Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
wired.com
wired.com
edit: to clarify what I mean, I grew up shortly after there was a civil war in my country - and as such I really appreciate soldiers who, having fought on soil that was not their own, are able to recognize the tragedy that occurs on both sides, regardless of politics.
A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
Until watching The Pacific mini-series (currently on HBO), I did not fully appreciate the saying "war is hell". Having never experienced war, I can't fully vouch for the show's authenticity, but if it's even close, you've gotta feel for any human being put in these circumstances.
Figure the US reaction on 9/11, 3500 civilians killed (unjustly, no mistake) vs the US reaction on tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. It's just too far away from home, and this video did one service, it rammed home just how ugly that war really is.
update: i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/27071...
With this policy in mind, is it any wonder that Army counterintelligence once wondered: "Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to conduct perception or influence operations to discredit the US Army?" -- http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
"We'll give you this tasty goodie to publish on your site, but you have to use it to further our political agenda".
Sounds like they couldn't resist the temptation. This is not what we want from a whistleblower protection site.
[1] is there an official word for that?
I never really got upset about Wikileaks providing commentary, because I never had the illusion that they were going to be impartial. Don't be lazy, apply some critical thinking, listen to different sources. Leaks are in their nature untrustworthy. Even intelligence agencies with all their highly educated analysts get things wrong.
Finally if you stop supporting Wikileaks because you don't like that they provide commentary, editorialize, make propaganda or whatever your view are of it. I don't really think you get what their doing or what's at stake.
I guess the truly unfortunate part is that people don't think critically by default. Encouraging critical thought seems like a far better/realistic goal than expecting content producers to act in a way that maximizes total "societal good", but that's [depressingly] still a completely far-fetched idea.
That's not a problem, I think, for the demographic here on HN (and other places). But increased coverage reaches more people; how many have been mislead because they didn't do the above?
That's what tastes bads to me.
> don't really think you get what their doing or what's at stake.
I'm even more cynical of them now. Indeed I think it's becoming clear what their intentions really are - it's to hold a firm political stance in how they present data.
Were I a whistle blower I am afraid I wouldn't consider that a legitimate or trustworthy avenue any more.
It is by no means irresponsible to call what happened "collateral murder".
It's what any right thinking person would do, care for the wounded, the 'rules of engagement' were probably not set up by the Iraqis if they are not allowed to care for their wounded.
It seems we all just projected the role of neutral broker onto them. If nothing else, that shows what a crying need there is for a genuine neutral broker.
Edit: If Assange really cared about his stated goal -- maximal political impact -- he would have done better to let the video speak for itself. By spinning it so aggressively, Wikileaks made it easy for people to dismiss the video, and Wikileaks, as products of an ideological agenda. What it did quite effectively, though, is make Assange a celebrity du moment: he got on Colbert for pete's sake. Between the TV appearances and his juvenile cloak-and-dagger act, I think there's a case to be made that this isn't even about propaganda, it's about ego.
They did exactly what they were supposed to do: get the raw info out there, so that we can now all go through digesting it and picking it apart. This was the whole point in the first place.
It is true, however, that they stamped it with their own interpretation, which is that the slaying of a dozen people was indiscriminate.
This is contradicted by the soldier in the OP who feels that some of the slaying was discriminate.
However, WikiLeaks and the soldier both agree that the man in the van was collaterally murdered - and while the children survived, it wasn't for want of murderous intent. So, the domain name is certainly justified.
The video itself is not even raw - opens with a George Orwell quote, spliced in commentary, a slideshow of the children of the victims, edited, arrows pointing at "cameras", etc.
It's painfully obvious that Wikileaks "leaked" a video with a carefully constructed point of view.
Didn't fit the narrative.
Having just experience my daughter’s birth, the soldier’s description in this article of the young girl in the shot up van and the sound of her cry cut me to the core. I can’t imagine what he is going through and the torment he must feel when that memory flashes through his mind.
The journalists will write, the commentators will comment, and the analysts will analyze. There are so many angles to consider, this point and that point. I realize that. But in the end, all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation and for the many others just like it that I am sure exist. I am also profoundly thankful that I was born where I was, and live where I do. Peace is truly priceless.
all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation
No, you can ask that America leaves Iraq. If it was your daughter, you wouldn't just say, "I guess all I can do is grieve". Right? Look at her. I have a daughter too. You can do a fuck lot more than that.
Let's get the US out of Iraq and back home. NOW.
It's fair to criticize the Rules of Engagement as being overly hostile to civilians, and counter to the goal of winning and leaving. In Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal actually stopped a lot of effective tactics (night raids, airstikes, etc.) because they were counter to the strategy of winning the war by winning the populace. In Iraq, there were periods of intense kinetic violence (such as going into Baquba, Sadr city, Fallujah) combined with periods of reconstruction and trying to win the populace.
I actually knew Julian Assange from running a remailer long before wikileaks, and he seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm not sure what happened. I'm betting he/they felt marginalized and were trying to use this to raise their own profile. I support the general idea of transparency through third parties publishing information, but I can't support wikileaks.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-milita...
If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry. Why are people attacking Wikileaks when the guilty had months to put together a calm, cooling anti-story for the media in hindsight?
Things like this video probably happened dozens if not hundreds of times over there, so you want to find an excuse for this one? What about all the others?
I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to this video being released. Did you?
Just like the all too common abuse of power by police, the end never justifies the means and can never be condoned. Those with power have a much higher responsibility, not less with justifications like "that's just how war is".
People are attacking WikiLeaks because they feel betrayed by the organization. I know I do. What was supposed to be an impartial mediator of classified data turned out to be a sensationalist mediator of classified data presented with a spin that would make Fox News proud.
In closing: Wikileaks exposed us to civilian murder. This would normally by fine. However, they also distorted the facts and the context of the event to support a sensationalist publicity routine. That is the problem here.
I think a lot of people who jumped to conclusions about this video should take these words to heart.
I have a friend who was drafted into Vietnam, whose airport was overrun and he had to defend himself with a handgun. To this day he still has serious mental issues from being put in a position to have to kill people face-to-face.
Many soldiers in Iraq were just ignorant kids who rushed to sign up after 9/11 with their misguided thinking they'd go to war against those who did that. Instead they were sent to a manufactured war in Iraq. Doesn't justify this behavior in the least but it does give some insight.
However, these guys are paid to carry out the nasty state business of killing. It's their job. The immediate question is whether they did their job properly here. Did they carry out their orders properly? A bigger question is whether those orders were correct in the first place.
The question is NOT whether they responded to a killing with appropriate remorse. That part is pretty much irrelevant as soon as you volunteer to kill for the state.
"I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. …"
"And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents."
and "I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us."
I admire this guy. He seems to take responsibility vs ducking it or explaining it away.
This is about the specifics of what happened here. It's about whether or not Americans in Iraq are living up to a high enough standard of ethical warfare in their day-to-day.
These conversations decay into "big picture" when people get tired. It's not the point though. The point of rules of war, engagement or otherwise is 'while there is war..'
Shame.
Quote: I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us.
Americans are in Iraq as foreign occupiers. Americans invaded under false pretenses a country that had not attacked them first. The burden of proof is on the Americans, not Wikileaks, to justify American killing of Iraqi innocents.
Nor do I believe the US military had an obligation to release the video, although they did have an obligation to conduct a serious and thorough investigation and make the results and key aspects of it public. I think it's clear this didn't happen, but it did not justify Wikileaks's heavily edited and flawed version of the video.
Please. The alternative is a total power vacuum, you can't really say that they're there because the locals invited them in.
For what it's worth I did not claim that the locals invited them in. That one's a straw man.
Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you.
The problem is that you can't. And so now we're talking about kids with glass in their eyes and bullets in their bodies, and soldiers with psychological scars that won't heal. Yet not a single person can give a valid, legal reason for it all. Yet no one will take two minutes to email their representative and say, "Stop it."
Pulling out would be carnage - and I suspect, sadly, it has got to the stage where the US will have to see it through to conclusion (probably years away).
Pulling out would be carnage
The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop...
So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.
But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune in oil under these poor people's feet:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_o...
I'm sorry but right there is the naivety. Yes there is fighting because the US is in control - but the current government is also seen, by the insurgents, as US stooges. They would fight to depose them even if the US left. Then there are many different factions - all of whom would want control.
I appreciate this is the line the US government are selling too; and it is good not to just lap it up hook line and sinker (clearly they are staying for other reasons too). But there is a truth to what they say.
Whatever reason the US went (I am sure the oil played a large part) getting out is going to be incredibly difficult. Whatever move they make will be frowned on by someone.
There's no naivety: I understand very well that there are Shiia, Sunni and Bathist factions. And I'm sure that the civil war would continue. But Jesus, the US has been there seven long years at exorbitant expense.
Remember, though, that this is the line that apartheid South Africa used to avoid letting the blacks vote: "if they do it, there will be chaos -- why just look at how much chaos and violence exists now -- just think about if that was set free! They frown now on apartheid but they would frown on that too."
No. The US leaving will be "frowned on" by no one. It will be applauded by all. It's been seven years. It needs to end.
Why is that the right choice to make?
How long before a UN peace keeping force is asked to intervene? (actually, that might be a good result... but lots of unnecessary death to get there).
The US shouldn't be there, really. They should leave. But I think it has to be done right.
It's easy to judge when sat miles away...
You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply disingenuous. You can't know that.
If the US was to say, "We'll leave and we need one year to do so," no one would be mad. But they don't. They instead increase troop levels and give every indication that they're not going anywhere.
Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit. They didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars because they so desperately care about the beautiful Iraqi people.
They care that the big oil fields like al Ghawar and Cantarell are making gurgling, slurping noises because they're finished. They care that, unlike other countries, they have virtually no public transportation or other means to handle a spike in oil prices. They care that the last big untapped oil reserves are under the Iraqis' feet. And they're willing to whatever it takes to make sure that they have control of it.
> I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
It's currently an insurgent war - there is a big big difference.
> You can't know that.
Precedence - look at other historical examples.
> You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths.
It's a reasonable and logical assumption; the US has vastly superior weaponry and organisation to the insurgents. They abide by much stricter rules of war/engagement. It's an engagement weighted on the side of the US. If a more even balance was in effect the casualties would, logically, be much higher.
How can you reasonably assert that the US leaving would result in less deaths?
> Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit
Be serious; who suggested that (I certainly didn't)?
But your posting smacks of a massive anti-US bias so, I guess, it's pointless to continue arguing :)
In 2006, it was already declared to have devovled into civil war along sectarian lines. The insurgent activity is focused on the US forces being seen (rightly) as illegal occupiers.
So we're in agreement that the US is really there for the oil, which makes all these other arguments kind of moot, right?
I'm not anti-US. I'm anti-"1) illegally invading countries because they have what you want." And I'm anti-"2) scores of dead and mangled innocent men, women and children because of 1)." And I'm anti-"3) soldiers coming home fucked up physically and mentally from 1) and 2).
We can't continue arguing like this, but I respect you and wish you the best, Errant.
The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you. Subsequent to the invasion, the presence of US and other coalition forces in Iraq was legitimised by, in turn, UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC. The last action taken by the UNSC with regards to multinational forces in Iraq was to extend the mandate authorising their presence till December 2008. Thereafter, the continued presence of US forces in Iraq has been legally authorised by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for US forces to leave the country by December 31, 2011. Whatever the moral case for a continued US presence in Iraq may be, the legal basis is sound.
Something else that's worth noting is that the Wikileaks video dates from 2007, during the height of combat operations surrounding the surge. At the time those sorts of engagements were a daily occurrence. This is no longer the case; these days the remaining US forces in Iraq are involved in relatively few direct combat operations and the overall level of violence in the country has dropped to a level where a slow US withdrawal is now possible without causing a security vacuum. From a US perspective Iraq is now a solved problem and the war is just about over. I must give credit to General Petraeus and his sane and unorthodox counter-insurgency strategy for that, for what it's worth.
So the stuff shown in the Wikileaks footage seldom happens in Iraq anymore. I would suggest that your time is better spent not impotently demanding that US forces leave now based on your reaction to a three year old video, but rather applying pressure on your representatives to ensure the planned withdrawal from Iraq happens on time and that US combat operations in that country end as scheduled on 31 August. I see no reason why it won't though, and in my opinion Afghanistan is a far more pressing concern on which to focus at the moment.
The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you.
UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC
You're confused. None of these authorized the occupation of Iraq. Each of these was adopoted after the invasion took place as safeguards on the occupation. None of these makes the occupation in any way a legal act. It has never been sanctioned by the Security Council; there are no, and have never been, UN troops in Iraq.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself directly called the invasion "illegal". His word.
The illegal basis for the US invasion is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to talk as if you know otherwise.
>Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you.
I quite clearly explained 'why the US is still there and under what legal basis'. Despite what you think, those resolutions did in fact make first the occupation and then the continued non-sovereign presence legal and represented the UNSC's explicit sanction for the coalition's presence in Iraq. Between 2003 and 2008 US and other coalition forces in Iraq operated under a UNSC mandate (read up on MNF I), so it's irrelevant that there were no blue hats in the country.
Whether the original invasion was illegal or not, Kofi Annan's word does not make it officially so. Like all UN Secretary-Generals, Annan was just an administrator whose opinion carried no legal weight. All binding declarations in terms of international law can only be made within the UN's participatory bodies, like the Security Council, or by the International Court of Justice.
I'm not willing to get into an argument about the legality of the initial invasion because that's not the point you raised in your original post and it's not relevant to the discussion being had about the legal status of US forces in the country right now. The current presence, as I pointed out, is without any shadow of a doubt entirely legal and has been since UNSC 1483. Times have changed, the issues are different and rehashing the arguments of 2003 won't get us anywhere.
So you're admitting that the invasion was illegal under international law, but that the continued occupation is legal. How does that work, exactly? You can illegally break into a house, but legally not have to leave?
It's my impression that while UNSCR 1483 legitimized the governing aspect of US/UK forces, it was essentially a "you broke it, now fix it" resolution that didn't offer any specific language that makes the occupation legal.
rehashing the arguments of 2003
The people of Iraq are rehashing those arguments every day their country is occupied illegally. Iraq, at current oil prices, would be one of the richest countries in the world. They'll never see any of that. Those people in the van (in the Wikileaks video) who were killed and mangled, including the kids, are rehashing 2003. There's no statute of limitations on the suffering there; there's no reason we should forget about it if they can't.
In any case it's not relevant to the question of whether the current status of US forces in Iraq is legal. That was determined by UNSCR 1483 in conjunction with UNSCR 1511 (sorry, I forgot to mention 1511 and 1790, chalk it up to imperfect memory and a lack of time to research all this again), with the latter resolution explicitly authorising the presence of the Multi-National Force in Iraq as a mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This mandate was renewed annually until 31 December 2008, when it was replaced by the US-Iraqi SOFA, a treaty between the two countries which established a new baseline legal framework under which US forces are legally permitted to remain in the country.
So there is no occupation in Iraq, let alone an illegal one. If you continue to believe that US forces are occupying Iraq illegally your conclusions and understanding of the situation are going to be flawed and useless. It goes without saying though that accepting the legal basis for the US presence there is not the same thing as condoning it. Though I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to create a justification for the war here, I'm just trying to clarify some of the facts around the conflict. That US troops are in Iraq legally is a fact, it has no morality of its own. It should be enough to disagree with the US's presence without having to wrongly claim that it's illegal.
But for what it's worth, it actually is possible to illegally break into a house and have the legal right to resist eviction, with a number of countries having so-called 'squatters' rights' legislation that protects the rights of people to remain on a property, though usually only for a defined period of time and under certain conditions, even if they occupied it unlawfully in the first place.
As for your last bit, it's an emotional argument which still has no bearing on the specific point you raised earlier. I happen to think Iraq is better off right now than it was either under Saddam's regime or at the height of the war, with their economy improving at an impressive rate, but I'm not sure the bloodshed they went through to get here was worth it.
You might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-vi...
One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you cannot imply it to exist.
(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you don't break the law to enter.)
I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point. From the mid-1980s to September 2003, the inflation adjusted price of a barrel of crude oil on NYMEX was generally under $25/barrel. Now oil hovers over $80 and will certainly only go up. Iraq is floating on the last ocean -- the last untapped large reserves. And how many people died for the US to take control of that? Iraq's infrastructure is better now, but does that even make sense to point out?
This is my last post. It was interesting talking to you, Maktab, and I wish you all the best.
>You might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-vi....
While very persuasive (and an interesting read btw) that report still does not have the definitive weight of a UNSC resolution or UCJ ruling. And as I've said all along, the question of the legality of the original invasion is separate and irrelevant to the legality of the continued US presence in Iraq. I've been trying to avoid getting sucked into a discussion about the initial invasion only because I don't believe it's relevant to this specific discussion. That's all.
One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you cannot imply it to exist.
This is just it though, those resolutions (especially UNSCR 1511) are unambiguous and specific in making the presence of US-led coalition forces in Iraq legal. Your incorrect analysis of their content suggests that you don't have much experience in reading and interpreting UNSC resolutions and other instruments of international law. That's ok, but it might be worth scheduling a chat with an international law professor at a university near you if you want a deeper understanding.
(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you don't break the law to enter.)
Not true, I mentioned that bit specifically because some countries have laws which enforce squatters' rights even when the initial occupation was unlawful. It makes sense though, as just because an initial action may be illegal it does not automatically render every subsequent action illegal.
I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point.
I agree that it's pretty obtuse. I only mentioned it because you said that the people of Iraq will never see any of Iraq's wealth. I found that a curious statement. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
In summary, I responded to your original post only because of one claim you made, which is that US forces are in Iraq illegally right now. The fact remains that even if you reject my assertion that the UNSC resolutions explicitly legalised the presence of US forces in Iraq under a Chapter VII mandate it still does not justify your claim that US forces are illegally occupying Iraq, because the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement created an entirely new and separate legal framework under which US troops remain in the country. As a treaty between two sovereign governments, the SOFA supersedes anything that came before it and is unaffected by remaining questions about the legality of the initial invasion. It just makes no sense to refer to the current presence of US forces in Iraq as an 'illegal occupation' in 2010.
The HN thread on the original video can be found at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1241879
>We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.
>We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.
>More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.
>Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the values of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.
I'm about to express an unpopular opinion, so I'm expecting lots of downvotes, but at least I believe that what I'm expressing is rational and from the heart.
Regarding this whole WikiLeaks incident, I felt bad for both the Iraqi casualties and the soldiers. If the soldiers had full knowledge that they were firing on a family that was simply trying to help the wounded, you know that they wouldn't have fired. They fired because they assumed there were insurgents in the van. They made a mistake.
What really bothers me is that so many people get outraged over the soldiers' mistake, but so many people gladly eat factory-farmed meat. Animals in factory farms are subject to a very painful existence before their lives are cut short. Yet most people don't care. It's hard for me to stomach the criticism that the soldiers get knowing that many of the people who criticize these soldiers will then go eat a burger, fully and willfully participating in a system that creates unnecessary suffering and carnage to innocent beings.
In other words, our priorities as a society are out of whack. If we really cared about violence, there is something that each of us can do right away: go vegetarian. It's easier to criticize the violence of soldiers than take action ourselves to live a less violent life.
Let the downvoting begin. :/
I'm not equating animals and humans.
I would be happy if I could get at least one person to start questioning. We don't have enough philosophers nowadays. We have all "picked up" from society that we can treat animals as objects and that violence against animals isn't a big deal. I just wish I would live in a world where people would question deeply these values and assumptions instead of just "picking up" what people around us believe.
Ultimately I came to the realisation there is a limit to how much we can care for the animal kingdom on a philosophical level.
Speaking purely as animals the need to hunt/rear/kill is perfectly natural ("if god wanted us to be veggies why does meat taste so damn good"). I realised that, yes, we have to counterbalance that with our increased level of intelligence (i.e. an advantage) and respect our co-inhabitants.
Edit. I'm commenting on the general philisophical views of the gp by the way rather than the specific comments about factory farming. It was not clear this was their emphasis :-) But there is a limit :)
I agree with you 100%.
I think we probably disagree on where that limit is, and I think we as humans are way overstepping our bounds.
> Speaking purely as animals the need to hunt/rear/kill is perfectly natural
You have a good point, and I would add that factory farming is very far from natural.
It's "natural" for a certain, non-negligible percentage of humanity to starve to death, or to suffer from malnutrition. Factory farming is a very important reason why fewer people starve to death every year. Screw your idea of what's "natural."
Ouch.
It's quite possible to have non-factory farming and not starve to death.
Before long, I think we'll see engineered meat being grown on scaffolds in vats, without no need for anyone to deal with animal maintenance at all. As I understand it, the biotech advances needed to make this happen are incremental, not revolutionary.
This will obviously be considered revolting at first, but it won't be hard to change peoples' minds. There simply aren't any downsides -- everybody from ordinary consumers to PETA nutcases to cigar-chomping Con-Agra executives will get what they want.
Note: not that I have any problems with eating animals, but you can hardly defend it on efficiency grounds.
I support the troops who did this, but I don't think people who don't and who eat non-organic meats are hypocrites for it.
This whole thread is OT, but this statement is extremely dubious. You have no basis for evaluating another being's "plane of existence" — whatever that is. That's like saying that non-English-speakers' lives are worth less because you can't understand what they're saying.
No.
Well, as someone with family members in farming - AND a cynic who dislikes causing animals to suffer unnecessarily - for the most part this is utter bullshit. Slaughtering is highly regulated (at least here in the UK) and is designed to cause very little suffering to the animal.
I don't think Im qualified to comment on animals suffering in those conditions. I've never researched it fully.
This isn't really the sort of place for this discussion - in hindsight.
I'm downvoting you because there's absolutely no reason to bring up your opinion on factory farming in this particular thread. In a discussion of factory farming, the harm done to animals, or even a basic food/vegitarianism thread, I would gladly upvote you for sharing from the heart, even as I disagreed with you. But really, this is not the place.
To paraphrase you: The soldiers weren't out there with the express intent of killing civilians, but farms do have the express intent of killing animals. It's not that you equate human loss of life with animal loss of life. It's that you equate accidental loss of human life with intentional destruction of animal life.
In response I would say that we all draw that line somewhere. Humans don't tolerate unlimited cruelty to animals, even if it is beneficial to us.