From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
On Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 02:18 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
> CB: Agree, but I'd say it stronger: "when U.S. forces wipe out an
> Afghanistan wedding party in Afghanistan, we shouldn't give them the
> "oops".
> Presume it is on purpose , until they prove otherwise." Our boys and
> girls
> are monsters, sorry to say. Every bit of monsters as the worst
> "terrorists"
> on the "other" side.
What they do is frequently monstrous, but keep in mind that they are soldiers, and hence required to obey orders. It's the system they are cogs in, which like all war systems is monstrous, that is at fault. This includes their training, which teaches them to be ruthless when in combat. If anyone should be called monstrous, it's the officers who give the orders and who set up the military system.
^^^^^^^ CB: I agree with what you say. Here the point is in relation to the term "terrorist" and how that category has been given an especially montrous meaning in current political discourse. We are never urged blunt the condemnation of "terrorists" by keeping in mind that they are soldiers and products of a training that teaches them to be ruthless.
The point is "terrorists" are not worse than "soldiers".