Wednesday, October 20, 2004

More Trips Through Un-Reality

Pandagon has addressed the statements by Robertson and the response to those statements.
Jesse responds to Orrin Judd by saying,

"This isn't just moral obliviousness - it's moral cowardice. So long as death and destruction doesn't pass some grossly high threshold, we're exempt from examining the sacrifices involved. In fact, they barely count as sacrifices - unless they serve a motivational purpose towards further sacrifice. It's the same sort of soulless equivalence that, taken a step further, terrorists themselves use to justify mass murder - death and sacrifice in one instance does not equal death and sacrifice in another instance, therefore the former instance is simply devoid of moral value or culpability."

This has been mentioned before and I think it is right on point. What I have often described as moral laziness is part of this "moral cowardice". The human impulse is to ignore such terrible tragedy, especially when it is attacking what we want to believe. The followers of this mindset are also the people that say they prefer Bush's black and white presentation of the world.

And in any talk of casualties, are we including those Iraqis killed? Here is something I found on BBC:
"The survey groups were also asked whether they felt that the American military did enough to avoid civilian casualties during conflicts.

Seventy per cent of the group as a whole thought the US could do more - with the majority in each country bar the United States saying that more could be done, including 73% of respondents in the UK, 74% in France and 57% in Israel.

However 70% of the American respondents said other countries did not appreciate how much America does to avoid civilian casualties."

Maybe 70% of America thinks "surgical strikes" only kill bad people. Reality-based? I think not.