You can feel the sky is green but that doesn't make it so.

Tell that to the family members of the people who were killed on 9/11 or in Iraq, Pakistan or Afganistan. Killing the enemy during combat is one thing but killing innocent civilians, woman and children is another. You arent human if you can blow a childs arms off.

Well now that I think about it, I don't know of any nonhuman that can blow a child's arms off.

Y'know, like bears. Or whales. They don't really make weapons. Or use them.

Sorry, appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

What use is law and justice, if those who claim to be enforcing it are above it? This of course is not even going into the question of whether it was within their jurisdiction to arrest the man in the first place.

So this is all it takes to validate the use of violence against another person? I just need to be sure that they have done something above and beyond what I intend on doing to them? Do I require proof for this, or are mere suspicions on their own sufficient?

You are sick and tired of your boys being responsible for their actions?
This sweeping generalization fails to take into account the different political and social conditions which lead to various people becoming 'terrorists'. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are extremely subjective words, often used by States to justify use of State violence.

On the flip side I would ask you, what about the family members of all the innocent civilians who have been killed as a result of the "war on terror"? Could you say to their face that you are sick of USA being held accountable for what they do? A recent example can be found with the civilians killed in Yemen.

Thanks for the Yemen info, red.

I just saw on a documentary the other day, about children with their limbs and faces blown off by bombs disguised as toys or candy. That is a deliberate terrorist tool. Yes the Yeman videos were informative. It does mention the strike was aimed at the terrorist and it is unfair that civilians were hit. But do we assume then that the civilians were actually the targets. In a war torn country innocents do get caught in the middle. With a terrorist act, innocent people are the targets. Intimidation is the purpose.

Tomato, tomato. According to your own explanation there's no difference, and yet our actions are justified but theirs are not. I really don't understand any of your reasoning. We targeted innocent people, so doesn't that make us terrorists too? I mean, I'm just going by your argument.

And Shtona: I'm completely serious. She said you aren't human if you blow a child's arms off, and I argued that you have to be human in order to do so.

While it is true that such actions are quite atrocious, they should not be viewed in isolation. But rather the political and social causes which led to them should equally be addressed.

Take the situation I provided in Yemen, you are correct that there are Al Qaeda among them. But one would wonder why it is that they have gotten any support from the people there? I am somewhat confident that it is not because they bake the best cake ever. But rather if you look at the region they are currently pushing for their right to independence. The response from the State has been to meet this with violent oppression. The Al Qaeda being opportunists, are using this to their advantage. As Dr Sluka has identified in many instances where a people are being oppressed, they will accept help where they can get it.

Why? Explain your reasoning. What is 'wrong' to you?

Speculation that it is accidental. I have a hard time seeing how hitting someone in the lip could be anywhere near accidental.

I am sure you have done worse than hitting someone in the lip too. What's your point?

Very bad sweeping generalization. I can argue that the jihad warmongers are fighting to protect their religion, much like the Christians had their crusades. Secondly, Our boys have a responsibility to uphold American Justice. If they do not do that, then they should by all means get punished by American Laws.

Your assertion is lacking serious support. If you are saying this in reaction to how the terrorists use unpleasant killing tactics on our soldiers, then I would argue that the Church of England (outside of wartime even), were much more horrible to those who committed treason to the Royal Family compared to our terrorist friends. Here is an example that is not rivaled by any terrorist actions I have ever heard of. Best part is...It was Legal and a common practice!

Here's a simplified description of quote above.

Drawing means dragging on the ground. Quartering is pulling the limbs apart by tying the human's arms and legs to separate horses that would then head in different directions to dislocate the arms and legs from the torso. They are still alive when they are disemboweled and castrated and are forced to watch their body parts burn before they are finally allowed to die by bleeding out.

Source Below
Elizabethan Treason

Here are some common ways that English Christians implemented torture and it was commonly accepted. By the way, these aren't Arabic Monsters.

Trapped in cages meant not being fed, so basically starving to death. Other times the sun would do its work on the human hanging above the town. Extreme humiliation as well. Then of course, to finish off the person, they were quartered. I explained that procedure above.

Source Below:
Elizabethan Torture Methods



Rights of a human being are defined by each culture that practices them. Give me a universal definition of Human Rights and we'll talk more on this.

They are already detained. The roughness is uncalled for and is not upholding the justice that Americans so proudly claim to offer.

Your assertion is meaningless unless you can support it. I already agree with you on my assertion that I don't believe that an American SEAL can be anywhere as capable to being a charismatic genius that Hitler was. His ability to move a whole country into a second world war when they had lost the first one horribly is astounding. It takes an extreme amount of brilliance to be an unimportant figure and control a whole nation through mere words.

However, I would like you to defend your own statement that "if a SEAL is given enough power/leniency, he could not accomplish what Hitler was able to do." I am saying with the charismatic ability he could very well become another Hitler. Prove me wrong if you wish to try.

My point was that different cultures work different ways. Quit trying to use a red herring to move away from the point I was making. Arabic culture is just as correct as American culture. They are different and work different ways. It does not mean either is wrong. It is a perfectly valid equal analogy.

My initial post was an attempt to demonstrate the subjective nature of the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism". As I have observed throughout this thread it has been used to demonize the person whose treatment we are debating. This is not an uncommon tactic, as numerous States commonly label those they are oppressing as terrorists in order to justify and validate said oppression. Instead of simply calling him a terrorist we would be better served looking at what he did.

As for the Navy Seals, I absolutely believe it is appropriate for them to be charged if it is suspected they have violated people. Not only does law and justice depend on those upholding it, following it themselves, but I do not hold that Iraq is within the jurisdiction of U.S.A. If this man has to be charged it should happen in an Iraqi court of law.

Would I be correct in assuming you are going from a Spencerian understanding of evolutionism? If this is the case then I would challenge such an assertion. As like most Nineteenth century evolutionism, the theoretical shortcomings of such an approach to the study of society were demonstrated with Historical Particularism. If you are not referring here to the theories presented by the likes of Herbert Spencer, could you please explain which model of social evolution it is you are drawing upon? With such information it becomes much easier to establish where you are drawing your argument against cultural relativism from.

This is ok, the topic of whether social evolution is capable of explaining cultures and societies is one which interests me a lot.

You do not have a weaker society just because you choose not to conform to world accepted views. If they can survive, they will. If their methods and cultures let them survive and end up killing us then it would turn out that our culture should have been like that of the Muslims rather than having the Muslims conform to our own culture. You cannot deem a society incorrect (like you did with Roman/Greek) unless you are comparing a society that has already lost the battle. Muslims are far from losing that battle. You cannot say truthfully whether or not evolution has made us more vulnerable and therefore weaker than our Muslim counterparts. In fact, that very point is being argued by you in your OP of whether or not the SEAL should be able to act like the Muslims and not treat their detainees with justice and equality. The weakness/incorrectness of a culture cannot be determined unless one of the two cultures (American versus Muslim) is obliterated and turned into the other.

We fight against what we believe, as a society, is unnatural. Unnatural in its most humanly objective state is anything to the detriment of the human species as a whole. If we were not social animals then unnatural would refer to what is a detriment to each individual's existence. However, this is not the case as humans are social animals. Anything can be labeled as the right thing to do as long as it can prove that it is benefiting the society's existence. Some of these views may clash, however it does not make them wrong. Our objective morality, or that which bonds all humans beyond every single culture, is the desire to keep humankind as a whole surviving.

When it can be proven that it is detrimental to the existence of the human species. Pollution, Deforestation, disrupting the perfect chaotic balance of the Earth can be considered wrong/unnatural as it will destroy all humans of all cultures if taken too far.

I would not go as far as saying nothing is wrong per say. But rather that whether or not something is wrong will be subjective and little more than a socially constructed understanding.

The example you gave is quite fitting, as the killing of a person is quite a complex one, with many different culturally constructed variables to take into account. Case in point, killing someone on the battlefield is largely seen to be different to killing someone on the street. Not only that but several cultures have seen it as a right for someone to kill another person in order to redress a wrong committed against them.