asksolidus:
You don’t know half of it… The Patriots saw the liberian nation getting unstable. When rebellion broke out, The Patriots wanted something horrible, They wanted to make the american public outcry for military interference in the war. So, they demanded a child army.
I was outraged… disgusted by that concept. But i had no option but to follow their orders. I wanted to grow in power… wealth. So i could make a move against them. So i did as commanded, and made their Child Army.
If you’re trying to convince me that the ends justify the means, I could easily argue that the means you used to achieve your ends were sub-ends in and of themselves. And if we want to bring intent into the picture? Neither the consequences of your actions nor the intentions behind them fit any consistent moral standard: if you intended to oppose the Patriots, why did you at times choose actions with no foreseeable anti-Patriot consequence? Surely you’ve read up on consequentialism and deontology, Ex-President Sears? They’re only the most rudimentary of ethical frameworks.
I went mad with grief over what was happening. And in a mad fit of rage, i killed an innocent woman, and husband, in order to assert to myself that i was still my own man… that i was still in control of my own actions. When i found Jack in the closet, watching… i broke into tears. The emotional impact of what i’d done was devestating.
Half-truths coated in emotional rhetoric may have worked on your campaign trail and while you were in office, but they won’t work here. Firstly, you’re full of self-contradiction: if you were so outraged over being made to murder innocents at the behest of the Patriots, how would you ever come to the conclusion that murdering more innocents would prove you weren’t their stooge, especially when you knew those innocents were a married couple, and therefore probably had at least one child whom the Patriots could use? You may be a monster, but you’re not illogical or stupid, whatever “fit of rage” you might be under. You are, however, a bad liar. Getting a little rusty at your game?
It was at that moment, i decided to adopt Jack. I wanted to get him away from all of that. To get him away from Liberia, and War… but i didn’t have a way of getting him out of the country… so i did the only thing i could do at the time. I set him at the back lines.
I hated every minute of what i did, ordering children to kill eachother for insubordination… it was horrible. But they were direct orders from The Patriots. They told me exactly how to run the child army, to the T. They were watching me.
Jack didn’t stay at the back very long… he showed a high capacity for wanting to impress me. He ran to the front lines, and killed of his own volition… all i did was teach him to do it, and he jumped to it as though it were a natural reflex to him. I wonder, now, if it were just for my approval, or out of fear… I always scolded him for putting his life in danger, but gave him my appreciations for a job well done, no matter how sad it made me.
I don’t believe for a moment that someone who spent so much time manipulating so many children to do his bidding would fail to comprehend one of the most easily-observable empirical facts of child psychology, which is that a steady stream of positive reinforcement - especially when it is the only consistent positive reinforcement received and the child is otherwise under immense stress, as Jack and the other boys were - is the single most effective means of getting a child to continue or even increase a behavior. Neither Jack nor any other child, no matter how much they want to impress someone, intrinsically knows what actions will be deemed impressive; they have to learn which actions to do to impress whoever they want to impress, and they learn it most effectively when positive reinforcement such as praise is consistently given to them following a particular action. Jack wasn’t born with a natural innate urge to run to the frontlines and kill as many as he could despite your orders; he learned to do so because of your orders and especially your praise. Can you deny that he would’ve have stayed in the back lines if you had never praised and maybe even actively punished him for being a good soldier and an effective killer, because then he would’ve gotten the message that you approved more of him staying safe than of him heaping up bodies? Either way, you never let him have a thought of his own if it didn’t square with your own goals, so don’t pretend you never ordered him to kill well and kill often, that he thought it up all by himself in the hopes of impressing you.
“Scolded him for putting his life in danger”? You really expect me to believe that? Or maybe you did do so, only when he was properly sedated from the toluene in the gunpowder you ordered to be put into his food, so that he wouldn’t register this alleged “scolding” and would instead fixate on the nonstop influx of stimuli - both from the movies you had the boys watch and the words you told them from your own mouth - convincing him that killing was good, killing was great, killing would make you from a boy into a man, killing would keep you alive and maybe, just maybe, even give you just a tiny illusory morsel of the love you still want deep down because ultimately you’re still a lost and broken 10 year old child.
And let’s not forget who promoted him to leader of the Small Boy Unit after ceaselessly praising him for his stellar performance as a killer over the years. Last I checked, being on the frontlines is part and parcel of leading a platoon. Even if you claim complete ignorance of child psychology, I’m fairly certain you can’t claim the same of soldier psychology, and therefore you must know that no battle-hardened soldier, child or adult, would obey the orders of a captain who always kept far from the thick of action - especially when that captain was younger and smaller than the vast majority of his subordinates. So how does wanting to keep Jack away from the worst of the fight square with promoting him to a position where he was obligated to be in the thick of it?
I made getting out of Liberia my first priority. And when the Americans finally set up a Relief effort, i got him to it, as soon as i was able. But, before i was able to adopt him as my son in earnest… The Patriots took him… his performance had garnered their attention…
Miss. I don’t claim that i am innocent… no, the opposite. I’m more guilty for his nightmares, and what he’s become, than anyone. Even the Patriots, for turning him into a killing machine. All i claim… is that, had i been more able, i wouldn’t have let any of this happen to him.
I’ve juxtaposed these last two paragraphs here for a reason. Notice how you ended the first by putting no blame on yourself and heaping every last thing on the Patriots, only to suddenly, at the last possible moment and in direct contradiction to everything you’ve written before - not just that one paragraph - claim maximum personal responsibility for what happened to Jack? It’s like you don’t even know what point you’re trying to make anymore in your desperate bid for sympathy.
And here’s one last thought: if you claim most of the responsibility for turning Jack into who and how he is today, then you admit that you shaped him, that he is who he is and does what he does because you made him that way. Tell me, how well does this match up with your claim that all you ever wanted was for him to be free? Or do you really think you can teach someone to be free by controlling every aspect of their life, down to the very nature of their thoughts, for every last one of their most formative years?
I never thought I’d have to tell a master manipulator and expert liar this much, but if you’re going to concoct fabrications, you should be able to match them to the empirically observable facts, or at least to each other.