Reply #83: Indeed. [View All]

[TahitiNut]

It's also involving the old canards of "deterrence" (like capital punishment) and blaming the victims. Language. The first victim of war is truth.

WHat I find particularly revealing is the exploitative use of the phrase "innocent civilians." First of all, "innocence" has nothing to do with war. Nothing. That's like "logical" has nothing to do with insanity. Children are the only (sometimes arguable) innocents. (I say that as a Viet Nam vet - and it's not easy to come to grips with.) When we consider that Israel has universal service and that military age citizens are in the reserves, it becomes even fuzzier. Also fuzzy is the status of an irregular militia. So, there's merely heat and little light when claims of "innocent civilian" deaths are tallied. Dead is dead. I doubt the mother of a combatant cries any less. I doubt the child is any less orphaned.

What I find overwhelmingly insane about war and the death trade-offs made is that there's a tactical choice made to employ stand-off weaponry at a place and time of the combatant's choosing - in order to reduce the chance of the combatant's injury or death at the cost of (how many??) non-combatant lives, including children. The delusion that there's anything ethical about stand-off weapons is astounding - when, simultaneously, we hear rants about the death of "innocent civilians." In a bizarre sense, I sometimes think the suicide bomber is the most ethical - in surrendering their own lives. (I said it was bizarre.) It's exceedingly strange that we romanticize the Samurai - and miss the fact that that was a form of warfare in which there was little or no "collateral damage." Even now, we call it "honor." (It's not about technology, either. Mankind has known how to throw stones for a long, long time.)