I guess because I'm a child of history and when I think, I follow logic along the lines of history and fact. Therefore I deal in metaphors and similies alot. Which leads me to my next point/ramble.
I always wonder about the legitimacy of people calling suicide-bombers "cowards". For the record, destruction of human life is abhorrant to me. Especially that of innocent civilians, we can all agree on that. Suicide-bombers who attack military targets are not cowardly however. They are using the only means that are available to them, and fighting by any means necessary. The people of the US seem to want some sort of clear and epic battle, out in a field somewhere. With clearly defined targets and tactics. The poor of the world, however, do not own thousands of tanks and missiles and howitzers. They cannot survive or even accomplish anything in an armed standoff with the US military. Purely by technical standards we are the "greatest" military in the world. I would expect no less, spending al our damn tax money on defense.
But the poor don't have those things. Instead they have years and years of hatred, leaders trained in/by the US at the School of the Americas to be terrorists, and access to military explosives. The theory of war revolves around getting the most destruction and victories out of the fewest amount of losses. Therefore the idea of suicide bombers is perfectly adapted to it. The Kamakazi pilots of WWII were not cowards. How brave must you be to fly through flak and US fighters, dodging bullets and flak every second in a shoddily built plane, only to know you are going to imolate yourself by crashing into a naval carrier. One Kamakazi pilot could destroy or severly wound a huge American frigate or carrier. For the cost of one human life(in military terms), that seems a very good tradeoff.
To die fighting is revered in almost all cultures. It is the "brave" thing to do. Certainly we see the French Resistance, the Civil War submariners, the troops at the Alamo, and any other person involved in a dangerous mission through which there s n hope of return as being a "Hero(!)". Why is this any different. I don't believe it is.
p.s. my screen keeps on changing it's height and width throughout the day. What's up with that?
I always wonder about the legitimacy of people calling suicide-bombers "cowards". For the record, destruction of human life is abhorrant to me. Especially that of innocent civilians, we can all agree on that. Suicide-bombers who attack military targets are not cowardly however. They are using the only means that are available to them, and fighting by any means necessary. The people of the US seem to want some sort of clear and epic battle, out in a field somewhere. With clearly defined targets and tactics. The poor of the world, however, do not own thousands of tanks and missiles and howitzers. They cannot survive or even accomplish anything in an armed standoff with the US military. Purely by technical standards we are the "greatest" military in the world. I would expect no less, spending al our damn tax money on defense.
But the poor don't have those things. Instead they have years and years of hatred, leaders trained in/by the US at the School of the Americas to be terrorists, and access to military explosives. The theory of war revolves around getting the most destruction and victories out of the fewest amount of losses. Therefore the idea of suicide bombers is perfectly adapted to it. The Kamakazi pilots of WWII were not cowards. How brave must you be to fly through flak and US fighters, dodging bullets and flak every second in a shoddily built plane, only to know you are going to imolate yourself by crashing into a naval carrier. One Kamakazi pilot could destroy or severly wound a huge American frigate or carrier. For the cost of one human life(in military terms), that seems a very good tradeoff.
To die fighting is revered in almost all cultures. It is the "brave" thing to do. Certainly we see the French Resistance, the Civil War submariners, the troops at the Alamo, and any other person involved in a dangerous mission through which there s n hope of return as being a "Hero(!)". Why is this any different. I don't believe it is.
p.s. my screen keeps on changing it's height and width throughout the day. What's up with that?
I believe the kamikaze pilots were very courageous to sacrifice their lives in the way they did; how many western soliders could do the same?
Ah, the white man can irritate me at times...