Monday, August 11, 2003

Bloodshed begat bloodshed
What is the difference between an army and a group of terrorists? I was watching a TV program today about the "Red Brigade", where they were interviewing a member of said group. They were at the site of some particular mass-murdering and the guy was saying how he regrets so much what he did. "In fact, I don't even want to be here, can we leave?" he said, at which my dad said "Ohh, too bad. He should be fucking shot."

So someone who fights in an "army" is revered and basically given immunity from any dissenting opinions for the rest of his life. Someone who fights in a "terrorist organization" should be shot, immediately, on location.

I asked my dad why he thought this man ought to be shot. He went into his whole spiel about how "armies" only fight military targets while "terrorists" go for "normal people". What?! Come on.

This opinion makes the assumption that "military targets" are people who are more deserving to die than "normal people", and that it's alright to kill a "military target". Why are they more deserving to die? Because they chose to join the army and therefore forfeit their life for the cause? Do you think Iraqis chose to join the army? Do you think Vietnamese chose to join the army? Did Afghanis? Did Koreans? Did Nazis? No. None of them did. So someone who is oppressed and forced to join an army is more deserving of death than someone who got assigned an odd number and missed the draft.

Someone should shoot the guy because he fought for what he believed in, in a way he thought right? Therefore should his executioner be shot because he fought for what he believed in, in a way he thought right? And his executioner? And his? Jesus, the whole human race would be gone in a week!

Long story short: no one has the right to kill anyone else, and killing more people is not the answer, surprisingly enough. It's like pouring water on your wet floor; it ain't gonna make it dry.