Read the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/how-we-learned-to-kill.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. What are the primary factors, according to the article's author, that affect an individual's ability to kill?
2. During his seven-month deployment in Afghanistan, who was the author constantly trying to kill? Did he eventually kill him/her?
3. What happened to how the author felt about his enemy the more he thought about him/her?
4. Who was the first Marine to be killed after 9/11?
5. If the two men that the author described killing were not planting a bomb, how could that situation be considered situational irony?
6. What is the tone of this article?
7. In your opinion, can soldiers, like the ones in the article, be held responsible for killing innocent citizens of another country, even if they don't know that they're "innocent"?
Caitlin Lavender
ReplyDelete1.The primary factors that affect an individual’s ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2.the Taliban commander. No he never killed him.
3. Over the time he spent in Afghanistan, his reasons for killing had began to change. At first he was willing to kill the people willingly, but then he began to feel as if what he was doing was wrong. he realized that the only reason that the men of Afghanistan had thought to even fight back was because they didn't want foreigners on their land.
4.He was a 19-year-old from Mississippi.
5. Because even if they weren't planting a bomb on the side of the road, it still looked suspicious that two men were on the side of the road burying something that was wrapped in paper when it wasn't very common to see people outside at night.
6. The author's tone throughout this entire article seem to be very sad mixed in with a little guilt.
7.I believe that if a soldier shot an innocent, even if they didn't know they were innocent, they can't be held accountable for their actions. I would blame whomever was leading the operation because they probably knew that those people who were shot and killed were innocent, they just didn't want to say anything to their cadets because they didn't want their superiors to punish them.
Jon Owens
ReplyDelete1. The demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim affects an individual's ability to kill.
2. He was constantly trying to kill the Taliban commander in his area. He never killed him.
3. The more he thought about his enemies, the harder it was to see them as evil or subhuman.
4. He was a 19-year-old from Mississippi on his first tour straight out of high school.
5. Because their member was killed and now they are killing an innocent person.
6. This article has a didactic tone.
7. I mean sure they can be held responsible for killing an innocent person from another country even if they took proper protocol, but at the end of the day whats done is done and you cant change the past. Just be more careful and learn from your mistakes.
Cameron Stone
ReplyDeleteDemands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim.
The Taliban leader in the area, no.
he began to think that maybe they weren't all that evil and were just defending themselves against invaders.
A 19 year old from Mississippi.
In their effort fro revenge on their fallen comrade they shoot an innocent civilian.
Questioning on whether this is right or not.
If they are unsure of their innocence and it poses a viable threat to their lives I believe they should be able to accidentally kill a few civilians but it be kept up with so it doesn't get out of hand incase a soldier just doesn't like people from the middle east in general.
Brittany Davidson 3/9/15
ReplyDelete1) The primary factors are:
-Demands of authority
-group absolution
-predisposition of the killer
-the distance of the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim
2) He was trying to kill the Taliban commander; no he never killed the commander.
3) He felt that he nor the Taliban's were fighting for the reasons he expected.
4) He was a 19 year old from Mississippi.
5) This is situational irony because they were two men that were not American doing something o the side of the road that look suspicious. So the first thing that comes to mind (since they are at war) is that they are doing something to cause destruction; which was thought planting a bomb.
6) The tone of this article is very earnest and very forthright.
7) That is hard decision; no because when you are in a tight situation and one call of order is either a good call or bad call. When a country is at war with another country that wants to annihilate everyone, then killing someone that looks suspicious should not be held against anyone. They were trying make sure that safety was enforced to everyone the Taliban was trying to kill.
Jagory White
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. A Taliban commander; No
3. It was harder for him to feel like the enemy was evil or subhuman.
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi
5.
6. A solemn tone that is ashamed of killing. But does it need be taking in account the effects of war.
7. I would mostly blame it on the commanders. But, there is that occasional person who just does like the other country and reacts irrationally.
Riley Holmes
ReplyDelete1) Demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim.
2) He was attempting to kill the Taliban leader in the area and no.
3) He stopped believing that they were all evil.
4) he was a 19 year old from Mississippi
5) They killed innocent people because one of their own as killed
6) It seems sad and juggling with rights and wrongs
7) I don't think they should be held accountable if the persons innocence is being questioned. The solders are doing what they know and being safe.
ELLA NEUBERT
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, redisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. the Tailban Leader; no
3. he began to think they were not evil and just trying to defend themselves as he would do
4. A 19 year old guy from Mississippi
5. because they were taking revenge on an innocent to get back for them killing one of their own
6. sad because what is suppose to be right makes him feel wrong;irony
7. I believe they are held accountable through their counsecious and mentality but through justice and law i believe not. Soldiers do what is best for the country and do what they are trained and if killing an innocent by accident is one of them, things happen for many reasons unknown.
1.The demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim.
ReplyDelete2. The author was constantly trying to kill the Taliban commander, however, he did not succeed.
3. He began to think that the enemy is not evil and they are simply protecting themselves.
4. He was a nineteen year old from Mississippi.
5. Two innocent people were killed based off of an assumption and because of a fallen comrade.
6. The tone that is created is a somber and regretful one.
7. Soldiers can be definitely be held responsible for their wrong doing, but they can not be criticized or faulted for what is a natural reaction to a possible threat. These soldiers have been through boot camp and intense training that has transformed their lives and whenever there is any feasible sign of hazard, soldiers are trained to protect themselves at any means necessary, even if that means pulling the trigger.
Will Larsen
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim.
2. Taliban commander no
3. he did not feel that they were evil
4. 19 year old Missssippian
5. they were killing innocent people for a political reason
'6. seems to be a bit of sorrow
7. I believe the soldiers just follow their orders. They should not be the ones to blame when people higher than them are telling the soldiers who to kill.
Cole Turner 1st
ReplyDelete1.) The demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim; these are the primary factors of an individual's ability to kill.
2.) The author was trying to kill the Taliban commander in his area. & alas, the author was never able to kill him.
3.) The more the author thought of the enemy, the harder it became for him to think of them as evil, or subhuman. Instead of killing for that reason, the author began to kill for other reasons, or order to kill for other reasons, such as self defense and target attractiveness.
4.) A 19 year old boy from Mississippi who enlisted right out of high school. He was shot exactly 9 years and 9 days after 9/11.
5.) It would be situational irony because it appeared to be the same thing that the men the marines killed right after their own marine was shot and pronounced KIA was doing. It appeared that they were planting a bomb and the men the marine killed first were doing just that, planting a bomb to kill more marines. Obviously it would be ironic if they weren't planting a bomb but that's why it's situational irony.
6.) The tone of this article is more informal than anything. It gives perspective on how to take a life and what it is like to give the order to take a life. The author borderlines a grave tone in a section or two but, it is mostly informal and is rich with imagery.
7.) No, soldiers are doing their jobs, to try and keep their brothers in combat safe. They live by the motto "Better safe than sorry." & when you're talking about your brother's life, it's okay to give more value to that when someone else that may or may not be planting a bomb to kill your brothers in the corp is yet to be proven guilty of said action. No one should be responsible for the taking of an "innocent" life. Except Al Que da and the Taliban, the ones who started all of this death and war. They brought it on themselves and if an innocent life is taken, responsibility should be given to the ones who brought the killers over seas in the first place.
Addie Melchior
ReplyDelete1.The primary factors that affect an individual’s ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The Taliban commander in his area; no, he never killed him.
3. He started to realize that they were not evil.
4. A 19 year old boy from Mississippi.
5. They were taking revenge on innocent civilians to get back at the enemy for killing one of their own.
6. The passage has a solemn, guilty tone.
7. When soldiers go to war they have a completely different mentality than they do when they are just living normal life. They train to kill. In many situations, the soldiers do not know who the innocent civilians are and are not. But, there are also situations where the soldiers know exactly what they are doing by hurting innocent civilians. I think that unless there is proof that the soldiers know they will be going in and killing innocent people at the specific mission than they can not be held accountable. If anyone at all were to be held accountable it should be whoever is in charge of the mission, not the soldiers since they just do as they are told.
Kalee Jones
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, redisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. A Taliban leader. No he did not.
3. He quit believing they were all evil
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi
5. One of their own were killed, so they took it out on innocent people.
6. The author's tone seemed to be sad/guilty throughout the article.
7. No. Soldiers are only doing what they were told to do. Blame the leaders.
Mi'Asia Barclay
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authoritty, group absolution, redispositoin of the killer,distance from the victim, and target attractivness of the victim.
2. Tailban leader, and no
3. began to think they weren't evil and was trying to defend themselves like he would.
4. 19 year old froom Mississippi
5. THey were taking revenge on innocent people to get back at them for killing their own
6. didatic tone; angry tone
7. Yes they should be held accountable because it is a crime if you kill someone. Even if your in the army you still shouldn't kill someone on the streets. its different from war and common day life. They shouldn't try to kill someone based on their race or ethnicity.
Tyler Poe
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from and the attractiveness of the victim.
2. The Taliban operator in his AO; he did not kill him/her
3. He began to think of them as something other than subhuman or evil.
4. A 19 year old male from Mississippi
5. In their effort to avenge a fallen comrade thy in turn kill an innocent person.
6. The tone is somewhat resentful but stern, showing he knows what he did was wrong but he has to live with it.
7. I believe soldiers should be held accountable for every kill they make. What if the war was occurring in America and your father and uncle were checking the outside of your house for an animal you thought you saw outside and a sniper takes them out because they both have a weapon in their possession just for the sole purpose of protection though? Would you want the man who killed them to be held accountable? I believe so.
Nicholas Ratliff
ReplyDelete1) Demands of authority, group absolution, redisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and the attractiveness of the victim.
2) He is trying to kill the Taliban leader, and he never kills him.
3) He started to see them as people defending there home against foreign invaders.
4) A 19 year old from Mississippi.
5) it would be ironic that two men were killed because they looked suspicious even if they weren't doing anything wrong.
6) the authors tone sounds calm but a sense of sadness due to the authors remorse for the deaths he caused.
7) a soldier shouldn't be held responsible if they believed the target was dangerous, in war you don't have time ask if a stranger is friend or foe and they don't wear a sign on there chest that says bad guy.
Melody Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim
2. He was trying to kill the Taliban commander in the area and no.
3. He learned that he nor the Taliban were fighting for the reasons he expected and he no longer saw them as evil or subhuman
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi
5. That situation could be situational irony because they were trying to get revenge for one of their own that was killed, so they kill an innocent person
6. The author's tone seems sad and ashamed and at times confused
7. I do not believe that they should be held responsible because as a soldier, your duty is to protect and defend your country and you must do that no matter the situation.
Abigail Long
ReplyDelete1. demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, distance from victim and target attractiveness of the victim
2.his local Taliban leader. no
3. he no longer viewed him as evil or subhuman
4. 9 years and 9 days later
5. it could be considered that because what they wanted was to get even by taking an enemy life for an enemy life and if the people they killed weren't the enemy then it would instead have the opposite effect than what they were going for by killing the men.
6. the tone is very serious, solemn, and maybe even philosophical as it looks deeper into the psychological aspect of war and killing.
7. not in a legal standpoint as that is just one of the many negative side effects of war, so no they shouldn't be punished or anything for it but they do hold a responsibility for it by themselves just by the fact that they killed someone... even if they were just doing what they were told for the greater good.
Harrison Taylor Armour I
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The Taliban commander in his area. No
3. He did not think of them as subhuman.
4. A 19 year-old from Mississippi who was straight out of high school.
5. It allows revenge for the marines after losing their own, to take some of their innocent.
6. Revere and contemplative.
7. Yes, one must be held responsible for their actions even if they do not know the whole story. Whenever I'm driving down a road that is new to me, I look for the speed limit sign and, most importantly, a police car. If I cannot find a speed limit sign, then I start to worry. Due to the fact that if a cop pulls me over for speeding, I still have to pay the ticket, even though I did not know the speed limit. The taking of someone else's life is such a horrific thing, even if they deserve it. How to tell the innocent from the bad guys is similar to what Captain America said to Falcon in The Winter Soldier: Falcon,"How do I know who the bad guys from the good ones?" Captain America,"If they are shooting at you, then they're bad." (Yes, I just used a quote from a movie. Go Pats!)
Amber C. Price
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors are demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The Tailban commander but he never killed him.
3. He thought the enemies were not evil and just regular people trying to defend their homes .
4.A 19 year old guy from Mississippi on his first tour straight out of high school.
5. It is situational Irony by they just lost someone in their company then supposedly found two Tailban people planting a bomb but it was fogging and they could not tell but they shot anyway.
6.The tone of the article is sad like he believes what he done was right but it feels wrong and like he has guilt for it.
7.I believe soldiers can not be held accountable for their actions of killing a innocent person in another country during war even if they did not know that they were innocent because they are trained to fight and protect their families and country and are told not to take any chances because they can look innocent but really be trying to kill you like when bombs are trapped to kids.
Morgan Fomera
ReplyDelete1. authority,group absolution, predisposition of the killer and target attractiveness of the victim
2.No and Taliban leader
3. Made himself believe they were not evil
4. 19 and from Mississippi
5. They killed an innocent because someone of their own died
6. Tone of questioning of their morals and sad because they are not sure if it is right
7. The problem with not being accountable is it gives the idea of absolute power to the soldiers and they would be able to get away with with too much. However war calls for solemn circumstances and ugly truth of not being able to know all the facts and still needing to take immediate action to protect the platoon without stopping to ask. So to be held accountable for every innocent life would potentially cause more problems because they would need to check every situation dangerous or not with questions which could get them hurt.
Katie Little
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors that affect an individual’s ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The Tailban commander; he was unsuccessful.
3. It became harder for him to see his enemies as evil, he realized that maybe they were just trying to defend themselves and their homeland.
4. He was a 19 year old guy from Mississippi that died due to getting shot in the neck.
5. Its ironic because they had killed innocent civilians just to gain revenge for one of their one.
6. The tone of this article is reflective.
7. I believe that soldiers cant be held accountable. With war comes death, not just for the people fighting in the war but for the people who unfortunately have to live near the battlefield or be dragged in. Soldiers are trained to survive, how they survive really doesn't matter, they're just told to survive and to do whatever it takes to complete the mission. I cant blame the soldiers because i would do the same thing if i were put in that situation. I'd rather greet my family with open arms than greet them with lifeless limbs. So no soldiers should not be blamed, would you want someone blaming you for trying to survive? After you've been sent to a foreign place and have men shooting at you constantly, always having to watch your step? If you have to blame someone, blame someone else but do not blame the soldier who is not only following orders, but who is trying to survive.
Cassie House
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors are demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. He was trying to kill the Taliban commander in his area. No, he did not end up killing him.
3. He did not think of them as subhuman.
4. The first marine killed was a 19 year-old from Mississippi who was straight out of high school.
5. It would be situational irony because they killed an innocent because someone of their own died.
6. A sad and regretful tone.
7. I believe that a soldier can not really be held accountable because it is there job to protect their own country, by killing if necessary, and if they think someone is a threat but they are not sure if they are innocent they should be able to do what they think is best. It's not right to kill innocent people, but there job is to protect their own so they do what they think they have to.
Tempie Ennis
ReplyDelete1. Authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer attractiveness of the victim.
2. The Talibam commander in his area. No.
3. He realized that they weren't fighting about the right reasons and didn't think of them has bad anymore.
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi.
5. They are killing innocent people to get back at them for killing one of their own men.
6. Very didactic
7.No, because they are in the mind set one thing- killing the enemy and if you take the time to find out if they are innocent or not, they could have already killed you.
Micaela Tierce
ReplyDelete1.) Authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer and target attractiveness of the victim.
2.) A Taliban leader. No he did not kill him.
3.) He related to them and did not view them as evil but simply people trying to be left alone.
4.) A 19-year old from Mississippi.
5.) They wanted to kill them to avenge the wrongful death of one of the Marines, but if they had not been planting a bomb they would have been avenging the wrongful death of their own by wrongfully killing more innocent people making it situational irony.
6.) The tone appears to be very remorseful towards events of the past and cynical towards world affairs.
7.) A soldier should not be held responsible for an innocent civilians deaths if they do not know they are innocent. War is very gray, there is no simple black and white- right or wrong. The main purpose of being at war is protecting innocent people and our country and if a soldier has sacrificed their freedom to live in awful conditions and suffer traumatic experiences they should not suffer more for being accused of slaughtering civilians. That is being held to a double standard saying we want you to protect our country but we don't want you to do the wrong thing and kill someone in ambiguous situations where obvious innocent lives are at risk. However if a soldier appears bloodthirsty upon returning to the United States they should be evaluated and given the care they need before the problem skyrockets.
My LUU
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors, according to the article's author, that affect an individual's ability to kill are demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The author constantly trying to kill Taliban leader. He never kills him.
3. The author felt that his enemies are no longer evil.
4. A 19 year-old guy from Mississippi.
5. The situation be considered situational irony they were getting revenge on two innocent people for one of their own.
6. The tone of the article is guilt and melancholy.
7. Yes, I believe they should be held responsible for killing innocent citizens even if they don't know that they're "innocent" because if they are not being held responsible for their actions, they're going to take it for granted and so-forth. I know that it's the soldiers' jobs to defend and protect their county but every wrong action has its punishment. Whether in war or in common-day life, when you killed somebody, you should be held responsible.
Ashby Shelley
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors are the demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer and target attractiveness of the victim.
2. No, The Tailban commander, but he never killed him.
3. He started too see them as people defending their homes from foreign invaders.
4. 19, Mississippi
5. They take revenge after losing their own and kill an innocent.
6. Sad, contemplative.
7. The problem with not being accountable is it gives way to the soldiers and they can get away with way to much. But, being accountable for every single life would be complicated because they would have to investigate every situation that seemed dangerous.
Trent Ray
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. He unsuccessfully tried to kill a local Taliban leader.
3. The more he thought about him, the harder it was to think of him as evil and deserving of being killed.
4. He was a 19 year old straight out of high school from Mississippi.
5. It would be situational irony for the people who got shot because they thought they were just gonna do some farm work, but instead they got killed by Marines.
6. The tone is very serious and rather somber.
7. I think that if soldiers kill innocent people because they have good reason to believe that the people are going to harm them or their fellow troops then that is okay. As long as they have reason to believe that the people are a threat then it is justified.
Kali Sturgis
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors that affect an individual's ability to kill are thee demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The author was trying to kill the Taliban leader in his area, and he never killed him.
3. He began to think of them as an actual human being not something subhuman or evil.
4. A 19 year old male from Mississippi was the first Marine to be killed after 9/11.
5. It could be considered situational irony because in their effort to avenge a fallen comrade they ended up killing innocent people.
6. The tone of this article is resentful but assertive. The author understands that he'll have to live with what he committed and is remorseful over the subject.
7. I believe soldiers, or more importantly the person placed in charge of them, should be aware of the murders that occur by their hands. I understand that under some circumstances it can be, sadly, unavoidable, because it is a natural reaction to a possible threat, but what many Americans do not understand is that people from other countries or cultures are just like us. A language barrier or unique spirituality does not make them any less human. All I really hope is that we can learn from mistakes and, hopefully, secure innocent lives who should be given another chance. Sadly, the question on if one is to be held accountable for taking innocent lives, unless if they perform something completely irrational, still remains because there is not a specific answer to whom is or is not innocent.
Drew Forrester
ReplyDelete1st period
1.) The primary factors that affect an individual's ability to kill are as follows: the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2.) The author wanted to kill a Taliban leader in his area; he failed to do so.
3.) The more that the author thought about the enemy, the harder it was for him to picture them as subhuman.
4.) The first marine to die after the 9/11 attacks was a 19-year old from Mississippi.
5.) If the two men weren't actually planting bomb, then the situational irony of that would be that they would have taken two innocent lives while trying to save innocent lives.
6.) The tone of this article is more of a grievous remembrance of what happened while the author was in charge of a platoon and one of remorse but with a touch of slight pride in being a marine.
7.) In my opinion, none of the soldiers should be held responsible for shooting the supposed enemy because, in an already teens situation, the people walking or running towards armed soldiers should know not to antagonize them any further by being inconspicuous and becoming a possible threat to the soldiers.
Jessica Lewis
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors are the demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer and the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. He was trying to kill the Taliban leader but did not succeed.
3. He believed they were not truly evil nor subhuman
4. He was a 19-year old from Mississippi.
5. This is situational irony because they took revenge on an innocent person. A life for a life.
6. The tone seems to be rather melancholy and regretful.
7. Considering the soldiers are given commands to shoot people, they should not be held accountable for the deaths of innocent civilians. ...It's their fault for not leaving their war-driven lands. ...Totally.
Emylee
ReplyDelete1. demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance of the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim
2.the Taliban leader in is area; no he didn't kill him
3. it began to be harder to see them as evil/subhuman
4.a 19 year old from Mississippi
5.this would be ironic because they just killed an innocent civilians right after one of their own were killed.
6. the tone is sad and concerned about the lives of soldiers and what they have to go through
7. I don't think that soldiers should be held responsible for killing civilians when they seem like attackers, but not when they are doing their normal day to day stuff because if they were fighting in America and they killed innocent civilians,that wouldn't be good.
1. What are the primary factors, according to the article's author, that affect an individual's ability to kill?
ReplyDeleteDemands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. During his seven-month deployment in Afghanistan, who was the author constantly trying to kill? Did he eventually kill him/her?
The Taliban commander and no.
3. What happened to how the author felt about his enemy the more he thought about him/her?
He started to believe that they were not evil and he was just defending himself and the other Marines.
4. Who was the first Marine to be killed after 9/11?
A 19 year old Mississippian
5. If the two men that the author described killing were not planting a bomb, how could that situation be considered situational irony?
They killed innocent people because one of their soldiers died. And also,they did not know if the men were really planting a bomb. It just looked like it since they are trained to kill. Anyone becomes a target at times like that.
6. What is the tone of this article?
a very mixed emotion tone through out.
7. In your opinion, can soldiers, like the ones in the article, be held responsible for killing innocent citizens of another country, even if they don't know that they're "innocent"?
Soldiers are trained to kill. That's what they learn at boot camp and etc. For example, my boyfriend is a Marine and he always want to kill a boy that may want to talk to me, I know that is regular for many boyfriends but he is actually licensed to do so. So in that case he thinks it is okay because he is trained to kill. Soldiers can be responsible for killing only if it is military related or if they are ordered to for a war or by the government or things like that. But when killing innocent men because of their mixed emotions is not okay. I understand when you're in another country everything is different and you're not use to your surroundings but they could have at least made sure before taking a shot.
Jaida Minor
ReplyDelete1. Demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance of the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim
2. 2 "farm" men and yes he did
3. He became uncertain about whether he should kill them because it could've been ordinary people
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi during a firefight
5. It would look bad on him and his part because he is suppose to be a leader and lead his troops on doing good things for their country
6. Unsure or uncertain
7. I feel like they should not kill any citizens unless they take action first
1. the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
ReplyDelete2. The author tried to kill a taliban leader but never killed him.
3. When the author thought about the enemy he realized that they were just human
4.A 19 year old marine from Mississippi is the first marine to die after 9/11
5. It is ironic that as they were trying to save someone they were endangering the lives of innocent.
6.The tone is very serious and remorseful
7.Under dire circumstances and situations, the soldiers were unable to tell the difference between the innocent and the guilty, therefore it is justifiable.
Spencer Budzius
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors that affect an individual’s ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. The leader of the Taliban force in the area. No, he did not kill him.
3. He began to realize that they were not fighting for the same reasons.
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi.
5. If they weren't planting a bomb ten what's else was going on? He stated that it was odd to see anyone out at night if it wasn't the Taliban.
6. This article is very didactic by using a guilty, teaching tone.
7. No. Although as a whole the war may not make sense, its war. These men are trying to protect their country. If they feel threatened by any length, I believe that no one can be held responsible for the deaths of those except themselves.
Batrina Reid
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors include the demand of authority, group absolution, predisposition of killer, distance from the victim, and the target of the victim.
2. He was trying to kill the Taliban commander in his area, he never killed him.
3. The more he thought abut the enemy the less he felt they were evil or a subhuman species.
4. The first marine to be killed after 9/11 was the 19 year old boy from Mississippi.
5. It can be considered situational irony because it is typical stereotype.
6. I believe that the tone is remorseful because it seems as if the author feels wrong for having a bad view towards the people he was trained to kill.
7. Yes, they should be held responsible for killing innocent victims. It is not right and they have simply committed a crime, murder and it is wrong for them to get away with it rather than serve time.
Carrie-Grace Gardino
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors that affect an individuals ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. During his seven month deployment in Afghanistan he was trying to kill the Taliban commander. He did not kill the commander but instead killed his soldiers.
3. The more that the author thought about his enemy the more he began to question if the enemy were not just fighting because someone invaded their home. He wondered if they were just regular people, and not fighting to win a war but to defend their home. He also began to question if they were fighting for the same reasons.
4. The first Marine that was killed after 9/11 was a 19 year old from Mississippi on his first tour straight out of high school.
5. It could be considered situational irony because it would not have been expected to anyone else, and they would have been considered innocent.
6. The tone of this argument is very serious but also kind of remorseful and guilty for what they are called to do.
7. Soldiers can not be held responsible for killing innocent civilians. I think as a soldier it is better to kill someone suspicious than to get shot when they could have avoided casualties or even death. I think that they are sent to accomplish a job when they are deployed and sometimes that means the death of civilians. I also think that the death of civilians is the price of war, and the soldiers can not take any chances when they feel threatened or endangered.
lizzie walker
ReplyDelete1. They are demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from victim, and target attractiveness of the victim.
2.He was trying to kill the Taliban commander in his area but never did so.
3. He felt like he was no longer fighting for the reasons he expected to be. He does not view him as evil.
4. 19 year old from MS
5. You would think that since they were killed the they must have been up to no good.
6. What is the tone of this article? questioning
7. I don't think the soldier that actually does the killing can be punished because he was just following orders. However, the person giving the orders could possibly be held responsible for misjudging the victim. I understand how difficult this must be and don't think it's fair for them to be punished under the circumstances.
1. Demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance of the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim
ReplyDelete2. 2 "farm" men and yes he did
3. He became uncertain about whether he should kill them because it could've been ordinary people
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi during a firefight
5. It would look bad on him and his part because he is suppose to be a leader and lead his troops on doing good things for their country
6. Unsure or uncertain
7. The fact of the matter is is that someone is guilty for these murders. Whether it be the soldiers or the government, unjustifiable killing is completely unacceptable and murder should be the last defense precaution taken
Maya Turner
ReplyDelete1.The primary factors that affect an individual’s ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. He wanted to kill the Taliban leader in his area, but he did not.
3.He began to think of them as an actual human being not something subhuman or evil.
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi
5.They would have taken two innocent lives while trying to save lives.
6. The tone is sad and regretful.
7.No, they are just blatantly doing their job and what they are instructed to do. To defend and protect their country.
Sarah Snyder
ReplyDelete1 kill demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, the distance of the victim and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. Tablain leader and no he never did.
3. He felt more sympathy for them, though over time it was easier to kill them. He felt that they both were just trying to survive.
4. A boy from Mississippi that was 19.
5. If they were just farmers that means that he would be killing innocent people just like the terrorists did, and the reason america got into this war.
6. The tone that he uses is serious but still sympathetic
7. No soldiers should not be held accountable. These men are fighting for their country. they are risking their lives to be able to have freedom; freedom that we would not have without them defending our rights. If it was not for them we would not even have the freedom to ask questions against our government like these. These men are putting their lives on the line for their country, so we can be able to have basic human rights, so if they might kill an innocent by standard that looks suspicious, so be it. There is a reason that a solider might mistake them for being a enemy. Lets not forget how many innocent american lives were taken on 9/11 and may more attempts from these terrorists. This is the reason american soldiers are out there fighting in the first place, if they make a mistake, they should not be punished for defending for our country.
Jordan Twilley
ReplyDelete1. According to the author, the primary factors that affect an individual's ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the predisposition of the killer, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. While the author was in his seven month deployment in Afghanistan, he was constantly trying to kill the Taliban. He did not eventually kill the Taliban.
3. The more he thought about the enemy, the author realized they were not fighting for the same objective. He could not find them as evil anymore.
4. The first Marine to be killed after 9/11 was a 19 year old from Mississippi.
5. The situation can be considered situational irony because they thought they were armed and it resulted in the murder of the two men; however, they ended up being unarmed.
6. The author's tone creates a guilty conscience. He acts as if he is upset about what him and his troops have done.
7. I believe these men are doing their job. They were ordered to kill these men. It is absolutely a "fight or flight" situation, In war, it seems as if the "flight" option is not really an option. As a soldier, it is your duty to annihilate the enemy, and that is what the soldiers were doing. Although it was unethical and immoral, soldiers, and everyone else in the world's population, is primarily concerned with their own safety. Especially since those men were considered the enemy and deemed as a threat, these soldiers had every right to do so. I believe even if they are not held responsible by their killings through court, they are still effected by what they have done in war. Most soldiers who come home are in some way, shape, or form not the same as they were before they were drafted. Whether they lose extremities, become paralyzed, develop PTSD, or even become an alcoholic/drug addict, I feel like these soldiers are still in some shape being held responsible or punished for their actions through Karma. These men were ordered to kill the "enemy," and in battle there is no time to decide who is an innocent civilian or not. If these people were deemed as a threat to our soldiers, they were simply following orders, worried about their own safety, and primarily defending our country. This is why we have armed forces: to protect the citizens from various threatening foreign affairs.
1) Demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
ReplyDelete2) Taliban leader in the area. No
3) He saw them less as evil and more as people defending themselves
4) 19 year old Mississippi native
5) The killed a man partly because they wanted revenge on a dead marine. But it is sketchy that the man was out at night.
6) Didactic and guilty
7) Yes, but not in the since of murder. Soldiers put their life on the line ever second and should be able to make the call if they feel threatened. There should be a record of how many innocent people are killed unnecessarily and who killed them to make sure a hatred of a specific group of people is not being acted upon rather than serving their duty.
Keniece JOHNSON
ReplyDelete1. The primary factors are demands of authority, group, absolution, the killer, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim
2. The author was constantly trying to kill the Taliban commander but did not succeed
3. He began thinking that all of them had evil intent and only were trying to defend themselves
4. The first Marine to be killed after 9/11 was a young 19 year old boy from Mississippi
5. Could be classified as situational irony due to the fact that they just wanted revenge just because someone killed on of their owns
6. The tone is a depressed and questions the m orals of whats right and whats wrong when it comes to the situation of killing
7. I feel that each should be held accountable for their actions because a innocent persons life could have been saved it some questioning from the solders taken place but no further actions were
1. Demand of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victiom and target attractiveness of the victim
ReplyDelete2. The Taliban leader in the area and no
3. He began to realize that they may not be fighting for the same reasons
4. A 19 year old from Mississippi
5. They would have been killing innocent people if the guys weren't planting a bomb which would make them like the "bad guys" that killed their soldier
6. The tone is very skeptical and kind of like gloomy
7. No, bc like it is stated in the article things like murder and warfare have to happen in order for countries to have the peace and freedom that they do. When you are in battle and in a situation like that you don't really have time to stop and think in depth about the consequences of what you are about to do. Most of the time you just have to act on your gut feeling even if that means killing a few innocent people in the process.
1. The primary factors that affect an individual's ability to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of the killer, distance from the victim, and target attractiveness of the victim.
ReplyDelete2. He was trying to kill the leader of the Taliban; no.
3. The more he thought about them, the more he realized that they were human like him, simply trying to defend themselves.
4. He was a 19-year old from Mississippi.
5. This could be an example of situational irony because the Marines would have killed innocent men to avenge the death of another innocent man.
6. The tone of the article is reflective and questioning.
7. No. The loss of innocent lives is one of the devastating costs that must be paid in war, but the men were simply following orders and doing what they thought best for themselves and their fellow men.
Reagan McColl
ReplyDelete1. He says that the primary factors to kill are the demands of authority, group absolution, the distance from the victim, and the target attractiveness of the victim.
2. the taliban leader of the area
3. he tried hard to get him, he never did but he never did but he killed his soldiers
4. a nineteen year old boy from Mississippi
5. because they stereotyped the features of a middle eastern man
6. it shifts from anticipation to gloomy to subtle
7. no. not at all. they're doing their job and protecting the country and earning our freedom.