Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Why is it even an issue of what word you use to describe the four people whose corpses were mutilated and put on display? No one -- soldier, civilian, or ex-dictator -- deserves that. It's abhorrent and inhuman, and I really have to question why any of you would seek to justify it.
|
Still up to your old tricks, I see.
What exactly is your question? Please try to phrase it without putting words in my mouth.
No one I've seen has justified what happened. What we responded to, however, was the idea that this was somehow worse because civilians were targeted. We pointed out that the victims were not civilians, but rather people whose reason for being in Iraq was for a paycheck--not altruism. That's what mercenaries do--they fight for money, not ideology or defense. I don't justify what happened, but by the same token I don't particularly give a shit that it did--the danger of this type of thing happening is why they are being paid so much. Wasn't it people in support of this war arguing that criticism of the atrocities are irrelevent because that's the nature of war? Well, now why is it different when the atrocities happen to the "good guys?" I think that's bullshit and I also think it's buillshit that one of the military commanders is threatening a hellstorm on an innocent village because of the actions of a few people like these fucking four people are somehow worth more than the villagers who didn't do jack shit and are abhorred by what happened.