It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question to the people of ATS

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
This is the question that I made. Well I have not heard of it and I do not think that anyone asked this therefore I assume I’m the first person to post this.

The question is-
If people, are not allowed to kill other people. How comes soldiers have the right to?

What is your opinion about this?
Do you think it is right that they are allowed to do it or do you think we should be also without facing concequences?
Now I do not think that at any point a soldier is completely different from a human.

edit on 28/3/12 by hellzdoms because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hellzdoms
 


Unless in battle I'm sure a soldier usually has to ask permission before engaging an enemy. Even when in battle the soldier has been ordered to engage.

They're just doing they're job and (gross misconduct withstanding) the consequences fall to those above.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hellzdoms
 

It is my personal opinion that you shouldn't kill anyone unless it is in defense of your own life or your loved ones. I think that if countries wish to war with each other they should battle it out with giant robots like those in the movie "Real Steel"; that way nobody has to die for their government's beefs!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellzdoms
If people, are not allowed to kill other people. How comes soldiers have the right to?


Soldiers, whether they are from our country or another, have knowingly entered into a fight. When they join the military, they know they may be in a position to kill another person or to be killed. Ideally, there would be a demonstrable reason for one soldier to kill another.

War these days is just a street fight that's sanctioned by the governments of countries. I don't believe in killing except in self-defense. Not for revenge, passion, oil or money...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The military spends a great deal of time and money to reprogram soldiers to not think or act like a human being. That's why so many of them come home with PTSD. It is not in our nature to live under such stress and to witness and partake of the sort of things they are subjected to. It breaks them. Their brains in fact rewire themselves to try to cope.

It is unnatural to kill for any reason other than self preservation or that of ones family group. Each of us has to live with the choices we have made. I believe that each of us must also answer for those same choices and the ripple of effects it spawns. There is a price for killing paid out of our mental and emotional well being. Possibly even our spiritual well being.

Killing is in our animal nature but shouldn't we be evolved enough to have left our baser instincts behind? I wonder if there is a cost to our evolution as well.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Soldiers don't "get away with it."
Every action has a consequence, and many soldiers are burdened with
the memory of their actions for years if not for life.

I read once that the Soldier's Sacrifice wasn't one of time spent away from home, or
that they might die for their country. The real sacrifice was the sacrifice of the soul.

Whether someone believes in Karma, God, or even if they're an atheist with a moral code,
murder is murder, and it doesn't matter which other human gives you the greenlight, the price
is the same.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellzdoms
If people, are not allowed to kill other people. How comes soldiers have the right to?


edit on 28/3/12 by hellzdoms because: (no reason given)


The law doesn't allow it, but your will to survive does.

I have as much right as a soldier to kill another human being if I feel that my life is in danger, and I will. Screw the law.

The biggest difference here is that a soldier is ordered to do it by another higher ranking soldier. It's his/her job.

My will to survive would order that I kill or be killed.

Hope this helps.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Its kind of their job



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 


Well may I just say it does a bit. I asked my Religious education teacher and he had no clue how to answer it. He was stunned and shocked at the question which made me ask myself if you and the people on ATS could in somehow conclude to this.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Yeah,so I figured Sinny.
But on another note it is puzzling my brain.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


That is another topic that deserves discussion.
The way the government uses people to create an army that fights for no accurate purpose (In a media perspective)
Whereas on the other hand,they do not know the real reason for their location and job.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hellzdoms
 

You know, if your are serious about wanting the answer and logic behind that paradox of thinking, there are people you can go ask who are..quite literally..experts on that specific question and how to answer it.

Go find yourself a military Chaplain or drop a note to someone in Public Relations for that part of the Army and simply ask that question there. I'd be more interested in hearing the response and logic you get in return from them than what all our opinions are about it. After all, we don't live that question and deal with explaining it countless times. They do.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hellzdoms
 



If people, are not allowed to kill other people. How comes soldiers have the right to?


"Not allowed" by whom?

You're going to have to be more specific....the law, their religion? Both have exemptions to the rule.

Soldiers aren't the only ones. What about cops? What about doctors when suggesting DNR? People kill people all the time, legally, and ethically.

If you mean the Bible, you have to remember the different authors, so of course it is going to contradict itself. On one hand, it says "You Shall Not Kill" (Exodus), yet on another, "However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” (Deuteronomy) or “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” (Samuel).

The problem with "You Shall Not Kill" is the actual translation of the Hebrew word is more accurately murder...so, God wasn't against killing in war or punishment (the death penalty is listed for many crimes in the Bible), just premeditated murder outside of those guidelines.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
someone said killing is unnatural...ummm, it's one of our primal instincts, influenced by food and mating,
i'm guessing you've never watched NatGeo and seen two lions going at it?

I would also assume another reason for killing is to thin the herd to provide the opportunity for the strongest genetics to reproduce.
edit on 28-3-2012 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellzdoms
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 


Well may I just say it does a bit. I asked my Religious education teacher and he had no clue how to answer it. He was stunned and shocked at the question which made me ask myself if you and the people on ATS could in somehow conclude to this.


Maybe the question to ask would be better put as, "What is the difference between Killing and Murder?"

There is a difference between those two.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Well to be more specific. I mean in a country that does not allow public killing of other citizens.
Not allowed by the government.
I suppose police and doctors do but they both have a purpose to make decisions because of their profession but it still does not make them any different from others around them. Why does a profession allow a person to do such things.
But thanks for telling me and advising me of the different meanings



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


There is a difference.But they both are alike to each other because they both determine to destroy the person.
I will rephrase it hopefully and will find the time to ask him.

Thanks for the kind reply.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yeah,now only if I could find the time to ask an official member.Ill see what I can do.
Maybe one day I can do a follow up thread to this Question

Thanks for the suggestion.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Governments never state you can't kill another person regardless of reason.

Governments simply have rules that govern whether or not a killing was justified. For example, a government isn't going to say you can't kill someone in self-defense if that person is trying to kill you.

So no, no government expressly forbids killing regardless of reason.

In fact, I can think of only one religion (Buddhism) where killing (for any reason) is not "permitted".

Killing is "allowed" but only under specific circumstances all depending on your religion and your local and national laws. Simple as that.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellzdoms

If people are not allowed to kill other people. How comes soldiers have the right to?


Your first phrase assumes something is doing the preventing. I'm going to assume your local culture is admonishing you not to kill other people. Your local culture may have deified this so that the "message" comes "from God," but still, the underlying admonishment is cultural. Morality is defined by a culture.

Why would a local culture do that? Because if you are going to build a stable culture, killing off contributing members does not help do that. In some cultures, you are allowed or even encouraged to kill off some members: old people who have outlived their usefulness and no longer contribute are an example. Girl babies because the culture wants boys is another. "Honor" killings because you are embarrassed is a third.

So your first phrase is suspect from the start. It is not universally true. Cultures living in harsh environments are likely to have more exceptions to that rule than cultures living a relatively easy life. Even a culture that professes "Thou shall not kill" has many exceptions, usually allowing for self-defense, for example.

Now, what about soldiers? Soldiers are the personification of cultural power. They exist to defend the culture against outside enemies AND to project power, i.e.: to allow a given culture access to more resources. Who is the "enemy"? Anyone who is not part of your culture, who attacks your culture, or who prevents your culture from obtaining more resources. The enemy is an "OTHER," someone who is not from your culture. Historically "OTHERS" are branded as inferior to your culture because they do not share it. Barbarians were people who could not speak your language. Cultures always allow the killing of "OTHERS" because "OTHERS" are not entitled to the same protections as a fellow member of your culture. Yiou are human; they are primitive. They are animals. You are allowed to kill animals.

Now we are in a very unique time of history. Our brains evolved on the plains of Africa and the forests of Europe. Our world was as far as we could walk in a day or so. Nothing else mattered. Our tribal group was our culture, which was pretty much the same as the next tribal group down the road, to which we were related BECAUSE that kept the fighting down to a minimum. If your sister was married to a guy in the next tribe and lived with them, it was not in your best interests to attack them for no good reason.

But today every Bushman has a cell phone. If something happens in China, we know about it here within minutes. It takes a few hours, minutes even, to get to another culture.

So the answer to your question is easy, but your intent is laudable because you are expressing the idea that we ought to include "OTHERS" as part of our world culture so that we stop fighting.

It's a noble goal. Our culture says it is.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join