Traitor in SAF
-
equally i can argue that they were upholding the image of their country and the GIs who were slaughtering the innocent villagers were doing damage to their country's image.Originally posted by Icemoon:if you want an objective answer .. yes.
Idealogy and morals have nothing to do with treason. You betray means you betray.
So in this case we can see the GIs as the traitors while the airmen were patriots.
so how do u want to go about arguing this? even betray has to depend on how a scenario is looked at. -
but his argument is *sound*. even though his conclusion is questionable.Originally posted by HENG@:this is too naive a view. if u think war sorts out whatever hatred one has for others in the same uniform, i sugest u have a look back in history. there has been far too many cases where people use war as an excuse to eliminate their rivals even though they're on the same side. -
well unfortunately war makes people go nuts.Originally posted by Icemoon:no point going through such scenarios since these are not the actions of a reasonable person.
If you're not locked up, you can do anything you want. You can kill yourself. You can *try* to kill someone. It is whether you succeed or not.
in war reason is often the 1st casualty
cases where superior officers have been shot 1st by their own men, or where soldiers have shot their fellow soldiers have tragically been too many to count. And there are those where such incidents are not even reported. I'm telling u these things happen, and however much u argue against it, they're not going to stop just because u think its not reasonable or because u're against it.
-
there's nothing confusing.Originally posted by HENG@:equally i can argue that they were upholding the image of their country and the GIs who were slaughtering the innocent villagers were doing damage to their country's image.
So in this case we can see the GIs as the traitors while the airmen were patriots.
so how do u want to go about arguing this? even betray has to depend on how a scenario is looked at.
You're somehow right that the context is important. When you presented your scenario, the context is about that group of soldiers and vietnamese, nothing was mentioned about image of their country.
Look at Qiao Feng. He can either help the begger sect (and the chinese people) or he can chose to join Yelu Hongji. Either way, he will be a traitor. -
there is a difference between a sound argument and reality.Originally posted by Icemoon:but his argument is *sound*. even though his conclusion is questionable. -
good. so we're agreed on this. unless there is cowardice or personal greed involved, there is no such thing as a traitor.Originally posted by Icemoon:there's nothing confusing.
You're somehow right that the context is important. When you presented your scenario, the context is about that group of soldiers and vietnamese, nothing was mentioned about image of their country.
Look at Qiao Feng. He can either help the begger sect (and the chinese people) or he can chose to join Yelu Hongji. Either way, he will be a traitor. -
Ya .. so what if officers have been shot by their own men?Originally posted by HENG@:cases where superior officers have been shot 1st by their own men, or where soldiers have shot their fellow soldiers have tragically been too many to count. And there are those where such incidents are not even reported. I'm telling u these things happen, and however much u argue against it, they're not going to stop just because u think its not reasonable or because u're against it.
How does that help us to decide whether to shoot our own OCs or PCs? -
I didn't say there's no such thing as traitor.Originally posted by HENG@:good. so we're agreed on this. unless there is cowardice or personal greed involved, there is no such thing as a traitor.
I said it depends on the context. A traitor is just a description like "fast swimmer". You can be the fastest in Singapore yet cannot qualify for the heats in the Olympics. But does that stop us from saying so and so is a fast swimmer? -
it doesn't. but im saying that if the officers lead to their own men think they're incompetent or worse, hated, and thus shoot them, well... u can't totally blame the men either.Originally posted by Icemoon:Ya .. so what if officers have been shot by their own men?
How does that help us to decide whether to shoot our own OCs or PCs? -
There's a difference between our reality and their reality.Originally posted by HENG@:there is a difference between a sound argument and reality.
I don't think SAF is like those armies. I'm not sure why those shooting incidents happen, but unless you can map the conditions in those armies to the conditions in our army, it is unfair to make the connection.
This whole traitor argument started off with people claiming it is better to shoot their own officers before they led us into hell. But talk is cheap, how many of you have the balls to do that? -
im sorry but a traitor is not a description. it's a sentence of guilt. and if someone is not guilty of betrayal, how can u label them a traitor? just because PAP says so?Originally posted by Icemoon:I didn't say there's no such thing as traitor.
I said it depends on the context. A traitor is just a description like "fast swimmer". You can be the fastest in Singapore yet cannot qualify for the heats in the Olympics. But does that stop us from saying so and so is a fast swimmer? -
It is an objective test to me. You decide whether someone is a traitor on the basis of available facts.Originally posted by HENG@:im sorry but a traitor is not a description. it's a sentence of guilt. and if someone is not guilty of betrayal, how can u label them a traitor? just because PAP says so? -
actually im it was the traitor argument which spawned off the "shoot the officer" argument.Originally posted by Icemoon:There's a difference between our reality and their reality.
I don't think SAF is like those armies. I'm not sure why those shooting incidents happen, but unless you can map the conditions in those armies to the conditions in our army, it is unfair to make the connection.
This whole traitor argument started off with people claiming it is better to shoot their own officers before they led us into hell. But talk is cheap, how many of you have the balls to do that?
because some people here were saying they would shoot traitors, and then some people responded by saying they'd shoot the officers who would shoot traitors.
but in the same vein that u feel people shouldn't shoot officers, officers shouldn't shoot traitors. because afterall, traitor is a very subjective view, and one better saved for a court to review. otherwise u might get incidents like that so famously potrayed in Enemy at the Gates. The russians shooting their own men who were retreating under heavy german fire.
and i do think it safe for me to say that in a war, ANYTHING can happen so that connection is certainly more than fairly made. afterall we've already had people saying here they would shoot traitors. the point is that in a war where many people have guns, the temptation to play judge, jury and excecutioner is too great. Yes talk is cheap but lets face it, things have happened even in the SAF before, people have snapped and killed their superiors. Best not to underestimate how far people will go when they snap. -
it's definately not objective to me. The people who decide are often not impartial. When one is part of a military of a country, blind zealousy can often pervade the minds of those who decide, rendering them far from impartial.Originally posted by Icemoon:It is an objective test to me. You decide whether someone is a traitor on the basis of available facts.
Often hundreds of years later, we look back and those who were seen as traitors are heros and vice versa. Textbook case: those who signed the declaration of independence.
there is no such thing as an objective decision of whether one is a traitor or not. if someone can make this decision to begin with, its not objective. And i don't think its right to let available facts overwhelm the absolute truth at any time. -
Sad to say, when there's greed, there bound to be traitors around to betray their own country for money. Make me wonder if S'pore pay other country's high official to get sensitive inforamtion?
-
why not? every country's intelligence basically do things like thatOriginally posted by riken1974:Sad to say, when there's greed, there bound to be traitors around to betray their own country for money. Make me wonder if S'pore pay other country's high official to get sensitive inforamtion? -
You can be a traitor and yet a hero .. why not?Originally posted by HENG@:it's definately not objective to me. The people who decide are often not impartial. When one is part of a military of a country, blind zealousy can often pervade the minds of those who decide, rendering them far from impartial.
Often hundreds of years later, we look back and those who were seen as traitors are heros and vice versa. Textbook case: those who signed the declaration of independence.
there is no such thing as an objective decision of whether one is a traitor or not. if someone can make this decision to begin with, its not objective. And i don't think its right to let available facts overwhelm the absolute truth at any time.
If you betray an organization or group, however immoral or evil it is, you're a traitor to them. It is the same now and 100 years later. This is my definition of objectivity. -
Yeah, people snap and anything can happen.Originally posted by HENG@:and i do think it safe for me to say that in a war, ANYTHING can happen so that connection is certainly more than fairly made. afterall we've already had people saying here they would shoot traitors. the point is that in a war where many people have guns, the temptation to play judge, jury and excecutioner is too great. Yes talk is cheap but lets face it, things have happened even in the SAF before, people have snapped and killed their superiors. Best not to underestimate how far people will go when they snap.
But note for those who advocated shooting incompetent officers, they weren't berserk to begin with! They made this decision in a reasonable state of mind! -
FYI, Robin Hood was a criminal to the elites, but a hero to the poor. Both sides of the story have to be heard before any objective conclusion can be drawn.Originally posted by Icemoon:You can be a traitor and yet a hero .. why not?
If you betray an organization or group, however immoral or evil it is, you're a traitor to them. It is the same now and 100 years later. This is my definition of objectivity.
People can still forgive you for betraying a dodgy organisation if it has been proven that there were net benefits arising from such action. -
what's with Robin Hood? He didn't betray anyone, or did he?Originally posted by iveco:FYI, Robin Hood was a criminal to the elites, but a hero to the poor. Both sides of the story have to be heard before any objective conclusion can be drawn.
People can still forgive you for betraying a dodgy organisation if it has been proven that there were net benefits arising from such action. -
I am merely using an example of how one man's outlaw is another man's hero.Originally posted by Icemoon:what's with Robin Hood? He didn't betray anyone, or did he?
Similarly, some people we view as terrorists are regarded as freedom fighters by certain quarters.
Always look at the bigger picture before passing judgement. I noticed you are rather quick to denounce someone at the slightest hint of misconduct.
Your views come across as single-sided rather than neutral. So much for objectivity. -
so we have to agree that its not a bad thing to be a traitor if the motivation is right.Originally posted by Icemoon:You can be a traitor and yet a hero .. why not?
If you betray an organization or group, however immoral or evil it is, you're a traitor to them. It is the same now and 100 years later. This is my definition of objectivity. -
hey what makes u think people are normal to begin with?Originally posted by Icemoon:Yeah, people snap and anything can happen.
But note for those who advocated shooting incompetent officers, they weren't berserk to begin with! They made this decision in a reasonable state of mind! 
there are different kinds of crazy. There are crazy people who plan murders in a reasonable state of mind.
-
Then how do you classify people like Took Leng How? What about Mike McCrea?Originally posted by HENG@:there are different kinds of crazy. There are crazy people who plan murders in a reasonable state of mind. -
Remember the infamous Qing official - Lee Hong Zhang.
He was protrayed as a traitor in early to mid 20th century. But now, the chinese gov, at least, seems to have a change of mind. In the TV drama Republic (Chinese CCTV prod), Lee Hong Zhang character had shed the cowardice image. Instead, Lee Hong Zhang had been protraying as a wise stateman with a heart for his country and people.....
Today, Mr Saddam was protrayed as a tyrant of Iraq. We would leave it to the history to be the best judge.