During the time that Ishmael spends with the RUF, his lieutenant makes the following statement: "We are not like the rebels, those riffraffs who kill for no reason" (p. 123). Is this true? Why or why not? Are they different because they believe differently? Or are they the same even though they fight on the opposite side?Further: What does the lieutenant's statement reveal/indicate about war?
~ Now please take time to critique one of your classmate's comments. Remember that good comments justify, specify, argue, extend, question, explain or elaborate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the reasons they fight are different, but the way they was fighting are the same. Killing people, taking over the village, food... They all used kids to fight. They feel happy when they killed someone and they feel like normal when they killed someone and sit on dead bodies and eat. I think his statement reveal about that they are fighting for justice, other side is wrong and we have to kill them because they killed for no reason.
ReplyDeletefirst off there is a typo in the question it should say army. they are the same as the rebels, there is no distinction between them. they both kill innocent people (the RUF more so than the Army) and they both slaughter each other mercilessly. Fighting and murdering in the name of protecting civilians and yet killing rebels who were themselves civilians is contradictory. killing the name of vengeance seems more logical but yet the rebels killed for vengeance as well because they thought the army had killed their parents. I think this statement shows how brutal the war really is. the lieutenant need some way to justify there brutality. I also believe that it shows they have no idea why they are killing and have simply let the emotions take control.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with Brian until the last sentence. i personally see no justice in the mindless slaughter of the Army. As you stated they killed civilians and took control of villages just like the RUF and i do not see how justice comes from doing what you dislike to others. not to mention they did not hold prisoners, they killed them on the spot usually after some form of torture.
ReplyDeleteyes david, but you might as well kill the ones who were going to kill civilians despite the fact that you would kill civilians to stop the killing of other civilians =) tongue twister!
ReplyDeleteno, i think Brian is right. cause even though they are civilians (RUF), they are killing A LOT of other civilians and they (as i can judge by what has happened in the book so far) will continue to kill until their heads fall off. so whats the big deal about killing some citizens to save WAYYYY more citizens. its like that one question that is quick to answer when your trying to be brave, but when you think about it its a real stumper: "if there were 25 people trapped in one burning building and your best friend was trapped in another burning building and you only have time to go to one building.... who would you save? 25 people or..... 1 best friend".
ReplyDeleteI believe that the rebels and the government are the same. They should not be killing innocent lives. I know the rebels have killed Ishmael's family, but that does not mean he should kill them. He is just trying to get revenge which is never the right choice. The government are bringing themselves down tell their level. Since the government also attacks first i think they are both killing people for no reason, and they are doing the same thing. Actually in a way i think that government is doing the right thing, and they are just sticking up for themselves and killing the people for self defense. The lieutenant's view is that we are the good guys and we can kill the rebels and feel that means we are doing the right thing because they did it first.
ReplyDeletenow one thing i do agree with david on, contradicts what i have rambled on about ^^^^ (above). in a moral world, it would be wrong to kill the people who you are trying to save. now i think that the rebel's army is a constantly expanding thing for TWO reasons. yes two. only two. wait.......yeah....two. (sorry) the first one is because the rebel army isnt like a recruiting place where you have to pass inspection. its random civilians who say, "hey, i wanna fight for my right to change the government (or thats my verbal excuse for being a narcissistic diamond lover)" and two, because of the shear fear =0 of knowing that rebels are running around with AK's and killing random people everywhere. they dont wanna be killed so they say "hey, if you cant beat them...join them." so in a way, i agree with david cause it just doesnt make sense to kill civilians because its not right and because it doesnt make sense.
ReplyDeleteits like creating a new federal bureau to study the sex life of a bowling ball. it just doesnt make sense
ReplyDeleteok that was funny =P
ReplyDeletei say they are the same thaey are both fighting and killing for wah they believe in but from what i have read they dont seem much diiferent. they both are just as ruthless. they kill just as much as the rebels do. that is how war is both sides think they are fighting for the right couse. there are wrong and right sides in some cases though.
ReplyDeletei dont agree with charles on this they are both fightibng to kill. it seems like there is no right side here. they both rade peaceful villiges and both get kids to fight it would be hard to say either of them are in the right.
The army claims that they are different from the rebels because they are shooting at them for their country; however, I believe the army is no different from the rebels. It is true that by killing the rebels less innocent civilians are going to get killed. But, as you read the story you might have noticed that the boy soldiers are shooting at the rebels for their entertainment. They are doing exactly the same things the rebels are doing. Having a competition killing prisoners by slicing their neck off, and laughing at them suffer in great pain. I read the story ahead and noticed that Ishmael threatens the civilians also, which is basically doing what the rebels are doing.
ReplyDeleteThe statement made by the lieutenant indicates that there is no justice in war. There are no rights only wrongs. Each side has their own reasons to join the war and they believe they are more reasonable; but in fact no one is right, and the civilians are the ones who actually suffer from the war. Basically, the soldiers of both sides are not being responsible for their actions.
Chae Hoon Lim
I don’t think that they are much different from the rebels. The RUF think they are killing for a purpose, to protect those who had lost their families or more to the rebels. However the rebels think they are killing for a good reason too. I can see where there are differences though, but they are still killing almost as many civilians as they are soldiers. The lieutenant’s statement shows that war is a very one sided affair. Each side believes that their reason is better and makes more sense than the other’s. Though in reality each side is losing people, each side is killing civilians (for whatever reason), and each side is angry at the other. It doesn’t matter what their reason is, death is death. No matter what side you’re on that doesn’t change.
ReplyDeleteThe lieutenant didn’t go in to details about their differences and merely stated his view on the matter. I agree with David on that. Also the emotions did drive a lot of the fighting. The rebels killed so many families and friends that the RUF had to emerge and fight back. They turned in to a protective force for the people, and also got to have revenge on those who caused them so much pain.
~Alicia~
I totally agree with Alicia and Charles. I cannot find any justice in both sides. Whatever the problem is, trying to solve it using violence is never right, especially if it harms innocent people. In this case, both the army and the RUF claims that they are participating in the war for the country; which is really ironic because they are killing all the civilians after torturing and laughing at them.
ReplyDeleteChae Hoon Lim
hey trav trav. i think you only read one of my comments. i said they are both wrong....just on two completely different ends of this web page.
ReplyDeleteand to add to Chae's comment.... after torturing and laughing AND sitting on their dead bodies, eating a jolly vegimite sandwich with a cup-ah tea
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with travis, when he said they are the same and that war is killing on both sides, and there was some right things such as trying to stay alive and there was some bads things. I see where robert is going, and i somewhat agree they are trying to save their own country. I agree with cartuner that the emotions have a part of fighting, becasue if Ishembals family members did not die, he would have never been out there shooting at the rebels.
ReplyDeleteIn the last two chapters it showed how he changed, and his emotoins took over.
CHARLES ARE YOU ALWAYS ON THE INTERENET WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO BLOG!!!
We are not like the rebels, those riffraffs who kill for no reason" (p. 123). Is this true? Why or why not? Are they different because they believe differently? Or are they the same even though they fight on the opposite side?Further: What does the lieutenant's statement reveal/indicate about war?
ReplyDeleteThe Two the rebels and the governmental army are both doing the same thing. They are both killing people for some and not some reason. These two are the same even though they are on totally different sides. Yes they fight but they have no right to kill innoccent bystanders. That is just the wrong thing to do. If you are going to kill people let them be the oppossitte army and not just random people.
I completely agree with Tina. I agree with her on everything that she said. There is nothing that she said that I would caontradict with.
charles r u always waitin to attack some1 on the blog??
ReplyDeletenope... i hadnt attacked anyone today... im in a good mood thanks to SRV
ReplyDeleteand to tina...... yeeeaaa. kidding no i just come back to it cause i like to see what people think. its interesting to me cause people dont usually say what they think and yall do on here. so thats why.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Chae. Sometimes you have to use violence to solve a problem. If another country attack your country. You have to fight back to defense your country. But in the book, I don't really know whose fault is this. I said that the lieutenant wanted to make people believe that they are fighting for justice. I didn't mean that they have justice. Maybe, I didn't say it clearly. ^^ Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI AGREEEEEEEEEE!!! with brian
ReplyDeleteboth the RUF and the government Army are raiding villages and killings tons of civilians. Both sides are recruiting children to fight for them. In war, each side has the opinion that the other side is evil and they are saints. this is not always the case however it is what drives soldiers to kill people and risk their lives for a cause.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Chae that all sides in war are wrong. There are many examples of wars that have a bad side and a well meaning side. WWII for example. The Axis tried to take over the world and exterminate any people whom they did not want to live in their so called perfect world. Were the allies fighting against the axis fighting for wrong reasons?? The Allies protected and saved the world in this case. It just goes to show that war is the answer sometimes. There is not always a peaceful solution to everything.
To me it seems like theyre fighting fire with a bigger fire. stopping the killing with more killing to put out the killing...lol i might not make since(who cares) but they both think what theyre fighting for is right so... it really not much to stop them.. to me they are the same.. and it only makes a difference is what they set to do ends the whole situation...
ReplyDeletebrians on the right track
and charles plz dnt shoot me down lol
ReplyDeleteIt is not true, they are both fighting for no reason. The RUF's goal is to overthrow the government, but what happens after they accomplish that, there is no way anyone is going to side with them after all they have done to the civilians. The government wants to get rid of the RUF, but they are doing a terrible job at it. They are killing civilians and are burning people just like the RUF, one would think that a state army would be more civilized than that. Just because they believe and want different things does not mean that they are different. The way they are killing people, torturing people, fighting, and capturing people are the same and therefore they are exactly the same. It shows that each side thinks they are both right, but they cannot be. It is impossible for both their beliefs to be one hundred percent correct. it also shows that they are trying to get everyone to understand that the other side is a bunch of good for nothing people just because they cannot make themselves a good life and they want a change.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Chae's statement on how no side of the war is right. Many wars have been necessary. Look at all the wars that gained all of the American colonies their freedom, without those we could still be a British colony. Our Civil War was probably the most important war in our history that helped abolish slavery. Without these wars things would be completely different. Yes, there are some wars that are pointless and do not accomplish anything but most are important.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there is no distinction between the styles of fighting. both use kids, both are angry at the other side, and both will do anything to win. They do have differernt thoughts on why they are fighting. The rebels with the diamoinds, and the MP trying to keep peace. But they both do the same thing in the end they all just want to win. But they think that the rebels are so bad becasue the forece the kids into battle, when they have a choice, and they will still fight with the MP's as well-ZAch
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with brian compleatly. There is a difference in the outcome the sides want. But there is no difference in the way they fight the battles.
ReplyDeleteThey are both fighting for what they believe in. They both want a completely different outcome in the end. I dont think they realize that the way thet are fighting (with children) is not okay. Its is like nationalism- both sides believe that they are the better ones. they both take pride on their side. His statement reveals that he believes they are fighting for the right reason and the others are not so they should be killed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach and Brian. You have to fight back and sometimes that involves violence. They both believe they are fighting for a good reason but when you think about it both sides are killing innocent people.
ReplyDeletei think that te rebels and the government are the same. they are both killing and killing for basically the same reason. only the government is actually killing to defend from the rebels, yet killing is the sam outcome. people in the war sould not have joined the war to gain revenge on the rebles, or try to make something of themseves. they should only do it if they truely beilive in it. The lutenit statement shows the belief about war, you will beilive a lie if you truly believe in you side of the war.
ReplyDeletei comepelty agree with tina and everything she said about the lutenit, and about the governments reason for fighting, because it is true they are just trying to defend themselves.
-erin
I agree with Brain because even though they are the same by killing people, stealing foods, and make children fight. And also the same reason why they are fight to get respect and freedom.
ReplyDeleteBecause the government not going to help the African then they have to survive.