Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 577800" data-attributes="member: 891">That's why I mentioned Mai Lai.I could mention Wounded Knee also.These are two cases by the way where we judged our actions to be immoral, not just after the fact, but right at the time of it as well (even in Wounded Knee, at the end of a long war of Genocide waged by the US, the day the General in charge of plain's forces got the report on what had happened he labeled it a disgrace on the part of the US --- by contrast, the author of the Wizard of Oz called it a reason that we needed to exterminate ALL of the remaining people with any trace of Indian blood in them...).But...That's the -in conflict- morality. It's the question of weather or not -total war- is morally justifiable. The question here is the post conflict morality.If you ARE in a total war, then what is the morality of killing those you capture.What if you capture them by force, not by surrender. As in you KO them, or disarm and immobalize them...Does that change the morality?I saw Two Towers last night. In it there's a scene where they offer to kill an Orc quickly if he tells them were Aragon is... Was this an evil act then? The orc is no longer a combatant, and yet they offer him no option of mercy.</blockquote>