Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tw
My Lai was only a more severe example of what was normal in Vietnam. Everyone was the enemy. A shot innocent did not matter. They were gooks.
|
Well, I believe that now it goes deeper than that. I was watching some conservative talk show where the host was baiting the token liberal. The host wrapped his debate up into one question and said something to the effect of "Do you think that the insurgents are evil". The guest did not have time to explain his answer and said "no".
The host seemed very satisfied by this, as if he had established the morally superior position.
I had a few problems with the question, beginning with how it was phrased. There appear to be multiple insurgent groups in Iraq, not all of which engage in terror attacks against civilians. By lumping all insurgents together, the host was attempting to label all insurgents as terrorists.
On a larger scale, the danger of classifying a group as 'evil' is that it is a dehumanizing label. It's quite possible that the individuals who have abused prisoners have thought of them as 'evil', thus justifying extreme treatment. An 'evil' person can cease to be a person and in terms of moral self-justification of the torturer become something like a demon or imp, an object with no rights.
For all that some groups use terms like "Devil's Brigade", no army or insurgency has ever declared itself as evil. In fact, most wars are between armies which declare "Got mit uns" or something similar. In fact the greater the belief that one or both sides have in their divine mandate, the more brutal the conflict becomes.
The problem with the 'evil' label is that it is socially acceptable. The president of the US would never use a phrase like "towel head". However, he could and has declared nations or groups as 'evil'. In doing this, he has greenlighted their abuse.