I'd like to point out that these "monsters" weren't shooting down civilian helicopters in Iraq until the U.S. occupied their country. We're complicit in the creation of monsters on both sides.

Yes, their behaviour is monstrous. But both sides have behaved in ways that appear monstrous to the other side (and appear to be simply justifiable rage to their own side).

The differences between this video and the one of the U.S. soldier shooting a wounded, unarmed prisoner at point-blank are a matter of perspective. To us, this is far more horrifying. To the other side, the American is the monster.

But really, everyone is behaving in monstrous ways, based on reasons they find perfectly justifiable.

The predictable response from either side to this point (as subsequent comments will probably illustrate) is that anyone pointing out "yeah, they're monsters; but so are we" must be supporting the other side. Opposing BOTH sides isn't an option.

You're right, Aaron. Before shooting at helicopters and slaughtering injured old men they were murdering and raping women and children in Iraq and surrounding countries or planning attacks against innocent civilians in countries very far away (think Madrid, NYC).

The soldiers in Iraq at the same time were in the states training to fight those who would perpetrate such crimes--and, at times (Abu Ghraib, etc.) they have approached their own level of monstrosity; but it is an affront to any standard of objective morality to equivocate the two sides. The day the insurgents are fighting for freedom rather than the continued oppression of women, cripples, political opponents, free speech, and religious liberty is the day equivocation may become a viable alternative to condemnation.

I think the equivication occured when we quickly fell into the same mental trap that the terrorists were in before 911 -- we decided that our enemy was an irrational, hate-filled "monster" and the only way to win was to wipe him off the face of the earth.

They already believed that about us ... we then happily wallowed down into the muck next to them. And since then, both sides have been eagerly proving each other right at every turn.

The difference between the U.S. military and the terrorists are vast, but perhaps nowhere better illustrated than by comparing this shooting and the shooting in a mosque (which the terrorists routinely turn into bases of operations) which these animals believed they were avenging.

What did the American soldier--himself wounded from a recent engagement with terrorists obeying no rules of warfare in Fallujah--say before he shot the wounded man? "He's faking--he's faking he's dead!" Why would he say this? Because the terrorists had been booby-trapping bodies and feigning death or injury in order to inflict more casualties on the Americans.

What did these animals say before shooting a clearly unarmed man (after shooting down their civilian helicopter)? "Carry out God's verdict!"

I rest my case.

Eric

You can't reason with the moral relativists like Aaron. I applaud your effort but it's futile. Clear thinking individuals know the difference and we understand the necessity to defeat the terrorists.

I'm not saying it's not necessary to defeat the terrorists CJ. I'm saying I think there are ways to do it that are better than acting just like them.

Anyway, Eric just called the terrorists "animals." That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The more we characterize the other side as "animals" or "monsters," the more violently we treat them and their interests, and the more they become "monsters." Our total dismissiveness of loss of non-American life in Iraq (what's a few deaths -- we're fighting monsters) is what's creating more monsters.

The more we treat them as "monsters," the more "monsters" we get opposing us, as those who don't see our "monsters" as anything but neighbors pick up arms and join our "monsters" to fight us -- because we're their "monsters."

What was that old saying about being careful in fighting monsters, not to become one? I say that the more likely we are to define people as "monsters," the more likely they are to BECOME monsters, and be joined by more monsters.

I'm sick of this weak-kneed moral equivalence, or possibly just simple weakness with pretensions to philosophy. No, there were no insurgents in Iraq before the war. But so what? There were no anti-fascist partisans in Ukraine before the German invasion either, but that hardly justifies their cause in a moral sense.

I'm confident that Eric's referring to the terrorists as "animals" was not meant to dehumanize them any more than they have dehumanized themselves.

Insurgents in Iraq routinely violate the Geneva Conventions regarding faking wounded status, non-uniformed combatants, etc. These conventions are indeed relics of a wealthy, white, European way of war, but some of them also serve a purpose, as the unfortunate wounded insurgent discovered in that video.

If your goal is the protection and eventual repatriation of wounded soldiers, you don't encourage your men to pretend to be wounded and then attack, thus taking advantage of that convention. If you do, the natural reaction of the enemy is to assume, as that soldier did, that all of your wounded are armed, dangerous, and should still be considered combatants.

Likewise, the requirement that all combatants be uniformed is instrumental in protecting actual non-combatants. This convention is routinely intentionally ignored by terrorist (as opposed to guerilla) actors, whose goals often include the provocation of general reprisals on civilian populations. Even countries that generally avoid wholesale retaliatory attacks, such as the U.S. and Israel, still tend to kill vastly more fighting-age male noncombatants than any other type of civilian. Of course, that number probably includes some combatant deaths reclassified as non-combatant deaths due to the inherent uncertainty of fighting non-uniformed combatants, but it's the best we can do as far as categorizing.

Aaron, monsters are people who kill unarmed civilians _intentionally_. I don't care who the killers are, and I don't care who the civilians are. There is no excuse for intentionally killing someone you know to be an unarmed non-combatant. For that matter, I don't think it's appropriate to kill surrendering soldiers, either, but different cultures have different approaches to that in different places and times (cf. the U.S. "take no prisoners" attitude toward the SS near the end of WWII). In that respect, there's no equivalence between the terrorist who bombs an Iraqi market and the soldier who shoots an Iraqi with a cell phone, thinking him to be the one about to trigger the bomb. The soldier's crime is recklessness, but the terrorists's crime is premeditated mass murder.

"The soldier's crime is recklessness, but the terrorists's crime is premeditated mass murder."

We have the luxury of claiming to be merely "reckless" because we're invading them. But there's nothing "reckless" about deciding to bomb or occupy a country -- you *know* civilians will be killed by the thousands. You just don't know which ones.

Recklessness may be a meaningful distinction to us, but not the people we're bombing/occupying. The fact that American soldiers were just "reckless" when they kill civilians is meaningless to the neighbors of those civilians.

A suicide bomber doesn't know which civilians he's going to kill; he just knows that some will die. How is that different from a U.S. general who knows that some civilians will die based on his order to drop bombs/take over a town -- he just doesn't know which ones? There's only one difference: the American general is deciding some civilians will die for OUR cause; the suicide bomber is deciding some civilians will die for his cause.

Let's say muslims invaded my town, to enforce their Islamic values and stop me from my decadent western ways. In doing so, they recklessly kill my neighbors while trying to maintain order. I don't know that I'd be able to restrain myself from killing anybody working as a contractor for said muslims -- basically acting just as the men in the video did.

Doing so would be evil, and unjustified, but I don't know that I'm strong enough to resist being that sort of evil. And clearly many in Iraq are unable to resist that sort of evil.

I disagree, as does the whole American legal system (and many other legal systems throughout history). Recklessness may leave people just as dead, but it's not the same crime as murder 1. The intent element is wholly lacking.

I'm not arguing that the men in the video were legitimate military targets up to a point. However, I think that point stopped when they presented no further threat. It may be viscerally satisfying to shred an unarmed, wounded enemy, but it's _wrong_. That's why we have courts. I don't care if you'd be able to restrain yourself, Aaron, and I don't know if I'd be able to do so, either. That doesn't make it right. Justice is about far more than mere vengeance.

For that matter, the practice of taking prisoners rather than brutally murdering them has its uses for both sides. That's why it's outlined in the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, and one more thing on this. The brutality of the attack is appalling. I don't care if you're the executioner at a state-sanctioned execution--to kill someone that brutally indicates a truly twisted mind. There's a massive difference between a clean execution and mutilating the body--the difference between someone who kills because he must and someone who kills because he is consumed by his hatred. The former can put down his weapon and return, like Washington, to the plow. The latter is more like a vampire, living on the blood of others until his own bloody death catches up with him.

A suicide bomber doesn't know which civilians he's going to kill; he just knows that some will die. How is that different from a U.S. general who knows that some civilians will die based on his order to drop bombs/take over a town -- he just doesn't know which ones? There's only one difference: the American general is deciding some civilians will die for OUR cause; the suicide bomber is deciding some civilians will die for his cause.

I'm sorry, did you just claim to not know the difference between a bombing in the course of military action and a suicide bombing on a wholly civilian target? I'm trying to argue reasonably here, but reason seems lost here. Let me flip this around: if the general could detonate his bomb with the same military effect without killing civilians, would he? If he be a man, no. If he be a monster, yes.

Compare, for instance, the attack on Osirak and the attack on the World Trade Center Towers. The former was conducted against a military/civilian target with such careful planning that only civilian (a janitor, IIRC) died. The latter was conducted against a wholly civilian (but important) target with the goal of killing as many civilians as possible. Are those morally equivalent?

We're not talking about a nuanced criminal sentencing system here, Steve. Killing recklessly and killing with intent both send you to jail for a really long time -- how's that? I don't see too many families of manslaughter victims saying "whew ... at least our loved one wasn't killed WITH INTENT. Then I'd really feel bad."

For purposes of analyzing whether U.S. military action is contributing to the growth of hatred and terrorism in the middle east, I don't think drawing nuanced distinctions between culpability levels is of much use. The fact is we're killing people they care about. They don't give a damn about our culpability. (We do, and of course should, but that's not the point).

I notice you're making objective value judgments about other people's behavior. For example, you claim to be able to tell "the difference between someone who kills because he must and someone who kills because he is consumed by his hatred." This power of mind-reading perception is beyond me. I try to understand people's motivations based on my own, rather than categorize them as "good" or "evil," "human or "monster."

****Let me flip this around: if the general could detonate his bomb with the same military effect without killing civilians, would he? If he be a man, no. If he be a monster, yes.*****

The distinction is pointless. What's important is that "military effect" trumps human life. Do terrorists suicide bomb randomly, for the fun of it? No, they place such bombs for the maximum "military effect" -- namely, whatever will have the maximum psychologial impact on the enemy.

That "military effect" is more important than the lives of the civilians killed -- the same equation as when a U.S. general wants to drive a bunker bomb through a Baghdad neighbour hood to root out a possible underground hiding place for Saddam.

******Compare, for instance, the attack on Osirak and the attack on the World Trade Center Towers. The former was conducted against a military/civilian target with such careful planning that only civilian (a janitor, IIRC) died.*****

You've abandoned your own "same military effect" test. In order to properly compare the two operations, you have to be able at least argue that the same military effect as the WTC attack could be accomplished by the terrorists while killing only one civilian.

Otherwise, you're bound to lose this little game, because I can compare any suicide attack, including 9/11, with the U.S. dropping of the atom bombs in WWII and say terrorists kill fewer civilians than America.

Aaron, it's evident to everyone else that you have lost any reasonable standard for comparing human behavior. If you want to conflate the operations of a standard military and particularly gruesome terrorists (we're not even talking about some elements of the old RUC and the old IRA, where there were few distinctions), and if you want to eliminate all questions of intent, both immediate and long-range, from your discussions of morality...then you are not only arguing for moral equivalence (which is not prima facie bad, but simply is usually wrong), you are actually an apologist for terrorists.

Paul, I'm sorry I've lost all reasonable standards for comparing killing civilians ... how irrational of me.

I now lack the clear, rational mind necessary to kill women and children when needed to advance our country's interests, so the terrorists, um, don't win. At least YOU can tell good from evil ... too bad I've lost the ability.

If you refuse to acknowledge any difference in intent (and, I might also point out, difference in how the organizations involved treat the soldiers or terrorists involved), then you are not thinking clearly, but rather asserting an unfalsifiable and practically useless norm.

Let me meet you halfway, and agree with the "unfalsifiable" part. Many, since many norms are that way.

Now we only disagree on whether killing civilians is "useful."

But that's a start. Now, just convince me that killing civilians is *useful* for us, and not *useful* for them, and we'll be in complete agreement.

Bah, that last post was too argumentative.

The norm is useful, Paul, because it leads to reconcilliation. If the actual people we fight are "monsters" (rather than fighting to the bitter end for an ideology we disagree with) then we might as well just wipe them off the face of the earth. Further, since we've noticed that their neighbors tend to become "monsters" as well, we've got a justification for eliminating their neighbors, too, to prevent the spread of monstrousness.

If we just admit that they're killing because it's "useful" (not because they're monsters) just like we're killing because it's "useful" (not because we're monsters) then perhaps we can move closer to STOPPING killing each other. That's the reason I oppose calling them monsters.

No, they're not killing because it's useful. It's accomplishing nothing for them. If anything, it's only succeeding in alienating the few Sunni allies they have left. Like the Palestinian "freedom" movement, it has degenerated into pointless murder and not-so-pointless racketeering.

A "monster" can be of any race or creed. They are mentally ill, and I don't think there's a cure for > 90% of them. By executing or imprisoning them, we not only stop them, but we also take a stand as a society for what is right.

This proceeds from the assumptions that war is not a priori wrong and that a suicide bombing on a wholly civilian target is. Disagreements on either of those two assumptions are much too complicated to discuss in a comment section, so I won't go there.

"monsters"

Like those who fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo?

Indiscriminate killing of civilians.

A contractor is not, never was and never will be, a "civilian". He is nothing more than the enemy without a uniform. He is without principle, apparently helping the enemy only for money.

and, as far as terrorists "doing there thing" without apparent "purpose", I find it interesting that such armchair philosophers easily make such statements, basking in the monitors glow, without bothering to understand what is happening in a distant land.

Taking the comments of Aaron further, I would like to point out that we are the aggressors in Iraq. The rationalizations for being there were created by thieves and exiles, not the residents.

If Al queda is there, it is at the request of actual residents.

As a vet., I never understood the thinking that the way to "defeat" terrorism was to "kill them all", when human history provides a multiplicity of diverse examples of why that tactic almost never works, and if it does, one usually ends up with a dictatorship.

Put yourself in the insurgent's shoes. What if an Islamic nation invaded the US, leveling cities and killing millions with their "smart weapons" and imposing their form of government (an Islamic theocracy) upon us? Do you think there would be no "insurgents"? Would the "insurgents", always on the run, take the time to tend to the wounded, or allow witnesses?

Yes, killing is always bad. I am sorry that those who started it, Bu$h&Co, will likely never have to face up to their perfidity.

I hesitate to respond to the kind of barking moonbat who would use a term like "Bu$h&Co," but allow me to interject that the huge turnout in the January elections quite overwhelmingly makes a lie of any claim that we are "imposing our form of government" on Iraq.