BattleMoose wrote:KrytenKoro: You clearly aren't reading what I am writing. And by your responses I can judge that you totally do not understand my position or what I am communicating, nor have you indicated any attempt to understand. Further communication with you is futile. Out.
I'm reading what you're saying, I just vehemently disagree with your assumptions. Tell me if your main point isn't addressed by one of these:
If you are going to judge this guy, we have to do it in the context that he lived in.
1) No I absolutely do not.
2) It seems to me a pretty big overgeneralization that the context the guy lived in was amenable to civilian-slaughtering, and it's outright false to claim that it was encouraged as a moral good
3) He chose to ignore legitimate orders and instead proceed with attacking and murdering innocent civilians.
4) Turning it into a numbers game of "which side killed the most civilians" is not only not a winning proposition, but hugely irrelevant. Not only do two wrongs not
make a right, not only are the Allies not
lauded in modern times for killing civilians, but the Allies weren't involved here at all (and the Allies had a separate culture anyway).
At best, you're arguing that the guy should be forgiven for "being in a tough situation and making a difficult choice". Except: he wasn't
in that situation, and what's more, when someone finally forced him to face the truth, he was rewarded
for his choice of the path of paranoia and murder, personally decried the "withering of traditional values" in the land that no longer desired to fight, and most relevantly, was being given respect by people on this thread
. He's being treated as if he did the right thing
That's not a valid comparison. In fact, you can't compare the two things at all; they're unrelated. Here's why: people who die so that a battle is won don't die pointlessly. The point is to win the battle.
Quibbling about semantics is pretty damn irrelevant to my point, but fine, I'll reword: "trying to avoid preventable
suffering and death of human beings".
In any case, I'm not contrasting them, I was pretty clearly talking about them as ranked priorities, and I didn't say anything about "people who died in order for the battle to be won" -- murdering 30 civilians
didn't win Hiroo any got-damn battles. There are times when battles are justified, but when "winning the battle" becomes more important than "reducing preventable suffering and death", then the battle is no longer warranted.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.