not all prisoners are treated amorally.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by job
I already answered your question.

In case you missed it:



My point is that not all prisoners are treated amorally.

Point taken. Then you concur that wars are conducive to amoral treatment of POWs.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Your response was to my question "Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners." You avoided the question by stating the above. It's not your redundancy that bothers me, rather your not answering the question.

Ugg,
Just a quick little lesson in the meaning of words.

immoral = bad
moral = good
amoral = neither good nor bad.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan
amoral = neither good nor bad.

heheh. ;) :p

I caught that too. That's why I was using quotation marks in the first few of my posts. I got lazy though as I had to answer to the responses.

job
Jun 2, 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Then you concur that wars are conducive to amoral treatment of POWs.

Eh?

I never said that.

There have been and probably will be more cases of POWs abuse on both sides both in current conflicts and future ones.

I don't see war as conductive to "amoral" treatment of POWs so much as the sick, twisted mentalities of a select few involved in the conflict.

Examine the most recent Iraq conflict. Did you see the pictures of American medics assisting wounded Iraqi POWs? Sure, there will always be some instances of brutality towards POWs, but it is not due to the act of war. Treatment of POWs depends on those who capture them, and whether or not they follow the guidelines established by treaties and conventions, not the fact that two (or more) countries are at war.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Ugg,
Just a quick little lesson in the meaning of words.

immoral = bad
moral = good
amoral = neither good nor bad.

Miriam Webster
Main Entry: amor·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär-
Function: adjective
Date: 1882
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
amoral adjective
without moral principles:
"Humans, he argues, are amoral and what guides them is not any sense of morality but an instinct for survival."



Methinks you oversimplify the definitions.

The Holocaust was immoral.

Hiroshima was amoral.

edited for punctuation

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by job
Eh?

I never said that.

There have been and probably will be more cases of POWs abuse on both sides both in current conflicts and future ones.

I don't see war as conductive to "amoral" treatment of POWs so much as the sick, twisted mentalities of a select few involved in the conflict.

Examine the most recent Iraq conflict. Did you see the pictures of American medics assisting wounded Iraqi POWs? Sure, there will always be some instances of brutality towards POWs, but it is not due to the act of war. Treatment of POWs depends on those who capture them, and whether or not they follow the guidelines established by treaties and conventions, not the fact that two (or more) countries are at war.

No I didn't see the pictures because I don't watch TV and avoided all embedded journalists' reporting elsewhere.

Your argument that war is essentially neutral to the treatment of POWs lacks logic. There is no question that violence begets violence. Certainly the instances this time around are hopefully few and far between but to claim that war does not create a fertile plain for violence against POWs is like saying that war is only a word not an action.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Ugg

Methinks you oversimplify the definitions.

I simplifed the definitions because you don't seem to understand the meanings. I'm still not sure you understand them.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Your argument that war is essentially neutral to the treatment of POWs lacks logic.

War has always created a revenge mentality amongst the troops. Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners.

This is how you used "amoral." Now, you were either thinking of a concept other than "amoral," or you were making the argument that war is "essentially neutral to the treatment of POWs." I'm not 100 percent which one it is.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by job
I cited it because he made it seem that there never was any moral treatment of POWs in any war, which is not true. I stand by my point.

He didn't though. He was pointing out that there are no wars where atrocities don't happen, which is true. Your point is valid; as I said, there are extremely humane, good things that happen in the midst of the hell that is war and there are horrific atrocities in war too. IOW, it's just that your point doesn't apply to his accusation.

Re: Im/a/moral
Immoral usually refers to the act -"adultery is immoral"

Amoral is more often used in regards to the person who commits the act "Dahmer was totally amoral"

Amoral doesn't mean "neither good nor bad" but rather refers to the human element of having no sense of what's good and evil.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I simplifed the definitions because you don't seem to understand the meanings.

Neither did you. You were both wrong. Congatulations.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by macfan
This is how you used "amoral." Now, you were either thinking of a concept other than "amoral," or you were making the argument that war is "essentially neutral to the treatment of POWs." I'm not 100 percent which one it is.

He brought that up because your definition was more off-base than his misuse of the word.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I simplifed the definitions because you don't seem to understand the meanings. I'm still not sure you understand them.

Thanks for your condescencion!

The holocaust was immoral because the nazis were trying to eliminate a religious group. They made a conscious decision and carried it out.

Amorality is indicative of a total lack of morals. When someone is unable to see the end results of his actions and only acts for the moment regardless of the consequences.

Science is supposedly amoral. Of course it can't be if humans profess morality.

It is easy to pervert morality and that perversion often becomes not immorality but amorality. Hiroshima IMO was not immoral but amoral, showing a complete lack of moral behavior.

Of course that pronouncement is only possible via the tunnels of time. At the time the bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were viewed as a moral way to end the war.

When morality and immorality become so intertwined whereby there is no longer anway to separate them, a state amorality takes over.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:21 PM
I have to say though, amoral is not a totally inappropriate word to use in these circumstances.

The holocaust might be characterised as amoral, because those ordering the crimes had no sense of guilt. Similarly, in the heat of battle, the moral bearings can be lost and one can cross into violent madness. That's not immoral, it's amoral.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:23 PM
amoral:1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

Sorry, pseudobrit, but there's nothing wrong with my definition.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I have to say though, amoral is not a totally inappropriate word to use in these circumstances.

The holocaust might be characterised as amoral, because those ordering the crimes had no sense of guilt. Similarly, in the heat of battle, the moral bearings can be lost and one can cross into violent madness. That's not immoral, it's amoral.

The Holocaust would only be charaterized as amoral by a person who was amoral. An immoral person might characterize as moral, and a moral person would characterize it as immoral. Those who ordered the Holocaust were generally not amoral. They had a sense of right and wrong. They thought what they were doing was moral.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by macfan
amoral:1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

Sorry, pseudobrit, but there's nothing wrong with my definition.

Oh, but there is, because you didn't say amoral meant neither "moral or immoral."

You used the words NEITHER GOOD nor BAD to describe "amoral" -- that's what makes you wrong. You separated it from the human aspect, too.

Nature is amoral - sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. It totally lacks a sense or an aspect of immorality/morality.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The Holocaust would only be charaterized as amoral by a person who was amoral. An immoral person might characterize as moral, and a moral person would characterize it as immoral. Those who ordered the Holocaust were generally not amoral. They had a sense of right and wrong. They thought what they were doing was moral.

They saw killing the Jews as an act of ridding the nation of a pest -- of vermin.

Do you feel guilty when you step on a cockroach? No, that's because you're amoral when it comes to the lives of bugs. It's not something you want to do, rather something you have to do.

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 10:34 PM
You're going to have to understand that something can be "good" or "bad" and still be amoral; in fact, that's the crux of the definition.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 10:36 PM
Revenge by definition is amoral. A person doesn't care whether revenge is right or wrong only that it takes place.

The war on Iraq was revenge for 9-11, or at least that's what ~40% of Americans believe. Of course no link between Saddam and bin Laden has been found.

Some American and British soldiers are taking their revenge on Iraqis for 9-11, therefore they are committing amoral acts.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Oh, but there is, because you didn't say amoral meant neither "moral or immoral."

You used the words NEITHER GOOD nor BAD to describe "amoral" -- that's what makes you wrong. You separated it from the human aspect, too.

Nature is amoral - sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. It totally lacks a sense or an aspect of immorality/morality.

So, you are saying that "moral" shouldn't be defined as "good" and that "immoral" shouldn't be defined as "bad?" Sorry, pseudobrit, but that just doesn't hold up.

You used the words NEITHER GOOD nor BAD to describe "amoral" -- that's what makes you wrong.

No, that's what makes me right.

The sentences below have essentially the same meaning.

The act of drinking a glass of water is amoral.
The act of drinking a glass of water is neither good nor bad.
The act of drinking a glass of water is neither moral nor immoral.
The act of drinking a glass of water is not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
You're going to have to understand that something can be "good" or "bad" and still be amoral; in fact, that's the crux of the definition.

Something cannot be good or bad in a moral sense and still be amoral. We can say that ice cream is "good" or that ice storms are "bad," but those are not moral questions.

In dealing with question of morality, a moral act is good, an immoral act is bad, and an amoral act is neither good nor bad.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 10:45 PM
Context is all.

macfan
Jun 2, 2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Revenge by definition is amoral. A person doesn't care whether revenge is right or wrong only that it takes place.

The war on Iraq was revenge for 9-11, or at least that's what ~40% of Americans believe. Of course no link between Saddam and bin Laden has been found.

Some American and British soldiers are taking their revenge on Iraqis for 9-11, therefore they are committing amoral acts.

Not so, Ugg. An act of revenge is not by definition amoral. If one man insults another's ancestors and the second take revenge on him by raping his wife, killing his children and burning his village, those acts of revenge are by no means amoral, and there is no reason that the second man might not chose to carry out those immoral acts with the full understanding that what he was doing was bad in a moral sense.

Ugg
Jun 2, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Not so, Ugg. An act of revenge is not by definition amoral. If one man insults another's ancestors and the second take revenge on him by raping his wife, killing his children and burning his village, those acts of revenge are by no means amoral, and there is no reason that the second man might not chose to carry out those immoral acts with the full understanding that what he was doing was bad in a moral sense.

I certainly see your point although your example is a less than ideal platform to make it. The more I reread this exchange the more it becomes obvious that morality, immorality and amorality are ultimately states of mind and not absolute states of human behavior.

Try to define American morality. There really is no starting point. Is it defined by the constitution, by the bible, by the current president, by a poll in Peoria? It's like trying to define pornography. There are only individual viewpoints not collective ones. We would all agree that killing is wrong, except it's legal to kill in the US states that have the death penalty. Is that moral?

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by macfan
So, you are saying that "moral" shouldn't be defined as "good" and that "immoral" shouldn't be defined as "bad?" Sorry, pseudobrit, but that just doesn't hold up.

Morality is subjective. As I've said, nature is amoral -- it can be good or bad, but neither moral nor immoral.

"Amoral" is supposed to be used in reference to a tangible or intangible being or phenomenon.

No, that's what makes me right.

You're going to die 100% right, aren't you?

The sentences below have essentially the same meaning.

The act of drinking a glass of water is amoral.
The act of drinking a glass of water is neither good nor bad.
The act of drinking a glass of water is neither moral nor immoral.
The act of drinking a glass of water is not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments.

The act of drinking a glass of water can be good or bad, though, that's the problem.

The act of drinking a glass of water is not definable as amoral because an act cannot be defined without reference to the "person" carrying it out.

Replace those with "flood" and see the false and nonsensical statement you end up with:

A flood is amoral.
A flood is neither good nor bad.
A flood is neither moral nor immoral.
A flood is not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments.

We all agree that a flood can be bad (wipes out houses, kills people) or good (fertilizes and rejuvenates a valley), while the entity itself is "amoral," but even then it's not quite the word you'd want to use.

You used the word improperly again, and it cements my case:

You used a wrong definition of the word. You made a mistake. It's okay; I sometimes use words improperly too; we all do. Get over it and move on. But you won't. You'll continue to insist that your mis-definition is right in some way...

pseudobrit
Jun 2, 2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
We would all agree that killing is wrong, except it's legal to kill in the US states that have the death penalty. Is that moral?

Bingo!

Immorality/morality will be tied to a human or used to describe a human action.

Amorality can be linked to an entity -- a human, a group of humans, a phenomenon, an intangible -- in order to be the correct word to use, but it is being misused if describing an action itself.

macfan
Jun 3, 2003, 02:29 AM
Ugg,
Capital punishment is either morally right or it is not. I happen to believe that it is not. I am either right or wrong on this issue.

pseudobrit,
He brought that up because your definition was more off-base than his misuse of the word.

Upon further review, I appear to be off base for not allowing for the secondary definition of amoral as being "being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals," and you are off base twice because both Ugg's use of the word amoral and my definition of it appear to be correct, though different. I would say that we are talking here about acts that were both amoral (by the seconday definition), for they were most certainly outside of the moral order of the particular code of morals that these men are to uphold, and immoral becuase they are morally abhorrent. I believe that those who apparently carried out these acts believed that they were doing something wrong at the time that they carried them out. It is quite common for social deviants to document their immoral acts.

Morality is subjective. As I've said, nature is amoral -- it can be good or bad, but neither moral nor immoral.

The act of drinking a glass of water is not definable as amoral because an act cannot be defined without reference to the "person" carrying it out.

Replace those with "flood" and see the false and nonsensical statement you end up with:

A flood is amoral.
A flood is neither good nor bad.
A flood is neither moral nor immoral.
A flood is not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments.

...

You used a wrong definition of the word. You made a mistake. It's okay; I sometimes use words improperly too; we all do. Get over it and move on. But you won't. You'll continue to insist that your mis-definition is right in some way...

1. If morality is really subjective, then there is no real difference between the moral and the immoral, it is only a matter of personal preference or the preference of the most powerful.That is a very weak form of morality.

2. Saying that a flood is amoral is not a nonsensical statement. It fits the primary definition of amoral, and goes right along with your own characterization of nature as being amoral.

3. I did not use a "wrong" definition of "amoral." I used the primary definition of amoral. I also used good and bad as moral terms in defining moral, immoral, and amoral. It is quite apporpriate to use "good" and "bad" in this way because "good" and "bad" can have moral meaning. This does not preclude them having meanings that do not have a moral component (such as that was good ice cream), but nor are good and bad precluded from their moral meanings, particularly when used to define words dealing with morality. One of the definitions of good is "Virtuous, right, [or] commendable." and one of the definitions of "bad" is "morally objectionable." Thus, it is quite right to characterize "moral" as "good," "immoral," as "bad," and "amoral" as neither good nor bad.


The act of drinking a glass of water is not definable as amoral because an act cannot be defined without reference to the "person" carrying it out.


It can be characterized as such in particular instances, and my use of that particular action was merely to demonstrate one of the meanings of amoral. The act of drinking a glass of water does not generally require a human agent to make a moral decision. More to the point, an act carried out by a person can be characterized as amoral in the sense of it being neither moral nor immoral, as defined by the primary definition of "amoral." Furthermore, the particular act does not even require a human agent at all.

You're going to die 100% right, aren't you?

Not at all. Probably closer to 95 percent.

Get over it and move on.

Now, if we could just get you to say that about the 2000 elections! ;)

abdul
Jun 3, 2003, 03:24 AM
morality is such a loose word, just as freedom. these words mean different things to different societies and dont really exist in one definition, as morals relies on what religion the morls of that society were produced from. That is why the law tries to stay away from using the term moral, as it has not got a universal understanding.

The point was that the Geneva convention tht was signed by the UN including the security council members which included the US and UK was understood by them as humane, by definition in their society. To try and twist the whole article by talking about how the Nazis they were morally right and etc is irrelevant.....thats the past and in this cases the Germans didnt even write-up the draft for the Geneva convention of pow.

The point is that our governments calling the actions of the Iraqi's barbarians for showing the US soldiers on TV, but while our soldiers go and do far worst stuff what does that make our military?

and like i said before the other wars did last for a lot longer than 2 weeks so phycologiacl hatred would have brewed between the two groups, as well as civilians were also called up for military action, so they would have lacked the mental strength compared to the actual soldiers from the army.

at the end of the day im even more disgusted that people are trying to stick up for thgis type of action!!

wwworry
Jun 3, 2003, 06:08 AM
job and macfan will never admit that coalition treatment of Iraqis was, in this case, terrible. They would rather you argue about a different subject like word definitions and the ever present diversionary tactic - World War 2. It's a simple debating tactic to change the subject.

macfan
Jun 3, 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
job and macfan will never admit that coalition treatment of Iraqis was, in this case, terrible. They would rather you argue about a different subject like word definitions and the ever present diversionary tactic - World War 2. It's a simple debating tactic to change the subject.

I would say that we are talking here about acts that were both amoral (by the seconday definition), for they were most certainly outside of the moral order of the particular code of morals that these men are to uphold, and immoral becuase they are morally abhorrent.

Sorry, wwworry, but the evidence from my previous post refutes rather well your allegation that I "will never admit that coalition treatment of Iraqis was, in this case, terrible."

abdul,

at the end of the day im even more disgusted that people are trying to stick up for thgis type of action!!

Such people may well exist, abdul, but I don't see them on this board. Would you care to name them?

pseudobrit
Jun 3, 2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Upon further review, I appear to be off base for not allowing for the secondary definition of amoral as being "being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals," and you are off base twice because both Ugg's use of the word amoral and my definition of it appear to be correct, though different.

In both instances, the word was misused. You might twist things around to make it fit the dictionary definition, but compared to the way the word is used, the way you and Ugg used it were not common.

1. If morality is really subjective, then there is no real difference between the moral and the immoral, it is only a matter of personal preference or the preference of the most powerful.That is a very weak form of morality.

That's exactly what morals are; they are dependent on the society defining them. Morals are fluid. What's acceptable in one decade may be abhorrent the next -- look at drink driving. Once not so bad, now it's highly unfashionable and generally seen as immoral behaviour. If that makes them weak, so be it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

2. Saying that a flood is amoral is not a nonsensical statement. It fits the primary definition of amoral, and goes right along with your own characterization of nature as being amoral.

It does, but that wasn't the nonsensical statement -- as I specifically pointed out (and you obviously didn't understand), the nonsense would be that a flood is "neither good nor bad" -- your original definition of the word.

3. I did not use a "wrong" definition of "amoral." I used the primary definition of amoral.

You said it was "neither good nor bad," which is very different from the dictionary definition of "neither moral nor immoral."

Your failure to understand this basic concept, that you cannot have "moral or immoral" without people, but you can have "amoral" and "good" and "bad" without them, is from where your misunderstanding arises.


I also used good and bad as moral terms in defining moral, immoral, and amoral. It is quite apporpriate to use "good" and "bad" in this way because "good" and "bad" can have moral meaning. This does not preclude them having meanings that do not have a moral component (such as that was good ice cream), but nor are good and bad precluded from their moral meanings, particularly when used to define words dealing with morality. One of the definitions of good is "Virtuous, right, [or] commendable." and one of the definitions of "bad" is "morally objectionable." Thus, it is quite right to characterize "moral" as "good," "immoral," as "bad," and "amoral" as neither good nor bad.

But being amoral does not pertain to the aspects of morality (good) and immorality (bad), it pertains to the morality and immorality itself (or rather the lack thereof.)

More to the point, an act carried out by a person can be characterized as amoral in the sense of it being neither moral nor immoral, as defined by the primary definition of "amoral."

Just because you can make it fit the book definition does not mean it is the proper word to use. In this case, describing a person's actions while doing something ordinary, the word amoral is inappropriate because the gravity of such a word is overreaching.

As an example:

The New York Times and Washington post are both magazines.

This is wrong, but not according to the dictionary:

1. A periodical containing a collection of articles, stories, pictures, or other features.

So I was right if I only use the dictionary to guide me in how I use a word.

But it's wrong, though, because everybody knows a black and white (some color, okay) daily edition periodical printed on thin, nonglossy paper is just a newspaper.

There's more to the English language than the dictionary, and if you continue to fall back solely on a dictionary in your useage (or misuse in this case), you'll never be able to master it.

macfan
Jun 3, 2003, 12:30 PM
pseudobrit,


You said it was "neither good nor bad," which is very different from the dictionary definition of "neither moral nor immoral."

"Neither good nor bad" is not "very different" from "neither moral nor immoral." In fact, the two are very similar, particularly when used in the context of morality, as was the case here.

One of the common meanings, but not the only meaning, of "good" is "moral." Only a person of great ignorance would disagree with this.
One of the common meaning, but not the only meaning, of "bad" is "immoral." Only a person of great ignoracne would disagree with this.

For example, one might correctly describe a man or woman who has strong moral character that is reflected by their actions as a "good" man or woman. One might similarly describe a person who lacks strong moral character and whose actions reflect their immorality as a "bad" man or woman.

When we say that an act or non-human agent is amoral it generally means (by its primay definition) neither moral (or good, in the moral sense) or immoral (or bad in the moral sense). it means that the item in question is not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments. This primary definition does require a human agent. Thus, we can say that nature is amoral. Another definition of amoral is not caring about right or wrong. This definition does require something capable of caring, but not caring. Both of these uses of amoral are correct and appropriate.

When I say that moral is good and immoral is bad, and you say that this is somehow wrong, it is as though I said that The New York Times is a publication, and you say that this is wrong because a hardcover book is a publication and The New York Times is not a hardcover book.

the nonsense would be that a flood is "neither good nor bad"

When using good and bad in a moral sense (which is an appropriate use of good and bad, and was the sense in which they were used), a flood would be neither good nor bad.

job
Jun 3, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
job and macfan will never admit that coalition treatment of Iraqis was, in this case, terrible. They would rather you argue about a different subject like word definitions and the ever present diversionary tactic - World War 2. It's a simple debating tactic to change the subject.

Did you read my initial posts?

I stated these acts were indeed warped, perpetrated by the sick, twisted minds of select individuals. I never condoned the abuse of POWs.

job
Jun 3, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by abdul
at the end of the day im even more disgusted that people are trying to stick up for thgis type of action!!

I never condoned or supported the abuse of POWs from any country. Read my initial posts.

pseudobrit
Jun 3, 2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by macfan
One of the common meanings, but not the only meaning, of "good" is "moral." Only a person of great ignorance would disagree with this.
One of the common meaning, but not the only meaning, of "bad" is "immoral." Only a person of great ignoracne would disagree with this.

Ignoracne? Man, I'd hate to be the kid in junior high with that stuff -- it sounds terrible!

A sunny day is good. Does that mean it's moral? Nope. Is it then immoral? Nope. Is it amoral? Technically, you could say yes to this, but it's irrelevant; it's the wrong word for the situation.

When I say that moral is good and immoral is bad, and you say that this is somehow wrong, it is as though I said that The New York Times is a publication, and you say that this is wrong because a hardcover book is a publication and The New York Times is not a hardcover book.[/b]

No, I said it about your misuse of the word "amoral," which was a corollary to your misusing the definition. Reading comprehension...

While your use can be construed to be correct from the dictionary definition, in actual usage it is not and that was my point with the example.

When using good and bad in a moral sense (which is an appropriate use of good and bad, and was the sense in which they were used), a flood would be neither good nor bad.

A flood can be "bad" in the sense that it destroys things and amoral in the sense that it has no concept of right and wrong. But to use it in this way, the flood must be personified.

Here is the difference:

The flood can be good or bad.
The flood cannot be moral or immoral.
------------------------------
The flood can be amoral.
A person can be moral, immoral or amoral.
A person's behaviour can be immoral or moral.
A person's behaviour cannot be "amoral" unless it is personified.

This is how the word should be used.

Just curious: did you ever take a college level English class?

job
Jun 3, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
They would rather you argue about a different subject like word definitions and the ever present diversionary tactic - World War 2. It's a simple debating tactic to change the subject.

I brought up the Second World War in response to Ugg's post which was interpreted by me to mean that there had never been any moral treatment of POWs in any war.

The only purpose the examples from the Second World War served was to disprove the claim that all POWs are treated horribly in times of conflict.

I stated my opinion on the original subject - the treatment of the Iraqi POWs - I find the actions brutal and harsh, sick and twisted.

I never condoned the brutal treatment of POWs.

pseudobrit
Jun 3, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by job
I brought up the Second World War in response to Ugg's post which was interpreted by me to mean that there had never been any moral treatment of POWs in any war.

But you misinterpreted his post -- he was not saying that there is no war in which good is done, but that there are no wars without evil. Both your points are valid.

job
Jun 3, 2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
But you misinterpreted his post -- he was not saying that there is no war in which good is done, but that there are no wars without evil. Both your points are valid.

Yeah, I know. I took his post to mean something else, and as a result this thread went off on a real tangent. But it's all good. Like you said, both our points are valid.

job
Jun 3, 2003, 01:06 PM
Oh, btw, I think this whole debate concerning the word "moral" et al is just a vast bipartisan conspiracy to pad post counts. ;) :p

vniow
Jun 3, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by job
Oh, btw, I think this whole debate concerning the word "moral" et al is just a vast bipartisan conspiracy to pad post counts. ;) :p

Must be that time of the year again...