I met a self proclaimed murderer today.

[Mister Hugz]

hello hello!

 

So this week marks the first week that I begin my journey out of the military and into anything that has the least to do with the government or military as possible. When you begin this journey as a military member you are bombarded with a mile high stack of papers to fill out and  endless briefings from government agencies to recruit you into their blood soaked ranks. During one of the national guard/reserve briefings the briefer said to us "I was deployed to afganistan and iraq to kill people. And now i do this. It is disorienting to go from killing people to recruiting people into the reserves". I could feel my eyes widen and my heart started to race. Then the dude stared at me for like 10 seconds straight whilst continuing on with his designated rant about protecting our country and the such.

 

I began to study his mannerisms and checked to  see if there was any shred of a true self left inside his empty gaze. nope. I couldn't see anything. Emotionless. Steady hands. direct and sturdy voice. Stupid jokes about sports teams.

 

At the end of his briefing he went around the room and asked if there were any good reasons to not join the reserves and take the (blood funded) benefits. And oh my god, this was my moment to speak the truth. I had about 10 seconds to respond and I froze. confusion. tense muscles. racing heart. I felt like a cornered rat and all i could do in the moment was blurt out "EVERYTHING". Then his boss which was evaluating him on his performance stood up and said "what do you mean by that?" and i said " well, what i mean by that is that it wasn't my choice from the start. Like it wasn't something that was in my heart. It was more like inflicted on me through government schools and my parents". They both stared in silence  at me for a solid 4 seconds then moved to the next person. I wanted so badly to say well one good reason is that those benifits you listed are funded by theft, which is immoral, but just didnt have the balls to do it. Mabe it was the right thing because my subconscious knew what kind of person  i was speaking to.

 

What do you you guys think about my reaction/ how i handled the situation?

[Carl Green]

I think you handled that perfectly! You were honest in the moment about your situation. Going into details about immorality with those briefers would've been a waste of time most likely. I think you simply speaking about your situation so truthfully might've done more to make the other recruits in the room really look into what got them there to begin with, even more so than if you went into facts about how taxation is theft.

 

Welcome to the outside, brother.

[jacbot]

 "what do you mean by that?" and i said " well, what i mean by that is that it wasn't my choice from the start. Like it wasn't something that was in my heart. It was more like inflicted on me through government schools and my parents"..

 

 

You owned them like a boss!!!

[Mister Hugz]

Good point carl, it does seem a bit inappropriate to just wildly assert a conclusion like that without spending the time to reason through to it.  

 

thanks for the feedback guys.

[J. D. Stembal]

Your supposed friends will try to convince you that you're wrong or call you crazy in order to get you to self-attack, but anyone ancillary to your life like this will find it much easier to ignore you. I mean that you are purposefully opening Pandora's box and inviting them to look into it. In that moment, they will have a fight or flight response.

[Wuzzums]

Saying what was on your mind would have been a waste of energy, I believe. I don't think they would have even acknowledged you. Kinda like a computer when you write in a command it doesn't understand. It won't do anything, it will continue with what it was doing previous like nothing happened. And that's part of the horror.

[cab21]

where does he say he was a murderer?

 

he said he killed people as part of military operations, but does he think that was murder?

 

military operations are considered lawful killings and not murder by the government when the killings follow the operation.

[J. D. Stembal]

where does he say he was a murderer?

 

he said he killed people as part of military operations, but does he think that was murder?

 

military operations are considered lawful killings and not murder by the government when the killings follow the operation.

 

He may deny that he is a murderer, but that does not make his belief reality. The non-aggression principle and universally preferable behavior do no make exceptions for actions taken while wearing a uniform. Murder is always murder when you take the life of another without the justification of protecting your property rights.

 

When you are a member of the military, you are not considered to own your own body. It becomes legal property of the government, which is why you can't quit without being discharged or thrown in the brig. This is how a soldier will justify his actions when faced with the philosophical argument of the non-aggression principle. The country owned the property rights of his body, so therefore, any negative consequences of his military actions cannot be laid at his feet, but at the feet of the government that paid for his service.

 

It's analogous to the umbrella protection the corporation provides its workers under the law of the state. The individuals can get away with breaking the law, and avoid prosecution by using the corporation as a shield.

[cab21]

He may deny that he is a murderer, but that does not make his belief reality. The non-aggression principle and universally preferable behavior do no make exceptions for actions taken while wearing a uniform. Murder is always murder when you take the life of another without the justification of protecting your property rights.

 

When you are a member of the military, you are not considered to own your own body. It becomes legal property of the government, which is why you can't quit without being discharged or thrown in the brig. This is how a soldier will justify his actions when faced with the philosophical argument of the non-aggression principle. The country owned the property rights of his body, so therefore, any negative consequences of his military actions cannot be laid at his feet, but at the feet of the government that paid for his service.

 

It's analogous to the umbrella protection the corporation provides its workers under the law of the state. The individuals can get away with breaking the law, and avoid prosecution by using the corporation as a shield.

 

 if he denies that he was a murderer, then he is not a self proclaimed murderer as the thread title suggests.

 

so we would have to evaluate who he killed, and if they were enemies of his property or not, or if the people killed were threatening the property of others. if someone has declared a war against you, killing that person is part of war, rather than murder, so it needs to be evaluated on who he killed and what their declared intentions were against him.

 

the military does have it's own laws  and court system that will try members for murder when those laws are broken.

[nickhk]

well, what i mean by that is that it wasn't my choice from the start. Like it wasn't something that was in my heart. It was more like inflicted on me through government schools and my parents". They both stared in silence  at me for a solid 4 seconds then moved to the next person.

sounds like a success to me.

 

Is that an EAS brief?

 

I was a mercenary too.

[Mister Hugz]

He may deny that he is a murderer, but that does not make his belief reality. The non-aggression principle and universally preferable behavior do no make exceptions for actions taken while wearing a uniform. Murder is always murder when you take the life of another without the justification of protecting your property rights.

 

When you are a member of the military, you are not considered to own your own body. It becomes legal property of the government, which is why you can't quit without being discharged or thrown in the brig. This is how a soldier will justify his actions when faced with the philosophical argument of the non-aggression principle. The country owned the property rights of his body, so therefore, any negative consequences of his military actions cannot be laid at his feet, but at the feet of the government that paid for his service.

 

It's analogous to the umbrella protection the corporation provides its workers under the law of the state. The individuals can get away with breaking the law, and avoid prosecution by using the corporation as a shield.

 

Thanks for explaining that. 

 

Also, about the fight or flight response, If my supposed friends decide to allow their prejudices take them over I am more than willing get them out of my life.

 

 if he denies that he was a murderer, then he is not a self proclaimed murderer as the thread title suggests.

 

so we would have to evaluate who he killed, and if they were enemies of his property or not, or if the people killed were threatening the property of others. if someone has declared a war against you, killing that person is part of war, rather than murder, so it needs to be evaluated on who he killed and what their declared intentions were against him.

 

the military does have it's own laws  and court system that will try members for murder when those laws are broken.

 

 

So If I tell you to grab a gun, go over to your next door neighbors house, point a gun in the fathers and his family members face. then if you shoot and kill the father when he grabs his own gun to protect himself and his family. I can call this justified killing in self defense?

 

Here are some facts about the Iraq war for you, if your interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X78CYn_F6b8#t=882

 

@nickhk 

 

It was the air force pre-sep brief. I hope you are recovering well

 

@wuzzums

 

Yeah man, after mulling it over for the past day it seems like my instincts did just fine!

[jacbot]

He may deny that he is a murderer, but that does not make his belief reality. The non-aggression principle and universally preferable behavior do no make exceptions for actions taken while wearing a uniform. Murder is always murder when you take the life of another without the justification of protecting your property rights.

 

When you are a member of the military, you are not considered to own your own body. It becomes legal property of the government, which is why you can't quit without being discharged or thrown in the brig. This is how a soldier will justify his actions when faced with the philosophical argument of the non-aggression principle. The country owned the property rights of his body, so therefore, any negative consequences of his military actions cannot be laid at his feet, but at the feet of the government that paid for his service.

 

It's analogous to the umbrella protection the corporation provides its workers under the law of the state. The individuals can get away with breaking the law, and avoid prosecution by using the corporation as a shield.

 

That just shows the the double standard,.., during the Neurenberg trials a lot of soldiers excused themselves with "befehl ist befehl".. (I was ordered to do it by my superiors). The US judges made the argument that lower military commanders and soldiers were culpable aswell....oh really???..., but now US soldiers are legal property of the US? This is a legal framework is new to me

[cab21]

So If I tell you to grab a gun, go over to your next door neighbors house, point a gun in the fathers and his family members face. then if you shoot and kill the father when he grabs his own gun to protect himself and his family. I can call this justified killing in self defense?

 

Here are some facts about the Iraq war for you, if your interested.

 

 

what is the context for why the person was told to grab a gun?

 

is this the entire transaction? then it's not self defence

 

if the neighbor writes that he wants to kill you, and has taken steps to kill others he wants to kill, then it would be self defense if killing that person who will not decease in the threat to kill you.

[Mister Hugz]

I feel like i'm being trolled.

 

Either the non agression principal is a universal principal, or it is not.

[cab21]

well who did he kill?

did he go on speacial missions to kill people who have killed other americans first, and/or have declared a mission to kill americans?

 

the nap is universal

 

declaring a intention to kill americans is breaking the NAP, so if the guy killed people that broke NAP, he was not the one that broke NAP.

 

sassam  broke the nap, and i would not call his army keepers of NAP.

 

so a video of stefan talking about dead children, what did this particular guy do as far as who he killed, and how did he kill them?

[Jack]

 

At the end of his briefing he went around the room and asked if there were any good reasons to not join the reserves and take the (blood funded) benefits. And oh my god, this was my moment to speak the truth. I had about 10 seconds to respond and I froze. confusion. tense muscles. racing heart. I felt like a cornered rat and all i could do in the moment was blurt out "EVERYTHING". Then his boss which was evaluating him on his performance stood up and said "what do you mean by that?" and i said " well, what i mean by that is that it wasn't my choice from the start. Like it wasn't something that was in my heart. It was more like inflicted on me through government schools and my parents". 

 

You sir, are a badass. Well said. 

[Mister Hugz]

well who did he kill?

did he go on speacial missions to kill people who have killed other americans first, and/or have declared a mission to kill americans?

 

the nap is universal

 

declaring a intention to kill americans is breaking the NAP, so if the guy killed people that broke NAP, he was not the one that broke NAP.

 

sassam  broke the nap, and i would not call his army keepers of NAP.

 

so a video of stefan talking about dead children, what did this particular guy do as far as who he killed, and how did he kill them?

 

I appreciate you challenging the premise that I put forward that this man was a murderer. It has given me reason to think about the subject more deeply.

 

Alright, so I want to define my terms

 

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder 

 

The war in Iraq was declared on the pretext of having weapons of mass destruction.

 

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." --President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7 .

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." --President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." --President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

 

- http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq

 

 

The fact that the war was declared on false pretexts now places the destrucive conflict and casualties into the category of unlawful. Therefore anyone who killed unlawfully fits the legal criteria for murder. I would say is a violation of the NAP as well.

[cab21]

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

 

looking at this article, some judges have quotes such as

 

“An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper.”

 

 if a person is lied to, and then put in a life or death or surrender sitution, it's still tough to call it murder rather than say a different form of homicide

 

this is a voluntary army they say, though it's not voluntarily funded, so that put's more responsibility than say soviet solders that were told by the ussr to fight or be killed by the ussr.

 

nap wise, saddam was not a person who followed nap, so it's hard to say a war with saddam was committing a act of agression against saddam and his military.

[Mister Hugz]

 I need to go expand my understanding of justice on a philosophical level. Referring to the current system of "ethics" was a mistake/ intellectually lazy on my part.

 

Thanks cab

[Psychophant]

nap wise, saddam was not a person who followed nap, so it's hard to say a war with saddam was committing a act of agression against saddam and his military.

 

 

Does that mean you can attack anyone who wasn't exposed to the NAP, who doesn't followed it and don't call it aggression? Needless to say that there are innocent citicens involved. Let alone that these applies to the USA and Obamaniac, too. It was not an act of self defense and everybody involved was a moral entity therefore it was an act of aggression.

 

Murder is a legal definition. In anglo saxon countries it is mostly intentional killing of a human being. In Germany it is the intentional, cruel and based on base motives killing of a human being. Yeah, it is about killing, not murder, so the threadtitel is missleading.

[Mister Hugz]

Murder is a legal definition. In anglo saxon countries it is mostly intentional killing of a human being. In Germany it is the intentional, cruel and based on base motives killing of a human being. Yeah, it is about killing, not murder, so the threadtitel is missleading.

 I agree, it is not accurate. Can i change murderer to killer?

[regevdl]

I don't think that was a waste of time at all and you answered as much as you felt confident in doing so. Why are people suggesting that?    So many people can look at honest, truthful discussions with others as a win/lose battle.  Meaning, if you don't make their jaw drop, then you fail in teaching them anything.  I think that is a fallacy.  We NEVER know what words we say to people will have an affect or WHEN it will have an affect.  My guess is, that he is a military man for quite some time.  A good little soldier and NO ONE has ever said anything that has challenged him or made him actually 'think' or consider things outside of missions and operations and commands.  ...until you came along.  lol

 

So your few word response may not have been a 'ah ha' moment  for him, causing him to grovel at your feet and shed his fatigues and rip up his military contract.... but I guarantee it cracked his protective shell and he will now be more susceptible to 'accidentally' or deliberately encountering more truths.  It's like when hubby and I decided to have a baby everywhere I looked I saw pregnant women!  lol   I'm sure they were all around me before, but I never noticed because it didn't align with my consciousness, if that makes sense. 

 

We need to stop looking for immediate validation from people and TRUST that you are one part of their process. If you haven't read George Orwell's 1984, do so.  The part when they realize there is an 'underground' resistance but they will never know how many numbers are part of it so long as they each do their part to tear down the immoral structure of society.That's how I see people who are dedicated to truth and honesty and liberty movements etc.  We may never see the results of our efforts....so long as we continue and pass those methods to our children etc.  

 

 Maybe you are at their beginning, maybe the middle, maybe the end.  and not everyone will 'wake up'.  I can't remember or even know how to contact the people who so-called 'cracked my shell years ago.  I cannot pinpoint who or what or when.  But I DO recall the moment I myself recognized my conscious shift.  It wasn't spontaneous, it was a universal tipping point where all those seeminginly meaningless and 'annoying' comments people would say along the way stuck with me and I didn't realize it and then one day, a random video of a guy shouting in NYC about Federal Reserve shook me to the core and made me aware that I was aware. 

 

So in this case, you are one piece to his revelation and you will never get credit for it but that doesn't make it a wasted effort, let's hope he will encounter others to reinforce but if not....what was heard cannot be unheard.   

 

So, great job!!