Fav Traitor Group/Faction

Fav Traitor Group

  • Pilgrims

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Black Lance

    Votes: 26 55.3%
  • Society of Madrian

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Belisarius Group/Y-12

    Votes: 4 8.5%

  • Total voters
    47
Originally posted by Skyfire
Perhaps you don't understand the logic I'm putting forth. Soldiers don't have to follow orders from individual commanders. Say your commander told you to burn down a village-I somehow doubt that's coming directly from the Pentagon. As such, you don't really have to burn that village! Go ahead-don't. What are they gonna do, put you on trial and then see that your NOT killing civilians?

Ok...but if it's not as clear cut as "burn that village". What if the order is "Destroy that Red Cross Facility. We have reason to beleive the enemy has captured it and is using it as a weapons depot".

Then what? Should I follow orders? If I was a soldier and I got that order, I would. So then what if it turned out I just blew up a legit Red Cross facility? Am I really to blame? Or i'm a pilot and I get an order to bomb some building. To me, it appears that building is just a normal civilian building. I doubt your CO is going to tell you everything they know. Instead, they'll say "bomb that building". What am I gonna do, say no?

As for killing military personel because you think it's immoral-well, that's too damn bad isn't it? That's what you do in the military, that's life.

That was kind of my point.....you said "(That's why they have the option of not doing things based upon morality, after all.) "

Well, I think killing people is immoral. Apparently, according to you, I don't have to kill people because I think it's immoral. Or does that only apply when it's convenient?

You think it's immoral? Guess you should have convinced them you REALLY thought it was immoral-after all, they have very specific guidelines, and if you can't explain your point according to those-you are either completely stupid, or not really as avid into your belief as you thought.

But....then what you said isn't correct then....you said you have the otpion of not doing things based on morality. It would seem I only have that option if I can convince enough people. So if my commander says "kill those people over there", according to you I can't say anything about it because well, that's the military. That's life.

Oh yeah-and another thing, the soldier following orders not being "responsible", that's the most ignorant statement I've heard in quite a while. Just because your told to do something, doesn't mean you do.

But...you just said a minute ago when I though killing people was immoral "That's the military. That's life". So now you can go in the military and just decide your not going to follow orders! Wow I should join up then.

"Private Ladiesman, drop and give me 20"
"Sir, I respectfully decline that order"
"WHAT?!"

If you REALLY don't want to commit that act-then why are you so concerned about that military prison?

I'd rather commit the act than go to prison, personally. If somebody said "kill those people over there. If you don't, your going to prison"....those people would be dead....

After all, even if it is hell-your high on your moral ground. Your just trying to excuse people's actions and give them a cop-out, that's just allowing people a way to feel better for not standing up for their beliefs.

You get me wrong...I don't REALLY feel that way...i'd gladly kill the enemy in any war. I was simply trying to look at it through the eyes of a soldier. If I were in the military, I would generally think my duty is to obey the orders given to me, NOT question them. Yes, if something is really incredibly blantantly wrong than I can see it. What I was originally trying to say was it's NOT always clear cut like that. It may not always be as easy to simply not do it either. I mean, what if your in a tank and they order you to blow up something. You know it's wrong, but the rest of the tank crew is merrilly going about it. What do you do then? Just kick back and in a really obnoxious Dana Carvey voice say "Not gonna do it!"? If i'm in the navy, and we launch a missile at a civilian target and I was the one who "pressed the button", it's NOT my fault. They told me to fire, and so I did.
 
The question is not *immoral* orders -- that's a completely undefinable mess. It's *illegal* orders. Orders that break military laws...
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
I somehow doubt that's coming directly from the Pentagon.

While they didn't per say have a pentagon in the WC universe (or did they? I dunno), Admiral Tolwin was given full reign to third fleet in FA, and promotions do occure for people who save things like Earth a few times. And Blair's success is relfected on Paladin, and then on Tolwin, or any other op he gives orders for that succeeds. But lets just say he's still stuck as 3rd Fleet commander in WC4, thats high command staff. In blatent terms he has a hotline to the president of confed. Doesn't that qualify as "Coming directly from the Pentagon"? Granted I'll conceed that there was very little about BL that didn't break some laws (flashpack 'trial', bioweapons, troops being geneticaly altered), but none of it would have happened had not Tolwin flipped his lid for whatever reason and gone off trying to start a civil war. Does a preprogrammed computer rebell when you use netscape in Windows? Genetics can swing many ways. "Hmm this one controls undying loyalty... lets splice this one to on."
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
Perhaps you don't understand the logic I'm putting forth. Soldiers don't have to follow orders from individual commanders. Say your commander told you to burn down a village-I somehow doubt that's coming directly from the Pentagon. As such, you don't really have to burn that village! Go ahead-don't. What are they gonna do, put you on trial and then see that your NOT killing civilians?
as avid into your belief as you thought.

Not that easy. Your commander may just be crazy enough to consider you a threat to his own operations if you refuse an order. Say that you do refuse to burn the villiage. In that case, your commander will make sure that you are standing in the line of villiagers waiting to be shot instead of standing in the line of soldiers doing the shooting. Commanders can and have summarily executed men under their own command whom they regard as immediate threats.The legality of your commander's orders becomes moot at this point, since you won't ever get the chance to take the issue before a tribunal.
 
Originally posted by Ijuin


Not that easy. Your commander may just be crazy enough to consider you a threat to his own operations if you refuse an order. Say that you do refuse to burn the villiage. In that case, your commander will make sure that you are standing in the line of villiagers waiting to be shot instead of standing in the line of soldiers doing the shooting. Commanders can and have summarily executed men under their own command whom they regard as immediate threats.The legality of your commander's orders becomes moot at this point, since you won't ever get the chance to take the issue before a tribunal.

The threat of imminent death at the hands of another is generally considered a justifiable excuse to commit any crime...
except killing another person.
The WW2 Nuremburg trials established that following orders is not an excuse when it comes to criminal matters.
Moral and ethical decisions are HARD. Otherwise, no one would care about them.
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^


I'll remember that when the next big war comes around and I get drafted. I'll just say I think killing the enemy is immoral and as such will refuse to fight.

Where do you think that will get me? If i'm lucky i'll be one of the very few who gets exempted on moral grounds (which I wouldn't, because according the US Selective Service website you'd have to prove that you've lived your life as a pacificst in order to do that).

If you can't demonstrate that you have a past history as a pacifist, you'll be thrown in jail for the duration of the conflict, and then probably released at the end. True, its harsh, but if you really are a pacifist, it beats the alternative, and its the only sure deterrent for those who would do anything to avoid being drafted.

If your only hang up is that you don't like killing, then you can often get a job behind lines that doesn't require you to use a weapon. The military does generally make concessions for people who have real issues with killing other people (as opposed to just looking for an excuse not to get shot at), and there are enough rear echelon positions that will probably never see combat that its not a problem to put real objectors in those positions.
 
Originally posted by junior


If you can't demonstrate that you have a past history as a pacifist, you'll be thrown in jail for the duration of the conflict, and then probably released at the end. True, its harsh, but if you really are a pacifist, it beats the alternative, and its the only sure deterrent for those who would do anything to avoid being drafted.

If your only hang up is that you don't like killing, then you can often get a job behind lines that doesn't require you to use a weapon. The military does generally make concessions for people who have real issues with killing other people (as opposed to just looking for an excuse not to get shot at), and there are enough rear echelon positions that will probably never see combat that its not a problem to put real objectors in those positions.

Please don't think i'm a hippie...I was just saying that to play devil's advocate there....in fact, I breifly considered enlisting post-9/11.
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^


Please don't think i'm a hippie...I was just saying that to play devil's advocate there....in fact, I breifly considered enlisting post-9/11.

Wasn't operating under that assumption. 'You' was just used in place of 'some guy'.
No biggie.
 
(I'm glad someone's playing Devil's Advocate!)

I'm still not seeing how anyone is justifying the actions of morality/failing your morality. As I've yet to see how being put in prison (or even dying!) is worse than failing your principles (after all, what's the point of living your life-if you don't have any ethics, and if you DO have ethics-won't you want to keep them? Or do you not really believe in them?).

Just because your commander told you to do something, or your fellows/crew are doing something-doesn't mean that you have to do it, in any event. Your tank crew can fire the gun without you if you don't feel it appropriate to shoot upon a target. If your naval ship is going to fire a missile, then don't press the button. Just because your ordered to do something you don't believe in, doesn't give you a moral right to break your ethics.

Assuming you don't know it's a non-military target, then it's not your fault-I'll grant you. (That is ONLY the intelligence network/CO's responsibility.)

While threat of death may be a legal way out-morally, your only going to be hurting yourself. That's why we have principles, right? Blind loyalty is different from not having knowledge of the subject. And following orders is not an excuse for breaking your own beliefs.
 
Originally posted by Skyfire

I'm still not seeing how anyone is justifying the actions of morality/failing your morality. As I've yet to see how being put in prison (or even dying!) is worse than failing your principles (after all, what's the point of living your life-if you don't have any ethics, and if you DO have ethics-won't you want to keep them? Or do you not really believe in them?).

I dunno...I generally think the opposite way. Sure, my ethics and values and such are important....but if they involve me dying or being imprisoned...those ethics are gonna be comprised quite quickly. I'd much rather loose my principles than die.

I guess it depends how much someone beleive's in their ethics. Personally, if my commander were to tell me "blow that up", my personal ethics would tell me to obey my commander. My own principles wouldn't allow me to question what we're doing. He must have a good reason for ordering me to do this; i'll leave it at that.

My principles are also those of a greedy bastard, admittedly. I am more important than other people (to me anyway). If I have to hurt/kill people to save myself from either prison or death, I don't mind the slightest bit hurting/killing those people. Even if i'm not really supposed to be killing those people.

Just because your commander told you to do something, or your fellows/crew are doing something-doesn't mean that you have to do it, in any event. Your tank crew can fire the gun without you if you don't feel it appropriate to shoot upon a target. If your naval ship is going to fire a missile, then don't press the button. Just because your ordered to do something you don't believe in, doesn't give you a moral right to break your ethics.

The thing with the ship though, i'm no expert on the Navy or whatever, but it would seem to me if your the guy with the job of "pressing the button", they're not going to give you detailed information about your shooting at. They'll say "Aim at coordinates blah blah and fire". Me being the good soldier I am go ahead and do as i'm told. I have no knowledge that what we're firing at is a civilian target. Yet I am still the one who, well, "pressed the button", so how do you figure i'm at fault there? Should I question EVERY order I get? Why am in the military then?

Or what about bomber crews in WWII? They were ordered to BOMB CITIES! Are they all war criminals for obeying orders? What about the crew of the Enola Gay who dropped the A-Bomb? Should they have refused to do it? Should every crew ordered to bomb a city simply have said "no"?

Or what about a present day nuclear scenario. What if i'm one of the people who actually launched the missile. Odds are it's heading towards a city. Am I at fault for that? Is that even illegal?

All i'm saying is there's no clear cut right and wrong. Most of it is a gray area, and the soldiers who carry out the order aren't neccesarily at fault for it.
 
If your principles are truly important, if you are a person of true integrity, you will act upon your principles first, even at the risk of death or imprisonment. THose are not ways out of acting immorally. I know that it would be difficult to make the decision of "should i compromise my integrity and live, or die for my morals?" but that doesn't change the fact that you are acting immorally. moral is moral, immoral is immoral. Morality is black and white. Many of you will say that is not true, but that is because you are products of a society based on moral relativism. People want things to be easy, however, acting morally is not easy. When it becomes hard people look for ways to explain why it wasn't actually immoral.
Your virtues should be important to you. You should be uncompromising with your integrity. That is what separates the great from the herd. The herd is fickle nad easily led, the great man is one who is not led, but rather leads...or should lead. The herd often rejects the ubermensch because he fears him, the herd fears integrity and greatness. The herd fears he who can overcome the spirit of gravity.
Today people everywhere try and bring down those who succeed on their own merit. WHy? because they cannot. They fear and envy the great man, the man who can act according to principle and virtue and try and kill him.
Great men are always persecuted...Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, John locke, our founding fathers, Bill Gates (the whole anti trust thing brought about by a socialist attorney general who also likes to burn women and children and hold little cuban boys up at gun point).
The herd, the slave class, they try and enslave the master class with their inability to stick to their own principles. COmpromise your principles adn you are just another member of the herd.
 
Or what about bomber crews in WWII? They were ordered to BOMB CITIES! Are they all war criminals for obeying orders? What about the crew of the Enola Gay who dropped the A-Bomb? Should they have refused to do it? Should every crew ordered to bomb a city simply have said "no"?

I think you're confusing 'stuff that pisses off hippies' with 'war crimes'. They're *different*.
 
Originally posted by Zarathustra
If your principles are truly important, if you are a person of true integrity, you will act upon your principles first, even at the risk of death or imprisonment.

Very noble, but will you practice what you preach? If your commander points his pistol at you and says that he will shoot you if you don't shoot all the innocents in the next five minutes, what will you do? Will you shoot them down and live, or will you refuse and die branded as a traitor, leaving behind dozens of family and former friends who will hate you for choosing to die?
 
In the U.S. Marine Corps, integrity is very important. We had extensive training on the Law of War. It details treatment of POW's, civilians, and enemy combatants. A lot of time is also devoted to lawful and unlawful orders. If a commander gives an unlawful order, you are bound by the Law of War NOT to obey it. And make no mistake, you will not be alone in your refusal. That commander would be relieved on the spot, and prosecuted at the earliest opportunity.

Look at the Gulf War. Our humane treatment of the enemy had them surrendering by the thousands, instead of putting up a fight. If we had treated them brutally, they would have had no incentive to give up, and thousands on both sides would have died.

The reason we are the "Good Guys" is because we take the moral high ground in dealing with our enemies. We obey the Law of War and the Geneva Convention.
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^

Or what about bomber crews in WWII? They were ordered to BOMB CITIES! Are they all war criminals for obeying orders? What about the crew of the Enola Gay who dropped the A-Bomb? Should they have refused to do it? Should every crew ordered to bomb a city simply have said "no"?

Questions like that are going to devolve into arguments that the Rebels in Star Wars are a bunch of immoral louts because they killed civilians working on the Death Star.
Trust me. You don't want to go there...
(though there was a rather amusing line or two about this on the TV show News Radio)
Its not necessarily the death of civilians in war that is immoral. Its the fashion in which they die. If you bomb industries that aid the war effort, and people die as a result, then its unfortunate, but that's the way it goes. If you intentionally bomb a civilian apartment structure that is filled with non-combatants, and has no real military value, then you've done something immoral.
 
hehehe...playing through WC3 again I discovered a quote perfect for my stance on this whole thing....

Vagabond: "HQ has a bad habit of labelling everything a military installation, even when it ain't"

THAT is what i've been trying to say. The individual solider may not even KNOW what he's doing is wrong. Is he still responsible?
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^
Vagabond: "HQ has a bad habit of labelling everything a military installation, even when it ain't"

THAT is what i've been trying to say. The individual solider may not even KNOW what he's doing is wrong. Is he still responsible?

How can he? Implicit in responsibility is a certain amount of knowledge. Now if you intentionally ignore signs that indicate that intelligence is dead wrong, then you might be responsible.

As an overly exagerated example...
Say you're a pilot on a modern day carrier. Intelligence reports that a freighter at certain coordinates is carrying an arms shipment for Iraq, and you're launched in a fighter to go take it out. You sink it, never realizing that in reality, that freighter has no armaments, and is instead packed with civilian refugees. Yes, its a horrible tragedy, but you can't really be held responsible. You acted in the manner appropriate with the information you had.
Now, if you arrive at the coordinates for the freighter, and discover its a really sail boat, and looks for all the world like a sport fishing expedition, I think it would be fair to say that you'll be at least partly responsible if you sink that boat.
 
But you're talking modern day, unaltered people... the original arguement was whether or not BL would be labeled as traitors. They are born and bred (and then geneticaly altered) killers. They may be so indoctrinated that all they can do is follow orders, wrong or not. It's like a new puppy shitting on the carpet. You may show him what he did was wrong, and he may learn, but are you going to have him put to sleep? (IE killed). However killing a ship of refugees is hardly shitting on a carpet, Seether's wingmen were probably just "following orders". And after all they didn't drop the flashpack, they just lit up the ARMED escorts... would they be held guilty in a tribunal? Would 90% of BL be traitors for the actions they didn't even have the willpower to disobey, or perhaps had nothing to do with? Genetic and brainwashed undying loyalty can do that to a person. BL is hardley comparable to the Mandarins, or the Kilrathi Elite Gaurd (forget the name).
 
Originally posted by t.c.cgi
But you're talking modern day, unaltered people... the original arguement was whether or not BL would be labeled as traitors. They are born and bred (and then geneticaly altered) killers. They may be so indoctrinated that all they can do is follow orders, wrong or not. It's like a new puppy shitting on the carpet. You may show him what he did was wrong, and he may learn, but are you going to have him put to sleep? (IE killed). However killing a ship of refugees is hardly shitting on a carpet, Seether's wingmen were probably just "following orders". And after all they didn't drop the flashpack, they just lit up the ARMED escorts... would they be held guilty in a tribunal? Would 90% of BL be traitors for the actions they didn't even have the willpower to disobey, or perhaps had nothing to do with? Genetic and brainwashed undying loyalty can do that to a person. BL is hardley comparable to the Mandarins, or the Kilrathi Elite Gaurd (forget the name).

That's a good point too....the BL Supermen really didn't have a choice. They were born, bread, raised, and taught to kill. Their whole purpose in life was to follow orders unquestioningly.

I don't think you can call the BL Soldiers "traitors" as such, because they were always Black Lance people. They were bread by the Black Lance as members of the Black Lance. They can't really betray the Confederation. It's really the same thing that LOAF pointed out about the Pilgrims.

Hell, it's kind of hard to call even Tolywn a "traitor". He was trying to SAVE the Confederation. I'm not sure if "traitors" is the right word for the Black Lance. They were a terrorist group.

The Mandarins are hard to call traitors too, because they are fighting the Kilrathi as well. In a different way. Really, they ARE traitors, as in they joined the enemy....but they joined the enemy with hopes of destroying them from the inside....that doesn't seem particularly traiterous to me...
 
Back
Top