Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Military slideshow
#1

Posted by a member of another forum.
http://www.clermontyellow.accountsupport...ilThen.swf

Sit, stay, ok, hold it! Awww, no drooling! :O
My flickr images
Reply
#2

The pictures are very interesting... not onyl from the artistic point of view, but also in content... Thanks for sharing Petographer Smile

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#3

the photos, technically, are excellent.

However, war is never justified and soldiers are never heroes. Any attempt to portray war and soldiers as such serves only to further spread the lie that violence can be successfully countered with violence.

We live in a culture of violence that we have created. Any glorification of violence - in any form - should be met with a simple "No, thank you." Usually that means turning off the TV, but in this case it means closing a browser window - unfortunately my visit has been duly recorded and the resultant statistics will be used - I am sure - to show how supportive we all are of these 'heroes.'

Not that I blame the soldiers - they are as much victims as are their enemies. Victims of a violent society that has told them from the day they were born that violence is an appropriate means of disposing of an enemy.


*steps down off soapbox *

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply
#4

Cailean Wrote:However, war is never justified and soldiers are never heroes.


Never? Historically never? Ever?

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#5

Nope, never.

War is a political justification for murder. Heroes are those who stand in face of violence and refuse to use it.

To learn more about nonviolence, you can visit:
http://www.gandhiinstitute.org in particular, http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/AboutUs/Links.cfm#4
http://www.mettacenter.org
http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply
#6

Cailean Wrote:War is a political justification for murder.


You seem to be implying that murder is the goal.

Was that the goal of the allied forces against the Third Reich?

Is there no justification for defense? Is there no justification for self-defense?

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#7

There is no justification for violence. Period. To deliberately kill another human being is murder - always - if not legally, than morally.

I admit, WWII is a tricky one to get your head around... But keep in mind that violence created the problem but didn't solve it. We're talking about millenia of human conditioning that violence is an acceptable means of expression. The Reich used very sophisticated psychological techniques to create an environment (long before the war began) where violence was justified when used to as a means to bring about a specific end, ie: preservation of the race, etc. This violence led quickly to a violent response from the West, accompanied by many of the same psychological techniques (ie, violence as a justified means to an end).

This is not to say that the world should have stood by and done nothing. Nonviolent action is different (and infinitely more effective) than passive inaction. I will not presume to suggest what nonviolent techniques could have stopped the Nazis in 1939 (or earlier) but I can say that, with a few exceptions, none were tried - and that is regrettable.

In terms of self-defence, an attacker's life is no less valuable than mine. I have no more right to take his life than he has to take mine. As moderate peacenik, however, I will use violence to prevent the taking of either life - but no further. "Kill or be killed" is a myth - there is always a third way.

Violence has, generally, two sources: desperation and dehumanization. If a person is desperate, violence is suddenly an viable option. If you have no hope, what have you got to lose by resorting to violence? Suicide and street crime are often examples, though some terrorism can be explained this way - at least partly. Violence rooted in desperation can be countered with hope. The gift of hope makes violence unnecessary. (stay with me here...)

The effect of dehumanization is the most pervasive cause of violence. It is often present in cases that are also rooted in desperation. Essentially, if a victim is less than human, or at least less human than the aggressor, violence becomes easier. This was the main technique of the Reich - and countless regimes before and since. This is also why the US Army uses off-the-shelf video games to train its soldiers - not for eye-hand coordination, or tactics. It is to reinforce that targets are not human. Similarly, terrorists are indoctrinated to believe that their targets are less than human.

The use of video games by the Army to dehumanize targets begs the question: If it works on soldiers, what does do to our kids? The answer very clearly lies in the steadily increasing incidence and intensity of violence among young people. TV, of course, plays it's part, but it merely desensitizes the observation of violence. Shoot-em-up video games allow children (and adults) to engage in violence without tangible consequences. Eventually, the perceived consequences disppear entirely - whether the violence is real or unreal.

Abu Graib prison is an excellent example of dehumanization in action. Why is the world so shocked? If we condition soldiers to believe that an enemy is of so little human value that he deserves to die, is torture really such a stretch?

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply
#8

Cailean Wrote:I will use violence to prevent the taking of either life - but no further.


I appreciate the consistency of your convictions, and agree with many of them at least at an intellectual level. Where I guess I disagree is in the degree of violence that I think is acceptable in response to an attack, especially at the individual level, and even if that attack is not life-threatening. But I have my biases ... Big Grin

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#9

slejhamer Wrote:But I have my biases ... Big Grin

Don't we all! Big Grin

Upon reflection, I seems foolish to suggest how I would act in any particular situation. Perhaps, how I would hope to act is more appropriate.

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply
#10

Beautifiul slideshow!

Too bad some people don't think that these people are heroes defending our freedom. It is all to easy to sit at your desk in your underwear and say that you would not use violence even if attacked. There are lots of mean, nasty people in the world and throughout the ages there has been plenty more. We have to deal with these people or let them run amuck. Our country, our families and our way of life is at stake from these crazed people
Think about what you would do if your family were attacked. I know it is hypothetical, but if your child was attacked and both the child and attacker were injured, which would you save. The attackers life is just as important as your child. No doubt in my mind what I would do. It is sad to think that you would even have to consider saving the person that attacked your child.

Remember that freedom is not free and many people have paid the ultimate price for your ability to say the things you say.

I salute our military!
Tim
Reply
#11

Firstly let me say, great slideshow and wonderful photos.Pet-o...

To contribute to the discussion regarding violence and war - I can't help but think about the futility of non-violence, when one side is continually geared towards perpetuating the violence. I've just read "Unscathed" by Major Phil Ashby which was about SAS peacekeeping experiences in Sierra Leone and I'm currently reading "Warrior Soul: The Memoir of a Navy SEAL" by Chuck Pfarrer. The latter has a large chunk devoted to the peacekeeping involvement in Beirut. Before that I also devoured another book regarding SAS involvement in Afghanistan (can't remember title or author though).

In both cases, the authors were involved in peackeeping action in courtries where civil war and violence was such a way of life -- ingrained in their culture and upbringing -- that they had no option but to resort to violence to avoid beig killed themselves. Peacekeepers are generally unarmed and wear uniforms to clearly designate themselves as such -- and instead of honouring their efforts, the "enemy" perpetually attempted to take advantage of them, in some cases taking them hostage and killing the peacekeepers.

I probably can't speak regarding the global politcs and ulterior motives for intervention by peacekeeping countries but my observations of reading the books are (1) should we let countries tear themselves apart through civil war and sitting on the sidelines doing nothing or (2) should we intervene through peacekeeping which almost seems futile, or (3) take "corrective action" where violence is used to destabilise a corrupt government in the hope that a better one can be instated (ala Afghanistan) ?


Hm... more questions than answers I'm afraid... Rolleyes


p.s. Welcome to Shuttertalk Big Tim! Big Grin
Reply
#12

"For it is the doom of men, that they forget."

I think the line above sums up my views on world politics.... seems the same mistakes have to be made every few decades.

2 Different Corporals have ravaged Europe in war when left unchecked with their expansion plans.
Reply
#13

Big Tim Wrote:Remember that freedom is not free and many people have paid the ultimate price for your ability to say the things you say.

I salute our military!

Blah, blah...pretty words from anonymous guest. Post 911 - freedom means no freedom at all - protecting privacy is supporting terrorism (Hello Patriot Act). Nobody fighting in the world now is protecting my freedom - my freedom is protected by freedom of speech and freedom of expression - not by bombing civilians into the stone-age to protect oil profits.
Reply
#14

Hmmm, I don't know who to quote first!! Smile Well, let's go in order....

Big Tim Wrote:I know it is hypothetical, but if your child was attacked and both the child and attacker were injured, which would you save.
I'm not sure either option requires the use of violence...
Big Tim Wrote:Remember that freedom is not free and many people have paid the ultimate price for your ability to say the things you say.
Quite right on both counts. My contention, however, is not that the ends are misguided, but the means.

ST Wrote:Peacekeepers are generally unarmed
I am rather surprised at this... I don't believe I've ever heard of blue helmets patrolling unarmed...
ST Wrote:(1) should we let countries tear themselves apart through civil war and sitting on the sidelines doing nothing or (2) should we intervene through peacekeeping which almost seems futile, or (3) take "corrective action" where violence is used to destabilise a corrupt government in the hope that a better one can be instated (ala Afghanistan)
Thanks ST for succinctly listing some misconceptions... first, nonviolence is different from either of ST's first 2 options. Taking action to protect for the world's most vulnerable is everyone's responsibility. Nonviolence action (see http://www.peacebrigades.org/, http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org) does work. Scores of aid workers are currently working in Central America unharmed by guerrillas and protected only by unarmed peace workers. Armed escorts are inevitably attacked. During the siege of Sarajevo, the only convoy to traverse Sniper Alley without a shot being fired at them was a group of peace workers who had declined a UN escort.
Armed peacekeeping is doomed to fail because it, too, places people under the heel of the threat of violence. UN peacekeeping sends a conflicted message - your violence is bad - our is OK. Using the threat of violence to achieve peace (which the UN clearly does) is at best illogical, and at worst absurd. The actual use of violence is several steps further along that path...

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply
#15

Cailean Wrote:I am rather surprised at this... I don't believe I've ever heard of blue helmets patrolling unarmed...

You're probably right - although the account given by Major Phil Ashby definitely indicated that their in their role as advisors, they carried no arms. In fact, even when their camp was besieged by rebel militiamen and in danger of succumbing, he went about for days empty handed.


Anyway, I thought you mande very interesting points Colin... Now I'm intrigued. I went over to http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org and this is from their FAQ:

Quote:How does the Peaceforce work?

The Peaceforce is deployed at the invitation of local groups in the at-risk country who are working for peaceful change or resolution. The International Governing Board of the Nonviolent Peaceforce determines whether there is a clear mandate for intervention. If there is, the Peaceforce Field Leadership team for the area—in consultation with local groups and the Governing Board—tailors specific strategies and objectives for the conflict area. Strategies could include accompanying local peace or human rights advocates, facilitating communication among the groups in conflict, monitoring elections or cease fires, training locals in conflict resolution, or other strategies as appropriate. As soon as possible, the Peaceforce will turn over their work to local groups, since only those affected can create a lasting peace.

Quote:How is the Peaceforce different from UN Peacekeepers?

UN peacekeepers are not trained in nonviolence and frequently act as an armed force to restrain civil disorder or violence at the request of the UN Security Council. They are not trained to resolve underlying tensions or conflicts. In contrast, the Nonviolent Peaceforce is preventative, not reactive in nature, and is comprised of civilians trained in nonviolent techniques. Its mission is to prevent warfare and violence before they occur by enabling conflicting groups to enter into a discussion where all parties are heard and real solutions can be found.

I'm starting to see your point of view. It's definitely better if the conflicting sides can settle their differences over a negotiation table, rather than through show of (nonviolent) force.

I wonder how they assure the safety of their workers though? According to the account from Sierra Leone, the rebel soldiers were either so drunk or doped up (most of the times both) through the whole day that they exhibited extremely irrational behaviour. Anything could set them off, whether you were armed or not. Furthermore, to fill their ranks, the rebels "harvested' young boys from the villages and brought them up in a culture of sadistic violence and machoism. The only thing they knew how to do was to be brutal.


Anyway, I'm probably digressing. Thanks for the links. Big Grin
Reply
#16

ST Wrote:Furthermore, to fill their ranks, the rebels "harvested' young boys from the villages and brought them up in a culture of sadistic violence and machoism. The only thing they knew how to do was to be brutal.
Castle Wolfenstein (the original) and it's offspring are not as far off from that as we lilke to tell ourselves.

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply
#17

ROFLMAO. It's a game... I'd like to think most human beings have the ability to tell a game from reality...

I''ve played violent games from a very early age, both computer and other games (AD&D etc), and despite the fact my neighbours annoy me almost weekly, I have yet to remove their heads with my broad sword or pop a cap in their ass.
Reply
#18

Hmmm. I worked for a video games company in a former life - and I have to say that I partially agree and partially don't agree. The games are designed to be immersive - the all-encompassing nature of the games is quite deliberate - that is why they sell.

Any intensive experience has the possible side-effect of destabilizing a person who is subject to being destabilized. Remember how rock music was considered to be the devil's music - how a few unstable rock listeners were seduced to satanism because of Black Sabbath and groups like them? Remember the stories of the D&D player found in the sewers living out his fantasy? Video games are worse than TV, board games and music in this regard because they offer a more intense experience - but in themselves are not the root cause of the problem.

Does society have the need to protect its citizens from the lowest common denominator - I think not. 99.9% of video game players "get it" that this is a game - not reality.

However, I do absolutely agree that violent games, movies, TV, lyrics, and novels are densensitizing us to the horrors of violence, and propagating a belief that violence is a solution rather than a failure to solve a problem. The insidious thing about this desensitization is not only that we become accustomed to witnessing violence without feeling an appropriate reaction - but that the violence becomes confused in our minds with unrelated issues such as freedom, love of family, and patriotism. i.e. I disagree with this war - therefore I hate my country or do not want my family to be free.

Whenever we confuse violence with motherhood issues - we legitimize its use. Like video games, this is deliberate and perpetuated by design. Unlike video games - 99.9% of us don't understand that this isn't reality.
Reply
#19

I've left this sit for a bit because I haven't really had time recently to collect my thoughts and do the nonviolence movement justice by trying to explain it here.... Suffice it to say that I stand by my statements above.

I can across this excellent essay on the philosophy of nonviolence if anyone is interested in learning more:

http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/philos...olence.php

<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by Don Schaeffer
Mar 5, 2009, 22:04

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)