Combat footage.

[Chinaski]

Am I a bad person for laughing at the one guy who blew himself up? For some reason I just found the idea of that very funny.

It was stupid and futile. He didn't even damage an US equipment, leave alone hurt or kill an enemy. Total waste.

Meh, maybe he preferred ensuring a quick and self-inflicted death than being gunned down by US soldiers. Or maybe he just pressed the wrong button and blew himself up instead of calling in an air strike or something

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Am I a bad person for laughing at the one guy who blew himself up? For some reason I just found the idea of that very funny.

It was stupid and futile. He didn't even damage an US equipment, leave alone hurt or kill an enemy. Total waste.

Meh, maybe he preferred ensuring a quick and self-inflicted death than being gunned down by US soldiers. Or maybe he just pressed the wrong button and blew himself up instead of calling in an air strike or something

The level of training they get means any of the above is possible. Or a lucky hit set his shit off.

[The Red Fox]

According to Answers.com, pacifism is

n.

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pacifism

But Wikipedia describes pacifism, thus:

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

The bit I've bolded applies here, I think.

Yes, peace (human freedom and equality) is the preferable ideal, and therefore oppression and violence can't be ignored or tolerated.

This seems to be a paradoxical, yet pragmatic form of pacifism.

Answers.com are correct, but as with any political philosophy its ins-and-outs can't be summed up in a few lines of text. Wikipedia goes into more depth and seems to be on the mark, there are various forms of pacifism from rejecting all violence at all times to what you have highlighted. I'm of the opinion that unless my own life or those of whom I care about are threatened, I will not use violence and if I should I would not intentionally kill anyone. That's why you'll never see me in a uniform, I could never intentionally kill a human, even if my life is at risk. When it comes to international politics on the other hand I oppose all war unless it is genuinely necessary to stop worse from happening. I think that ties in nicely with my humanism, i.e., the barbaric act of killing can be used if it stops atrocities from occurring. That leaves a very narrow scope for us to be involved in conflicts, a good thing in my view as wars for economic or political advantage are frankly sickening. Peace is the ideal, but it can't be achieved if those of us who support it get blown up.

Like you said it is paradoxical, yet pragmatic and that to me counteracts the paradoxical nature of the idea. Pragmatism is important in world views and opinions, as extremism in any form tends to be far too idealistic to achieve anything of value.

In a perfect world I would love to be idealistic about pacifism, no more killing, no more wars, but that isn't the world in its current state. I think Afghanistan was a rushed invasion, and a foolhardy one considering the nature of the place and the history behind it. The Soviets and the British before them had no luck there and at the time of their respective invasions they were both superpowers. Anyway, I'm diverting from my point, which is that the invasion doesn't fit into my view of a necessary conflict, but such is life, it has happened and frankly the Taliban getting killed isn't something I feel bad about. I don't support the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, but the latter seems to be improving and if some Taliban get killed as a result I can't say I'll be at all upset about not having them around. They hardly contributed to a happier world.

To sum up and avoid confusion: I want peace. I didn't support the invasion, but it happened and people who won't change their ideas and become reasonable people have been killed by the invading forces. No loss. If they were innocents I would be upset, but as it stands I find it very difficult to feel any form of connection with the Taliban as human beings, especially considering their history of dehumanising others. Fuck 'em.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Peace is good. I prefer it to being punctured. The M.A.D.D. concept kept the peace by making war unwinnable. When the Sovs realized they couldn't win WWIII they collapsed. (Simplified, but true.)

[The Red Fox]

Peace is good. I prefer it to being punctured. The M.A.D.D. concept kept the peace by making war unwinnable. When the Sovs realized they couldn't win WWIII they collapsed. (Simplified, but true.)

I'm not up on the details of the cold war, but there were smaller proxy conflicts if you like between the two powers. The US at that time were very keen on keeping communism out of other nations, and the SU of course was very keen on spreading it. However if those wars aren't to be counted I would agree that peace was kept and that on the whole the cold war stopped major disasters from occurring. Not counting the smaller conflicts, innocents were pretty much safe, no one got nuked and technology did advance considerably. We even made it to the moon 60-some-years after we invented flight, not too bad really. Obviously the propaganda and curtailing of political freedoms was a bad thing, and McCarthy-ism is still holding a lot of the US back from becoming more socially progressive...but that's another thread.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Peace is good. I prefer it to being punctured. The M.A.D.D. concept kept the peace by making war unwinnable. When the Sovs realized they couldn't win WWIII they collapsed. (Simplified, but true.)

I'm not up on the details of the cold war, but there were smaller proxy conflicts if you like between the two powers. The US at that time were very keen on keeping communism out of other nations, and the SU of course was very keen on spreading it. However if those wars aren't to be counted I would agree that peace was kept and that on the whole the cold war stopped major disasters from occurring. Not counting the smaller conflicts, innocents were pretty much safe, no one got nuked and technology did advance considerably. We even made it to the moon 60-some-years after we invented flight, not too bad really. Obviously the propaganda and curtailing of political freedoms was a bad thing, and McCarthy-ism is still holding a lot of the US back from becoming more socially progressive...but that's another thread.

I was intimately involved in three of those proxy wars, and fought a couple more "via remote control". It was a way to avoid the final confrontation. Tough on the proxies.

[The Red Fox]

Peace is good. I prefer it to being punctured. The M.A.D.D. concept kept the peace by making war unwinnable. When the Sovs realized they couldn't win WWIII they collapsed. (Simplified, but true.)

I'm not up on the details of the cold war, but there were smaller proxy conflicts if you like between the two powers. The US at that time were very keen on keeping communism out of other nations, and the SU of course was very keen on spreading it. However if those wars aren't to be counted I would agree that peace was kept and that on the whole the cold war stopped major disasters from occurring. Not counting the smaller conflicts, innocents were pretty much safe, no one got nuked and technology did advance considerably. We even made it to the moon 60-some-years after we invented flight, not too bad really. Obviously the propaganda and curtailing of political freedoms was a bad thing, and McCarthy-ism is still holding a lot of the US back from becoming more socially progressive...but that's another thread.

I was intimately involved in three of those proxy wars, and fought a couple more "via remote control". It was a way to avoid the final confrontation. Tough on the proxies.

Well with all those nukes I would say that had the SU and US fought it out there probably wouldn't be a planet left, so yes it prevented something far worse. If some people had to die so we can still be here then that to me is justifiable. It is a shame that killing had to occur, but on a scale it is preferable to nuclear annihilation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well with all those nukes I would say that had the SU and US fought it out there probably wouldn't be a planet left, so yes it prevented something far worse. If some people had to die so we can still be here then that to me is justifiable. It is a shame that killing had to occur, but on a scale it is preferable to nuclear annihilation.

Some of the deaths were "necessary", some were just plain stupid. I remember all of those.

[Pappa]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

Well, the US Congress, on Dec. 8th, 1941, for one.

[Pappa]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

Well, the US Congress, on Dec. 8th, 1941, for one.

Wasn't that just an excuse to persuade the US public to support the idea of going to war?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

Well, the US Congress, on Dec. 8th, 1941, for one.

Wasn't that just an excuse to persuade the US public to support the idea of going to war?

[Pappa]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

Well, the US Congress, on Dec. 8th, 1941, for one.

Wasn't that just an excuse to persuade the US public to support the idea of going to war?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

Well, the US Congress, on Dec. 8th, 1941, for one.

Wasn't that just an excuse to persuade the US public to support the idea of going to war?

[Pappa]

to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace

That is a very strange definition of pacifism.... who is to decide when it is absolutely necessary? George Bush, Tony Blair....

Well, the US Congress, on Dec. 8th, 1941, for one.

Wasn't that just an excuse to persuade the US public to support the idea of going to war?