That's a fair point about the choice of the inidividual. My main idea was just to point out that the mindset of someone who would willingly die is not as alien as the media would have us believe. The notion of sacrificing one's life (in war or otherwise) is as prevalent in the west as in those countries where, according to Dubbya, "they don't have the same values as you and me". In WW2 the allies couldn't understand how anyone could do such an alien thing as a kamikazee raid, while they sent many soldiers of their own on missions that would result in certain death.
As far as the civilian thing goes, it could be a bit abstract, but there is a sense in which every citizen of a country is responsible for actions done in its name. I don't know how far I would argue it, but one could say that if we don't raise an objection to our country's actions then we condone them. On the other hand of course, history is full of the slaughter of civilians in retaliation for what their government has done, which is hardly justifiable, so where does that leave us?
I share your dillemma as to whether we can justify killing of any kind, within war or without. I'm certainly not capable of making a decision on that one, though the relative value of life in the public perception leaves me feeling uncomfortable. And by extension, the way in which the killing is done. Everyone jumps up and down about nukes and chemical weapons, but we can still do a pretty good job on the human race with "conventional" weapons. In my book conventional weapons are sticks and stones (or names, if you want to save your bones). Hiroshima was horrific and of course we should be terrified or a recurrence, but Dresden was no picnic. When the media pronounces on which form of killing is "conventional" and which is not, it makes me question how we all got so comfortable with the concept of mass killings of any form, that the only qualms we have are about how it's done. |
