Comparing Atrocities

[jordan179]

Introduction

I have heard it argued that there is no meaningful way to compare atrocities; that the murder of one man is so horrible that it cannot be countenanced in the pursuit of any end; and that therefore any atrocity in wartime destroys the legitimacy of that combatant.

Comments

[patchworkmind]

There you go being all logical and rational again...

[ravenritings]

no meaningful way to compare atrocities

hrrrrmmmmmmm??? I'll demonstrate.

"How atrocious!" she exclaimed.
Atrociously the shot in the head had killed him.
It was such an atrosity.

"How atrocious!" she exclaimed.
Atrociously an entire army unit had been taken out by the bomb.
It was such an atrocity.

"How atrocious! she exclaimed
Atrociously he had dismembered the victom's limbs as she watched screaming and writhing in the horror of it all.
It was such an atrocity.

Yep theys all atrocities...
yet the word itself draws no more meaning from one context than to the other.
It was all them other words that actually created the visual-that can be judged sensibly..oooh I think the last one is the worsed atrocity.

[jordan179]

Your demonstration supports my point, which is that there are meaningful ways to compare levels of atrocity. And, since war is inherently rather atrocious, such comparisons are necessary in judging with combatants are behaving properly.

[notebuyer]

So you're saying that atrocity does depend on context -- in war, in peace, in the riot outside your door?

[jordan179]

Well, yes. If you want to talk rioting, there is a difference between a demonstration in which a few participants get rowdy and throw a punch or two, and one in which the leaders of the group cry "Kill the [fill in a group]!" and everyone proceeds to pull out weapons and hunt through the streets for them. Both are "atrocious" conduct for demonstrators, but they are not equivalents.

[maxgoof]

The problem I have with most of those who use the tactic of equivocating attrocities is that they will say they find both sides attrocious, but will do nothing to stop the attrocities on one side, concentrating their wrath on the other, usually the one they have easy access to, i.e., their own country.

This behavior is usually based on the idea that it takes two to make a war, and that if one side simply stops fighting, the other side will stop too, and thus the war will end.

Such fools, if given the chance to impliment their stupidity, die an ignoble death.

[jordan179]

This approach, on their part, also makes me wonder which side they are really on. They would respond to this by saying that I'm being "simplistic," maybe even by arguing that they "expect better of America than of the Terrorists," but given that they in fact always criticize America and never criticize the Terorrists, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume that they in fact feel more angry at America than they do at the Terrorists.

Also, I've noticed that, in time, their attitude tends to morph into a simple "America was wrong." For instance, how many of those who protested the occasional American atrocities in Vietnam will admit, today, that the North Vietnamese conducted the war far more atrociously? Precious few that I've met -- I don't think that even Joan Baez went that far.

And their attitude does, of course, have the practical effect of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[jordangreywolf]

On a barely related note, I cringe every time I hear or read a news report in which the exchanges between two sides are described as "tit-for-tat." Maybe it's true, but for the reporter to choose to describe the conflict in such terms seems to suggest to me a patronizing viewpoint of a comfortably removed outside observer who sees it all as so much childish squabbling. In other words, if only one side or the other would just hold his temper and not retaliate, why, this senseless cycle would stop