November 16, 2004

NBC: US Soldier Murders Unarmed Prisoner in Falluja. A television pool report by U.S. network NBC says that a U.S. Marine shot dead an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Falluja. via BoingBoing.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's fucking faking he's dead. He faking he's fucking dead." "The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said. No images of the shooting were shown in the footage provided to Reuters.

posted by scartol 20 years ago
  • Support the troops! (And in a mosque, no less. Way to win hearts and minds...)
  • It always strikes me as a bit funny odd when people express horror at things like this. Not that it isn't horrible, but how is it less horrible/repugnant if the same bullet had entered the same head from a nice anonymous distance, or off-camera? Are we then thinking "oops, it was an accident, he didn't mean to kill him." or "we can't tie that death to one individual's fault because he is protected by the anonymity of the assault" or "It's just one of those things." Sheesh.
  • Well, in the context of "kill or be killed", it is less horrible. If someone's shooting at you, your choices are fairly stark, and (to my mind, anyway) it's fairly morally defensible to fire back. (We'll lay aside the morality of signing up to be a professional killer who gets sent to invade and occupy a country...) Killing someone who's no longer a threat to you and is helpless cannot be defended by even the most convoluted moral rationales.
  • "I tremble before my nation when I think that God is just, that his justice will not sleep forever." ---- Thomas Jefferson
  • Let's do it man ! Let's do the whole fucking village !
  • The difference is the fact that it was done close up, on camera and in a deliberate fashion. It makes the person commiting the act more culpable, the same way that a first degree murder is different than a second degree murder or a manslaughter.
  • What will it take for the Christian Right currently in control of this country to start to act like Christians?
  • Mercurious: I find this particular incident horrible, but you are totally right: without the visceral stimulus the story provides, this wouldn't be nearly as affecting. It's only more horrible than the deaths without stories because of its story, in the same way that the back cover of a novel will not engage you in the same way as the novel itself. As much as we like to think so, the human mind is nearly incapable of putting faces on numbers or abbreviated, story-less 'incidents'. It's only through the visceral experience that our empathy is truly engaged, which is sad, but ultimately human nature. So, in brief, "It's just one of those things.".
  • Squidranch: The rapture?
  • First off: Support our troops != Support the war. I hated this war since day one and moreso every day, but will always have the grunts' backs. While I would not be for indiscriminate shooting of unarmed prisoners, I can see how it could happen after an intense two-day firefight. "Him or me" is a pretty strong impetus and andrenaline is potent indeed. These are the folks taking prisoners and beheading them on tape, a fact that must be in the back of every soldier's mind. Don't sit here and tell me that you could never do such a thing until you are in the same situtation. The truth of the matter is none of us has any clue what we would do unless it happened to us. The "in a mosque" bit holds no water and is really starting to get tired too. The insurgents are, to their mind, holy warriors, often led by their clerics. Militarily speaking the mosques are not places of worship, they are the bunkers, barracks, munition depots and HQ's of the insurgent groups. Hearts and minds is over, options now are pave the place over or get out. Neither is a desireable option but there really is no tenable middle ground in Iraq at this point and these are the best options for the troops.
  • Pivo: not to be a ditto-head, but ditto. That's a concept that's a bit difficult to explain to the masses, but it is an important concept.
  • *sad*
  • Oh how I hate shit like this.
  • but will always have the grunts' backs
    Apparently even when they murder unarmed men.
  • The report said the Marine, who had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier, had been removed from the field and was being questioned by the U.S. military. Couldn't that give a soldier some fucked-up, hairtrigger, trauma-colored reactions? Not that I condone killing unarmed prisoners, not at all, I'm just pointing out that it caught my eye in the article.
  • Bloody fucking awful, but better this than being tortured in a place like Abu Ghraib.
  • Fuck. Sorry, everyone, for the stupid, useless, horrible comment.
  • Deaths like this do occur in the heat of battle and in the stench of war. This is an awful event, but it is one that comes with the territory. That is why there had better be a very, very good reason for going to war in the first place.
  • The "in a mosque" bit holds no water and is really starting to get tired too. I suspect it is quite meaningful to the other people of Islam who are not engaged in the use of mosques for warfare. There will be far too many who will simply regard such as this as further violation, regardless of whatever lead to it. The troops are weary and losing their sense of proportion... as in Vietnam.
  • Hey shinything, it's understandable.
  • What will it take for the Christian Right currently in control of this country to start to act like Christians? They are acting like Christians. Haven't you read any history books?
  • Shinything: As someone who has seen action, well, Don't apologize. Wake up: war is hell. The training for war is to put a person into such chaos that they will snap and kill anything they don't recognize as their own. With prejudice. Actual war reinforces this concept when those around you that you have trained with and know like brothers (and sisters) start to die. These people are trained to kill. I'm going to repeat that: THESE PEOPLE ARE TRAINED TO KILL. The things they say, the emotions they show, at the point of killing are irrelevent. This is the individual shining through, in some way. But it is not the person. It is the machine of a human that has cost the military several million dollars to train and produce that is killing that person. I can guess that a 'higher up' (some one up the food chain in the military) could look at this and say 'good, good'. War sucks. Get use to it. War kills. Soapbox: this is what those who voted for this administration need to realize. When you voted for W, you voted for killing. Yes, Kerry would have had to kept on killing, but W started it, and by voting for him you said, 'Hey, this is OK, keep killing'. Remember this.
  • OMFG, dup post. Sorry. Someone, please delete one of them.
  • Give me that old testament religion, Give me that old testament religion, Give me that old testament religion, It is good enough for me. Give me that old (CLAP) testament (CLAP, CLAP) religion, Give me that old (CLAP) testament (CLAP, CLAP) religion, Give me that old (CLAP) testament (CLAP, CLAP) religion, 'Cause its good enough for me!
  • Somebody kill one of them.
  • The posts that is.
  • I guess what I meant to say earlier is not to act like Christians, but to act like Christ. He seemed a bit freaky-stylie sometimes, but not someone who would put a bullet in someone's head.
  • You only needed to spend a year in Vietnam :\ Ditto to Melinka and bernockle. There's no need to paint the troops with the broad brush though, this really is a case of a bad apple, an apple that shouldn't have been there in the first place, but never the less. If we support the troops then maybe they can get through the war with their sanity intact and we won't have to hear about a Mei Ling in the next five months. No need to make more people suffer (and considering the record troop suicide rate, the suffering is pretty tangible). Don't let Bush's abuse of the term leave such a bad taste in your mouth. Then the Rublicans win.
  • Why do assume he's part of the Christian Right?
  • To quote Bush's friends, these are End Times, and Bush's goal is to hasten the Rapture. We all need to be closer to Christ, according to these yahoos, preferably up on the Holy Ghost's level if at all possible.
  • Um, but the soldier? Technicly the Christian Right is responsible in the sense that the first cluster of molecules to form a cell are responsible.
  • They weren't in a mosque, a holy site?
  • I'm confused, I think you were talking to squidranch and I thought you were trying to say that the US Soldier was somehow connected to the Christian Right.
  • on=in
  • I'm not assuming that the soldier was christian, just that the people currently in power, who sent him there, are. I don't think that christ would have condoned their actions. Can't say for certain, but I have a feeling he would be against this.
  • You think he shot the insurgent because he was in a Mosque? A dude just like him shot that soldier in the face. I am Mr.Tinhat, believe me, but come on.
  • I guess upon reading what I had written earlier, it does appear that I am assuming that the soldier was christian. My mistake. Nonetheless, I have had many conversations with right wing friends who profess to be christian, yet at the same time are rather blood thirsty in their passion for this war. A christian friend actually told me that the people at Abu Graib "deserved" to be treated that way since we were there to help them. It just doesn't strike me as a very "christian" idea to argue for war and destruction.
  • And by the way, I do blame the first cluster of molecules to form a cell. War mongering fucking molecules!!!
  • "Christian" in the modern American sense has almost nothing to do with the four books of the bible that describe the man and his life. Rather, these people are "OldTestamentians." Ironically, they sometimes don't like Jews. As an aside, I am starting a church that emphasizes love your neighbor, help the poor, turn the other cheek, he who is without sin, etc. I am calling it Jesusocity and the believers shall be Jesusocitists.
  • It's high time we suceeded from this matter/energy/dark matter based universe! And: 'The Kingdom of heaven proceeds violently' -Jesus...I think
  • We never learn.
  • They are acting like Christians. Haven't you read any history books? Correction... they are acting like false Christians, apostate Christians. Acts 20:29,30 - "I know that as soon as I'm gone, vicious wolves are going to show up and rip into this flock, men from your very own ranks twisting words so as to seduce disciples into following them instead of Jesus." For true Christian conduct, I refer you to Jesus' words about his followers at John 17:16 -"They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to it." I don't think many would argue that what passes for "Christianity" today isn't what Jesus had in mind.
  • I don't think many would argue that what passes for "Christianity" today isn't what Jesus had in mind. Funny, I hear that same rationalization from the Marxist grad students down the street about Stalinist Russia and Communism.
  • 'The Kingdom of heaven proceeds violently' -Jesus...I think John the Baptist, actually. And your interpretation of it in the context of this discussion is more than a little off from what he was saying. Matthew 11:12
  • Funny, I hear that same rationalization from the Marxist grad students down the street about Stalinist Russia and Communism. I'm no expert on Marxism, but it wouldn't be the first decent idea that was flawed in it's execution (or its executioners). Using YOUR logic, how far back should the blame for what this soldier did go? His commander? The person who thought up this offensive? The Commander in Chief?
  • Using YOUR logic, how far back should the blame for what this soldier did go? His commander? The person who thought up this offensive? The Commander in Chief? Why stop there? I point my fingers at 51% of America's shamelessly stupid voters, the POTUS, chiefs of staff, etc. Everyone's hands are bloody in this one, but especially the voters who thought Our Fearless Leader was the safe choice. They had a decision to make and they failed, and the end result is one more needless, senseless death that will recruit 100 more terrorists who hate all Americans (including the other 49%) even more.
  • As for me, I would indeed blame and prosecute the soldier for this single war crime. As for the stupid, trumped up war that he is unfortunate enough to be forced to fight, I would lay the blame directly at the feet of the Buffoon In Chief.
  • Where'd my comment go?
  • [unless I didn't actually hit "post."]
  • What comment hawthornwingo?
  • How can any of you compare this war to Vietnam when there is absolutely no real meaningful anti-war feeling in the country? No, talking about it on your blogs don't count. (Regarding the soldier: Looks like he plays too much counter-strike.) PS. Supporting the troops = Supporting the war unless you are living in some other dimension.
  • Squid, I wrote something that started "Oh, crap. Fuel for the fire," then continued along the lines of: "Now let's wait for the apologists, who'll say things like 'one bad apple' and 'shit happens in war.' Regardless, this'll be one more piece of evidence for those who think the rot starts at the top in terms of how the U.S. is operating in Iraq. And the really important thing is that some good chunk of the Muslim world is probably going to look at this as proof of American evil." Relative to what's been said after I thought I posted, not really inflammatory. Thought I posted right after the meh's "the rapture?" post. But again, I may just have left the thread without actually posting the comment.
  • Supporting the troops = Supporting the war unless you are living in some other dimension. I don't agree. The troops are a bunch of 19 year olds, and a bunch of somewhat older folks most of whom were in it more for the extra spending money than anything else. (That latter is the reserves, if I'm not being clear enough.)
  • Sorry, everyone, for the stupid, useless, horrible comment. Just makes you human like the rest of us, shinything. The apology is most likely proof you're one of the good ones.
  • My bad, mecurious. By supporting the troops I mean not calling them baby-killers or unarmed-insurgents-in-mosques-killers because it only makes things worse. Holding the whole military accountable for not refusing to go, while perhaps morally consistent, is hardly pragmatic.
  • Not all soldiers are murderers. But this one is. And don't blame the military, or his training, or the stress. He made the decision. He pulled the trigger. he is responsible.
  • Well, I think everyone, as usual, has put up some damn fine commentary. I guess here's where I say 'me too' re prosecuting the kid who murdered an unarmed wounded man who was no threat. Just one more example of why this country and it's people are becoming more and more vilified across the world. This country's military increasingly looks like extras from 'Mad Max' in military uniforms these days. . .
  • Imagine what the OTHER side would have done to the same american kid if HE was a prisoner.. what do the other side do to their prisoners/hostages? worse than the americans? Paraded on camera, then beheaded, would be a lucky escape.. This doesn't make it right, just that people shouldn't act so damn surprised/offended at an act of war..
  • Well I guess "supporting the troops" is pretty vague. ie. Are you supporting things they do, the reason they are sent to war etc.
  • Sorry, HawthorneWingo, but I didn't delete any comments. Maybe you did forget to hit post?
  • Actually saw this on ABC (Oz) news tonight. V. unattractive look.
  • Imagine what the OTHER side would have done to the same american kid if HE was a prisoner.. what do the other side do to their prisoners/hostages? worse than the americans? Paraded on camera, then beheaded, would be a lucky escape.. no, in fact that would be death. hypotheses, however valid, about how iraqi insurgents would treat a captured member of an occupying armed force are beside the point. the point is that a u.s. soldier was (allegedly) caught on camera shooting an unarmed and wounded prisoner in a mosque. judging from the article, it's probable the prisoner was lying on the ground. ...people shouldn't act so damn surprised/offended at an act of war.. think about it, there's a bunch of guys lying on the ground. one appears to be breathing. marine fires his rifle into the guy's head. this isn't an act of war; it's a summary execution.
  • Imagine what the OTHER side would have done to the same american kid if HE was a prisoner.. what do the other side do to their prisoners/hostages? worse than the americans? --------------------------------------- Lest we forget, we're supposed to be the 'good guys' who set an example for the world. . . The good guys don't take a wounded man and pump him full of bullets. They fix him up then take him out for cookies and ice cream while comparing their lives and waxing philosophic about how similar they are yet a world away. Then the bad guy goes back to his bad guy friends, talks to them, they get all weepy, throw down their arms and run to the americans saying "We wanna be good guys *too*! ! ! War over. Flowers in the streets, cake and ice cream for all. At least that's how it *used* to be portrayed . . .
  • The point is, in the scheme of things - and given the reasons we're supposed to be in Iraq right now - it doesn't matter in the slightest if we can find reasons to justify this soldier's actions to ourselves. Personally, I can sympathise with (but not justify) what the guy did. In a high pressure situation, I can see how Geneva Convention rules would indeed seem irrelevant ("quaint"), especially when the other side aren't playing by them. War is, I am given to believe, hell, and dehumanising people is a disturbingly easy path to tread. But thing is, it doesn't matter if I can sympathise, or if somebody else can justify it, or if we condemn it or we feel saddened by it or if we support the troops or we don't. Because it's not us who it has to be justified to. It's the people of Iraq, the people of the Islamic world, the young muslim men teetering on the brink of radicalism. They are the ones who'll sit in judgement on this. Because if our troops are seen as brutalising, lawless oppressors, and if our actions only end up creating more radicals or terrorists, then really... what was the damn point?
  • Thanks everybody for understanding. This story hit me hard.
  • Because if our troops are seen as brutalising, lawless oppressors, and if our actions only end up creating more radicals or terrorists, then really... what was the damn point? We're on a mission from God. Oh, and there's some sweet crude there, too.
  • if our actions only end up creating more radicals or terrorists, then really... what was the damn point? To ensure more republican victories? Seriously, war is good for the ballot box, and they know it.
  • Sorry, to clarify: what was the [consistent with current or past rhetorical public justifications of the war] point?
  • "Imagine what the OTHER side would have done to the same american kid if HE was a prisoner.. what do the other side do to their prisoners/hostages? worse than the americans?" That's a "tu quoque" fallacy ("you also"). We, as Americans, should not be holding ourselves to the standard of "are we better than terrorists?" because terrorists are always sinking lower on the moral barometer. We should be holding ourselves to the standards of American idealism, of striving for liberty and justice for all. That's the problem with the constant "Well, we're better than Saddam" bullshit. Of course we are. But are we as good as we can be? No. And for that, we need to hold those in charge accountable (which 51% of us failed to do). I believe America to be the greatest country on Earth in terms of freedoms and opportunities. Every "well, we didn't behead them" just makes us worse. Or, to coin a phrase, why do you hate America?
  • There is no point. The points keep changing to distract people. One week was the need to destroy non-existent WMDs, another week it was because Saddam was a tyrant who we put in power, the other week was that we needed to smoke out non-existent terrorists in Iraq, yet another point was our need to rebuild the Middle East, because that was how we were going to fix the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that week. Our current goal is to turn the brownskins into God-fearing Christians.
  • MATHIEU Let's try to be precise then. The word "torture" does not appear in our orders. We have always spoken of interrogation as the only valid method in a police operation directed against unknown enemies. As for the NLF, they request that their members, in the event of capture, should maintain silence for twenty-four hours, and then, they may talk. Thus, the organization has already had the time necessary to render useless any information furnished ... What type of interrogation should we choose? ... the one the courts use for a crime of homicide which drags on for months? 3RD JOURNALIST The law is often inconvenient, colonel ... MATHIEU And those who explode bombs in public places, do they perhaps respect the law? When you asked that question to Ben M'Hidi, remember what he said? No, gentlemen, believe me, it is a vicious circle. And we could discuss the problem for hours without reaching any conclusions. Because the problem does not lie here. The problem is: the NLF wants us to leave Algeria and we want to remain. Now, it seems to me that, despite varying shades of opinion, you all agree that we must remain. When the rebellion first began, there were not even shades of opinion. All the newspapers, even the left-wing ones wanted the rebellion suppressed. And we were sent here for this very reason. And we are neither madmen nor sadists, gentlemen. Those who call us fascists today, forget the contribution that many of us made to the Resistance. Those who call us Nazis, do not know that among us there are survivors of Dachau and Buchenwald. We are soldiers and our only duty is to win. Therefore, to be precise, I would now like to ask you a question: Should France remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences.
  • The question remains: If we want a war, a war we shall get, with all of it's uglyness. Is that what you want? Those who support war, and yet have not the strength to stomach it's revultions, nor the will to fight the war itself deserve no pity, nor repreive from the great injustice they have wrought. This is what i knew would happen and this is why i walked in the streets and hoped my voice would be heard, but alas, it was not. listen well, you hawks, heed me, This poor boy, who did this deed, I feel for him, I do not blame him. You put a man in hell, you will get a demon. I blame you. You who beleived that this war was worth the lives and souls of our young men. This is what you have done, take it, make it your own, because a little part of you destroyed that soldiers soul. A few bad apples. Damn what a cop out. Way to blame the troops. You hawks, you own this war. It is yours. All of it. Me, I think that guy should never have been put back out in the field after having been shot in the goddamn face, but that's what happens when you don't put enough boots on the ground in the first 24 hours on an invasion and start running our of troops due to massive mismanagement. btw, the above quote was from The Battle of Algiers. Fantastic movie. I recommend it for all.
  • Freen: You mean that because of the inherent high cost and brutality of war, it should only be used as a last resort, and only in cases where winning the war outstrips the price? Hmm...
  • JS: Yes, and I also am saying that, those who support war must understand that things like this happen, and must be able to stomach it, and accept that they support such behavior. Perhaps not explicitly, but they are opening the doors of hell by advocating war. There have been wars that i approved of. Particularly i approved of our actions in Kosovo, although i was quite young at the time, and probably don't remember much of it. Terrible things happened in Kosovo. It was war. However, I beleived and still do beleive that those terrible things were worth it, and that it was not a few bad apple that did it, it was the choice to go to war that made those atrocities happen. (the ones that American troops probably, but not necessarily committed.) When you advocate war, you own it. All of it. The essence of my position is nicely summed up by Colonel Mathieu in The Battle of Algiers. If you want war, you want all that comes with it. Especially a war so bungled as this. If you are pro war, you can still be anti-atrocity, but only insofar as you understand that atrocities are inextricably linked to the war you considered just and necessary. That is why the "few bad apples" response from the hawks irks me so much, particularly when you have the soon to be attonrey general writing memos about how we can ignore the Geneva conventions when we feel like it. War is the bad apple.
  • Tracicle: I doubted that you had, and figured that I'd neglected to actually post the thing. Thanks for the confirmation, though!
  • nicely said (or quoted) Freen
  • Freen: Fuckin' liberal nuance. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. WAR RULZ!!!111oneone!
  • Jesus was teh R0x0r$ at teh CounterStrike, Mad 1337 sN1P3R $ki11Z d00d. Word up on teh destruction of the heathens! It's what jesus would want.
  • "And we are neither madmen nor sadists, gentlemen." Wrong. People who claim this invariably are both. The thing is that people think madness and sadism are not true to human nature, that they are irregularities. Wrong.
  • The thing is that people think madness and sadism are not true to human nature, that they are irregularities. There is no such thing as "human nature"...only personal choices. And individuals must be held accountable for the choices they make.
  • "There is no such thing as "human nature"...only personal choices." That statement makes no sense to me. If there are only personal choices, then humanity as a whole has made spectacularly limited ones. Choices over a limited set of criteria, based on very basic variations upon repeating themes.
  • Newsweek reports that the U.S. is seriously considering training Kurdish death squads to quash the insurgents.
  • Sure. A divide-and-rile policy.
  • Oh, cool! Kurdish death squads. Why that oughtta work out peachy, down the road when the civil war develops. Yes, Mr. American. We will take arms and money from you and work for you, killing the, ah, insurgents. Please deliver the arms as soon as possible, love, the Kurds.
  • ...then humanity as a whole has made spectacularly limited ones. Those spectacularly limited choices were not made by humanity. Those were made by shitheads. It's shithead nature to perform shitty acts. If it's not done by all humans, it's non-sensical to say it's human nature. It's kinda like saying that since a large number of humans speak English, it must be human nature to speak English.
  • It's not just a matter of choice, its a matter of forces. A person chooses to do what's right because they are either motivated by their vanity or possibly love. When you make a choice you have to appeal to some interest to do the leg work for you and in order to do that you hash out what's in your best interest and choose an answer. That's all you ever do. And if you can't find a reason for the choice you really want, you dellude yourself. I think perhaps what ends up becoming "human nature" may just be a matter of exposure. You'd learn English if you were exposed to it enough at a young age. You'd treat women like shit if that's what you've grown up believing. All actions come from some story, some version of the world and that's picked up even in the subtlest elements of human interaction. And if your story doesn't fit together on its own then yours or someone else's dodgy logic equation will slip in and all of a sudden rape looks likes a lot of fun. And you may look at that and say that can't be, but once your looking at it you're trying to change it and that part you've seperated from yourself never learns any differently and fights back against all your suppression.
  • Well I guess, more to the point, there are only so many pleasures in the world and men are ruled by their pleasures. Once experienced people spend their lives trying to regain what they've lost. In their pursuit they are not likely to care about anything else, and will drop everything they don't believe will lead them to their goal. So people do shitty things because all they really care about is their pride, sense of control, sensual pleasures, etc. That's human nature and that's the problem.
  • On Human Nature - "According to [Donald] Brown, the Universal People have the following: "Value placed on articulateness. Gossip. Lying. Misleading. Verbal humor. Humorous insults. Poetic and rhetorical speech forms. Narrative and storytelling. Metaphor. Poetry with repetition of linguistic elements and three-second lines separated by pauses. Words for days, months, seasons, years, past, present, future, body parts, inner states (emotions, sensations, thoughts), behavioral propensities, flora, fauna, weather, tools, space, motion, speed, location, spatial dimensions, physical properties, giving, lending, affecting things and people, numbers (at the very least "one," "two," and "more than two"), proper names, possession. Distinctions between mother and father. Kinship categories, defined in terms of mother, father, son, daughter, and age sequence. Binary distinctions, including male and female, black and white, natural and cultural, good and bad. Measures. Logical relations including "not," "and," "same," "equivalent," "opposite," general versus particular, part versus whole. Conjectural reasoning (inferring the presence of absent and invisible entities from their perceptible traces). "Nonlinguistic vocal communication such as cries and squeals. Interpreting intention from behavior. Recognized facial expressions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, and contempt. Use of smiles as a friendly greeting. Crying. Coy flirtation with the eyes. Masking, modifying, and mimicking facial expressions. Displays of affection. "Sense of self versus other, responsibility, voluntary versus involuntary behavior, intention, private inner life, normal versus abnormal mental states. Empathy. Sexual attraction. Powerful sexual jealousy. Childhood fears, especially of loud noises, and, at the end of the first year, strangers. Fear of snakes. "Oedipal" feelings (possessiveness of mother, coolness toward her consort). Face recognition. Adornment of bodies and arrangement of hair. Sexual attractiveness, based in part on signs of health and, in women, youth. Hygiene. Dance. Music. Play, including play fighting...."
  • "....Manufacture of, and dependence upon, many kinds of tools, many of them permanent, made according to culturally transmitted motifs, including cutters, pounders, containers, string, levers, spears. Use of fire to cook food and for other purposes. Drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Shelter. Decoration of artifacts. "A standard pattern and time for weaning. Living in groups, which claim a territory and have a sense of being a distinct people. Families built around a mother and children, usually the biological mother, and one or more men. Institutionalized marriage, in the sense of publicly recognized right of sexual access to a woman eligible for childbearing. Socialization of children (including toilet training) by senior kin. Children copying their elders. Distinguishing of close kin from distant kin, and favoring of close kin. Avoidance of incest between mothers and sons. Great interest in the topic of sex. "Status and prestige, both assigned (by kinship, age, sex) and achieved. Some degree of economic inequality. Division of labor by sex and age. More child care by women. More aggression and violence by men. Acknowledgment of differences between male and female natures. Domination by men in the public political sphere. Exchange of labor, goods, and services. Reciprocity, induding retaliation. Gifts. Social reasoning. Coalitions. Government, in the sense of binding collective decisions about public affairs. Leaders, almost always nondictatorial, perhaps ephemeral. Laws, rights, and obligations, including laws against violence, rape, and murder. Punishment. Conflict, which is deplored. Rape. Seeking of redress for wrongs. Mediation. In-group/out-group conflicts. Property. Inheritance of property. Sense of right and wrong. Envy. "Etiquette. Hospitality. Feasting. Diurnality. Standards of sexual modesty. Sex generally in private. Fondness for sweets. Food taboos. Discreetness in elimination of body wastes. Supernatural beliefs. Magic to sustain and increase life, and to attract the opposite sex. Theories of fortune and misfortune. Explanations of disease and death. Medicine. Rituals, including rites of passage. Mourning the dead. Dreaming, interpreting dreams. "Obviously, this is not a list of instincts or innate psychological propensities; it is a list of complex interactions between a universal human nature and the conditions of living in a human body on this planet. Nor, I hasten to add, is it a characterization of the inevitable, a demarcation of the possible, or a prescription of the desirable. A list of human universals a century ago could have included the absence of ice cream, oral contraceptives, movies, rock and roll, women's suffrage, and books about the language instinct, but that would not have stood in the way of these innovations." -Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct
  • So, flash, do you have an interpretation for all that? The invenory seems ok, but do you see a broader meaning in it. Please hope me, oh boyinsh one!
  • He's obviously trying to say that if the soldier had some ice cream , none of this would have happened
  • Well it does show that there is something keeping humanity doing the same, very specific things thus making a case for a universal nature (but by what means is still debatable).
  • Ah. Apologies. It was rather an overlong contribution to the minor "is there such a thing as Human Nature?" derail. The point was simply that both simple statements like "there's no such thing as human nature", and the horrifically in-depth debate in Social Anthropology aout the existence of "Human Universals", tend to ignore the overwhelming evidence of just how much commonality there is across every culture in the world. Obviously, if you apply the test Knickerbocker does above - is it something that is true for all humans? - then most items from that list are lost; many people are not frightened of snakes, a few are incapable of social reasoning, and no doubt a tiny number will be utterly unaffected by any form of music. But I think that's a needlessly (and uselessly) restrictive conception of human nature. To put it in terms of rocket88's claim that "there are only personal choices", the point is that given any group of people in a certain environment, the type of personal choices displayed will normally fit into fairly recognisable patterns. Nostril wrote about the "spectacularly limited" set of choices humans make; every item on that list is an example of just that, choices which every human culture has at least a plurality, usually a majority, and very often a unanimity of people who've made the same choice. In the context of a soldier who may well have been frightened, and might have been murderous, shooting dead an injured man in Fallujah: you might be able to train one person so that they would never act in such a manner. You may be able to train thousands (many, of course, would need no such training, and rather need extremem conditioning to be able to kill at all). But, even in a carefully selected group, you will never be able to train all. That just doesn't tie in with the "complex interactions between a universal human nature, and the conditions of living in a human body on this planet."
  • When people are taught to do brutal things, and are afraid of brutal things being done to them, they go haywire. Soldiers in war zones don't all go nuts, by any means, but some soldiers are none too stable to begin with, and if officers look the other way or start thing it's OK, then ye end up with a Mai Lai or this sort of sad and criminal incident. Ao one ever wants to belive that otherwise nice American/British/Scottish/German/ etc etc boys could do such a terrible thing; the resulting investigations are often way out of line with the gravity of actual events. And the whole ugly matter gets brushed under the rug after one or two offenders catch it in the neck. And it keeps happening in wars. In fact, it characters the excesses people at war can think is ok at the time.