Inglorious Basterds and Peace Through Superior Firepower
- Homicidal Pacifist
- Posts: 569
- Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
- Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
Inglorious Basterds and Peace Through Superior Firepower
I'm not sure if he thought of this as a method for discouraging the Nazis from continuing on their path or if he merely figured that whether it influenced them to stop or not was irrelevent and that all that really mattered was driving fear into their guilty minds and slaying as many of the Nazzy pricks as possible (which is, I admit, a tempting proposition).
As far as this approach relates to the idea of peace through superior firepower (at least in this instance), I will argue that its effects were somewhat minimal.
The Basterds' attack only fueled Hitler's rage and provided some level of competition for the Nazis to rise to and attempt to overcome.
I will acknowledge that through the use of scare tactics and brutality The Basterds were able to get info from one of the Nazis (one the few that was week-willed) and were therefore able to carry out an attack.
That attack, however, was clumsily orchestrated and would not have been so successful had the lead female character not orchestrated the locking of the theater doors and the burning of the theater which caused such pandemonium and easy targets.
My point is that, though some desirable effects were achieved (inspiring fear and obtaining somewhat useful information), the brutality of The Basterds did not acts as a well-rounded deterrent. The Nazis knew of The Bear Jew and perhaps even feared him, but persisted regardless. There are some people that you just can't scare.
It was only by chance that they succeeded in defeating Hitler and the Nazis. And the cost was rising to the Nazis' level of brutality and (arguably) surpassing it; thus becoming so imitative of the monsters they despise and living with the memory of scalping of dozens, if not hundreds of men.
Well, what other option is there? I'm guessing that with the technology of the time, if they were able to create the lethal weapons that they did, they could have just as easily created some knock-out gas and filled the theater with that and then loaded up the P.O.W.s. In addition, never underestimate the power of a good tranquilizer dart.
Killer flick. Very intense acting.
and that is an idea whose time has come."
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
You also suggested that they DID in fact receive good intelligence as a result of their tactics. So, are you admitting that their tactics worked insofar as they allowed the Basterds to gather good, timely intelligence? If so, then you are supporting my argument for "enhanced interrogation". Some people consider this torture, although it is quite different.
And finally, what would you rather? An elite group of Special Forces soldiers moving behind enemy lines to harrass the enemy's efforts and possibly even assisinate Hitler, or for the president to try and hold "peace talks"?
I'm sure the "peace talks" would have worked. ... ....... ............ Oh wait, I think they tried that. "Peace in our time", Mr. Churchill told us ... Now I know where Obama got his "peace-prize winning" antics from!
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Re: Inglorious Basterds and Peace Through Superior Firepower
Yeah, this aspect of the movie's philosophy bothered me most. I mean, the movie that the Nazis were watching was essentially the inverse of Inglourious Basterds. The whole reason to fight the Nazis was to stop them from killing people, not to inflict pain on people we hate, and the latter purpose conflicts with the former.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:And the cost was rising to the Nazis' level of brutality and (arguably) surpassing it; thus becoming so imitative of the monsters they despise and living with the memory of scalping of dozens, if not hundreds of men.
I could see Pitt's character having at least something of a reason to employ his brutal scalping. It does make sense to, as punishment, ensure that a Nazi cannot simply wash his hands later on. Aligning oneself to such a horrible movement should not be forgotten; people's memory is a natural consequence of our actions. The only problem is unusual punishment, but there are limitations--there was no other way Pitt could've punished them given the circumstances.
However, torturing people and brutally murdering people are never really necessary in my opinion. I mean, maybe I can understand The Bear Jew, if you're executing a POW anyway, but gunning down the unarmed people who are already trapped in a burning building that is loaded with explosives, or riddling Hitler's corpse with bullets, definitely seemed unnecessary. Further, they openly admit to enjoying these excesses, which speaks to a large degree of the contradiction I first mentioned.
I did like the acting, but Tarantino's directing/screenplay is grating on me. I would not watch the movie again simply because of how drawn out some of the sequences were, and how unimportant some of these long sequences were (e.g. the actress' meeting with the Basterds). Plus, Tarantino seems to like to employ random stuff, and stupid oversights, to determine a lot of the plot.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Killer flick. Very intense acting.
- Homicidal Pacifist
- Posts: 569
- Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
- Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
.
I said nothing of peace-talks. Though I think you may be underestimating their value.
I will grant that it is highly unlikely that any kind words or even hefty bribes would turn the Nazis away from violence and attempts at domination.
Nevertheless... I AM NOT AGAINST FIGHTING. Which is why I mentioned the following...
"Well, what other option is there? I'm guessing that with the technology of the time, if they were able to create the lethal weapons that they did, they could have just as easily created some knock-out gas and filled the theater with that and then loaded up the P.O.W.s. In addition, never underestimate the power of a good tranquilizer dart."
Also, just because they received reliable info does not mean that torture was the best option; that is, if you give a damn about morality. As I said, they motivated Hitler even more by scalping and scarring his soldiers.
Plus, intelligence alone would not have been enough because they were too stupid to carry out a proper attack and would have most likely failed if it had not been for that woman locking the doors and setting fire to the theater. She defeated the Nazis. But again, other tactics could have been employed.
And please explain the difference between torture and "Enhanced Interrogation". And quoting Dick Cheney will most likely not help your cause.
Alun -
I like what you had to say about contradictions and becoming the enemy.
As far as scarring the Nazzies' foreheads for the world to see, I am tempted to say that that is fitting. If I choose to say otherwise I would recommend that they be given the same chance as all us other sinners. A chance to reform without the pre-assigned judgment of the world. Should we ALL be forced to wear our crimes on our sleeves for the world to know? Isn't that kind of what they did by tattooing the Jews? (Whoa! I did NOT mean that it's a crime to be Jewish! I just meant... oh, you know what I meant.)
Why not send them off with a sign of peace and compassion? The beginning of the lesson.
Without belonging to the Nazi party, they may find little desire or opportunity to become such hardened criminals.
After all, they were merely soldiers fighting for their country. Right?
(mmm... subtext.)
and that is an idea whose time has come."
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
Waterboarding isn't torture. Ask anybody who's been to SERE School in the Military. All Special Forces soldiers [including Delta, Seals, PJs, Recon, and ALL PILOTS] are subjected to the basic interrogation techniques so that they are both familiar and educated with the resistance of them. With respect to the information gleaned from the use of these relatively benign tactics, there is no case for anybody to make claiming that the terrorists who have perpetrated crimes against humanity should be offended by some awful music or a bucket of water being poured onto their heads.Vince Flynn wrote:FLYNN: We both know torture doesn't work, right? Torture never works.
Which is the biggest line of bunk. Torture works, and all the proof you need to understand -- and I'm not talking Saddam and Uday and Qusay torture. You don't sit a guy down and say, here's your 13-year-old daughter, we're going to gang rape you if you don't talk. That guy will say anything. I'm talking about a situation that's almost clinical in nature where you keep somebody, they are being reviewed by a physician and a psychiatrist, you keep them up days on end, you question, question, question.
...
FLYNN [referring to Abu Ghraib]: Do you know what that was? And I'm telling you this was the honest to God truth. That was a intelligence officer leaving at the end of the day and said, listen, keep these guys up; we need to interrogate them in the morning; don't let them sleep. So these other guys with no supervision decide, how are we going to keep them up? Let's have some fun.
....
FLYNN: Senator McCain a couple of years ago wrote torture doesn't work, torture's not the answer, it lowers us to our enemy, whatever. The example he used is that when he was in the Hanoi Hilton, they asked him repeatedly, name the other aviators in your squadron and he smiles and says, I told them the starting lineup for the Green Bay Packers. Well, and I have respect for Senator McCain but that was almost 40 years ago. Today Mohammed whoever gives you the starting lineup for the Pakistani lawn bowling team or whatever, you go on the Internet, you Google it, we have databases tied into customs offices all around the world.
...
FLYNN: These, the reason why torture eventually works, and we tell our own aviators and we tell our spies and we tell our special forces guys, you will break. That's how our guys are trained. No one survives it. You will break and you will end up telling them everything. All we can ask of you is that you hold out long enough so we can get assets out of the way.
So if we're telling our own guys that you will all break, why do we have this debate that it absolutely doesn't work? And I want to back off something. I choose to call it rough interrogation, not torture, and I know Amnesty International's going to say you're out of your mind, but there's a big difference between cutting off someone's limb or crushing their testicles or forcing them to watch their family get gang raped than keeping a guy up and playing Barney music over and over and over.
- Homicidal Pacifist
- Posts: 569
- Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
- Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
.
Thank you for the clarification. Though I would say that these methods (sleep deprivation, water boarding, and the relentless playing of annoying music) are still forms of torture and violations of human rights.
There are varying degrees of torture, but the hightened level of intensity does not negate the validity of calling the lower levels anything more than "less intense" forms of torture. They candy-coat and place blame in an attempt to justify their actions.
Whether the prick deserves it or not or even if these measures might save lives are irrelevent factors in my opinion (again, because my aim is morality).
In addition, these methods are also being used on "suspected" terrorists as a way of getting a confession and and further intel. So is it okay to employ these techniques on the truly innocent? Bad intel can lead to horrible reactions on our part if we are overly determined to accomplish victory.
and that is an idea whose time has come."
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
I don't think that loud music or pouring a bucket of water on somebody's head is really that torturous. Honestly, I find that working out or running is much less desirous than being subjected to the interrogation tactics used by our intelligence gatherers on the field. And yet it is considered normal for people to do those things all the time.
Can I ask why you think that these things should be considered torture? Additionally, could you tell me what would be appropriate questioning and what would not? And do you consider interrogation in and of itself useless? For example, I have questioned EPWs [Enemy Prisoner of War] myself, and have gained useful intel from them in Afghanistan. I did not touch the individuals, play loud music, or pour water on them. I simply asked them questions. However, I was later told that my interpreter scared the daylights out of these people by telling them all sorts of things about where we were going to be taking them and what we'd do if we found out they were lying.
The point is, the answers that I received as a result of my questioning led to the discovery of enemy weapons caches. Not just rifles, but land mines, RPGs, and other explosive devices that could have been used against my men and I. Personally, I don't care WHAT my interpreter said to these guys; I'm just happy I only had to endure one rocket attack, and I credit their "rough talk" for a large amount of my good fortune.
MODERATOR'S NOTE: This forum is being moved to Ethics and Morality, the subject of its philosophic content.
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
You all should have grown up in my neighborhood, or let's just ask Daniel Pearl his perspective on torture. Oh yeah! That's right, he had his head sawed off just because he was Jewish. Too bad his captors didn't think of load music to separate his head from his body.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
- Homicidal Pacifist
- Posts: 569
- Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
- Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
.
The only music that can tare a head from a body is country music.
WTS -
To be honest, I don't actually know enough about water-boarding to make the claims against that I did. I recant my statements about it until I am fully educated on the issue.
I will also admit that I am predisposed to not trusting or respecting most militaries' interrogation techniques.
Why would your interpreter scare these men? Unless maybe he was ordered to? Protocol is protocol even if some people are left out of loop.
Even if that's not the case in this instance, you can see that not all soldiers are as kind as you were in your approach. I think it was good of you to refrain from using scare tactics, though it might have been for nothing because you probably would've if you had to to get intel and because you support it.
Nevertheless, it did gather reliable intel and much good was accomplished. So I am not going to say that torturous or threatening interrogation methods are not effective entirely, but I will hold that, at least for me, they remain useless because I will not employ them because I consider them wrong.
There are flaws strategically as well as morally with these methods but yes they have power.
What's the difference between water-boarding and Chinese water torture?
Appropriate interrogation in my mind means a line of questioning without maliciously threatening (by this I mean that it's ok to inform them of possible consequences as stated by the law, but without an overly cruel demenour and without embellishing the harshness of the reality - and the places we send them should not be overly brutal).
It should not employ "tactics" to extract information. And if you and your men suffer another attack because you didn't stamp out (or steal) and stockpile of weapons, maybe you should've reconsidered putting yourselves in that situation. Please don't get upset, we've got a good dialogue going here. I'm just callin' it like I see it. I've been wrong before. I feel for you and your men AND them and their men.
I consider those methods torturous because it is subjecting someone to tactics used to scare or force them into cooperation. And that's what they're doing to us. And it never stops, so their can never be peace.
To defeat an enemy and yet continue to live as a torturer because you have found another enemy is not a life of peace. And you are not securing peace for the civilians because they too are guilty of the torture that you employ because they support you.
Should we try to educate and rehabilitate the captured terrorist?
So perhaps this round goes to you. Either way, it was worth talking about.
and that is an idea whose time has come."
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
HP,Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Why would your interpreter scare these men? Unless maybe he was ordered to? Protocol is protocol even if some people are left out of loop.
To answer your first question, my interpreter scared them because he knew that if we found no good evidence to detain these men, they would go home that night. And, since he and his family were not only from the region, but they were also still staying there [he on our base most nights], he did not want them going back to the village he knew they would to grab the weapons he knew from his youth were there. It was as simple as self-preservation.
Here's the difference; Chinese water torture is a slow drip of water on a person's head for a long period of time. It's meant to unnerve by not allowing a person to relax for any reasonable length of time. Water-boarding is essentially covering a person's head temporarily, dumping water over their head [to induce a mammilian gag reflex], and then removing the obstruction so that they can breathe again. It's meant to induce panic over a short period of time to excite people's senses and incite a flood of endorphins that will overwhelm the brain's natural inhibitions. It's a more psychological of a tool in nature, as it essentially attempting to alter brain chemistry [albeit naturally] in order to lower the brain's natural defense mechanism towards withholding secrets.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:There are flaws strategically as well as morally with these methods but yes they have power.
What's the difference between water-boarding and Chinese water torture?
Don't worry. I'm not offended, and I've contemplated your point many times. It's something that we are taught, and that we teach in order to form a better understanding of our enemy. If you don't consider why he fights, then you can't undermine/destroy his will to do so. So you must propose these hypotheticals to yourself [i.e. "You should've reconsidered putting yourself in that situation"]. Anyways, I don't get upset by words.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:It should not employ "tactics" to extract information. And if you and your men suffer another attack because you didn't stamp out (or steal) and stockpile of weapons, maybe you should've reconsidered putting yourselves in that situation. Please don't get upset, we've got a good dialogue going here. I'm just callin' it like I see it. I've been wrong before. I feel for you and your men AND them and their men.
My response to that, however, is this. Like it or not, we went there in RESPONSE to an attack. And when we apprehend suspects, it's in RESPONSE to further attacks. We don't just walk into the first village on our route and select fighting-age men at random to interrogate or detain. Quite the opposite, in fact. We generally enter villages bringing food and clothing, or other offerings of good will. We then ask the village elders if they could help us by keeping their eyes open. Upon further trips to those small towns, we will eventually ask more detailed questions. But we will not "interrogate" anybody unless violence has transpired in the area, against us or anybody else. And we do so with the utmost respect for the locals, as our relationships with them are tenuous at best, and they outnumber us by a very significant ratio.
We tread very lightly, and are trained to pay close attention to our cultural sensitivies.
And I consider their methods "terrorist-ic", because they use violence as a means of coercion against non-offending women and children [that they know for a fact are innocent] in order to force their will upon others. The difference between me and them, or us and them, is that WE DO NOT COMMIT VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTIES WE KNOW TO BE INNOCENT. Let me go on record as saying that I never did this. There may be some rogue soldier that on one occasion did this, but I can tell you that it is against UCMJ [military law] and if he or she was caught they would be prosecuted and imprisoned [we have several soldiers in jail right now for doing just this].Homicidal Pacifist wrote:I consider those methods torturous because it is subjecting someone to tactics used to scare or force them into cooperation. And that's what they're doing to us. And it never stops, so their can never be peace.
So I don't mind employing terrifying tacicts against terrorists. I am not of the mind that we can fight fire by blowing at it. The fact of the matter is that there are bastards in this world, and they must be dealt with using their own methods. My point about Winston Churchill's peace talks with Hitler is that it is extremely naive to think that you can negotiate with all people. Sociopaths and Psychopaths do not play by the rules, and sometimes, when we're dealing with people like them, neither can we.
I'd like to say that one day we could live in peace, but I'm of the opinion that evil will always exist in the world. I'm sorry to say it, but people will always think that their way is the right way, and they will never stop wanting to impose their will upon others. And until the day that men can end their ludicrous desire to force others around them to conform to their idea of "right or wrong", we will always have conflict and strife.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:To defeat an enemy and yet continue to live as a torturer because you have found another enemy is not a life of peace. And you are not securing peace for the civilians because they too are guilty of the torture that you employ because they support you.
I'm of the opinion that we should spread the internet everywhere, to all corners of the earth. I wish that more and more people would have the diversity of opinions that they can find online, as I believe that once they find the diversity of ideas, the potential of human thought, and the overall wonder that is "freedom" [at least internal intellectual freedom], their hate and anger will erode.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Should we try to educate and rehabilitate the captured terrorist?
So perhaps this round goes to you. Either way, it was worth talking about.
Other than that, I'm not sure what will help. Maybe we can just stick a Disneyland in the middle of Kabul and a Disneyworld in the middle of Kandahar. Think that'd help? Then they'd build hotels and restuarants to accomodate which would encourage the economy to expand and spark free enterprise, the kids would beg for the happy experience, and the joy would spread. I always thought while I was there that it would work. We all need something to be happy about!
- Homicidal Pacifist
- Posts: 569
- Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
- Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
.
So was Hitler a socio/psychopath?
Were all of the members of the Nazi party?
Were all of the German citizens who supported them?
They were not all completely insane. They were just mixed up. Stupid. Insensitive. Selfish. Etc. And there are several ways to help them come around. One of them IS obliteration. But those who die are left with no time with which to gain understanding and change of their own accord. Oh well, they had their whole lives to get that done so nevermind the future. But isn't the future more important than the past because in it we still have control. Hasn't it taken all of us a long time to finally find the right path? Should we have been given the time to become better?
All this optimistic crap makes me want to kill.
I wonder if a real socio or psychopath has the ability to "play by the rules". I consider myself a crazy person striving against my condition.
and that is an idea whose time has come."
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
Do you think that there are people in this world who will never be cured of their homo/sociopathic tendencies? The homocidal onces, I mean?
If not, do you think that we have the capability to detain ALL of them while we try and find a way? Do you think this might be too optomistic of a view? Why or why not?
IMO, there are some individuals that we cannot effectively rehabilitate in an expedient enough fashion to justify their detainment. Imagine a prisoner on death row, who started in the general population but had to be placed in isolation after he continued murdering other prisoners. Do you really think that we could continue placing him, and all others in the world in solitary confinement while we wait for a cure? Or are they "lost causes"?
- Homicidal Pacifist
- Posts: 569
- Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
- Location: Your mom's house. Ha.
.
I do not it is likely that Hitler would have a sudden change of heart for any reason. But I'm guessing that many people thought that of me back when I was a real prick.
I might think that you will never agree with my ideas of morality, but you might. And if you don't, I'm not going to kill you for it.
Either way, virtue (chances of redemption and lack of homicide) outweighs survivalism in my book.
As far as who is capable of reformation, I have been studying the mind of the serial killer (and the almost serial killer by looking at myself) and I think the jury is still out on that one. If properly motivated, my guess is that thrill-killers can indeed pursue reform. I used to indulge in violence for the thrill and I stopped.
We have the capability to detain a certain amount and we could free up space in the prisons by releasing FAKE criminals (druggies and whores).
Ya work with what ya got and sometimes you have to be content with the fact that there isn't always a happy ending. But there can always be a moral ending - at least by us.
Nothing is too optimistic to seriously consider and attempt.
We could restructure the prisons so as to have a kind of isolation WITHIN an inmate community. Lots of transparent walls.
But if you are more concerned with your wallet there is nothing I can say because it very well might take extra money to do this.
I refuse to believe that anyone is a lost cause. I am not in denial. I am just hopeful. And hope itself can become an agent of change.
and that is an idea whose time has come."
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023