What I can never understand is why people don't allow themselves to do fair research of both sides, or all the sides. In the very least in this instance, why defend any side absolutely in this particular argument? Things are what they are and there is a grim injustice that should not be ignored of the players. Grim injustices which lay themselves out in varying degrees via actions committed and the numbers that add up against the crimes.
I see people picking sides for who they wish to identify with rather than an honest appeal towards a fair view of justice. And that view is usually limited to the action committed rather than the depth of the motivations and history behind it.
I also don't feel that tanks, missiles, or planes to kill with has anything to do with honour or sophistication. It doesn’t remove barbarism simply by owning a better design at committing violence. Yet I get the sense that people have a better perception of the side who can fight by these means (our western means) when the other side resorts to methods that in comparison are regarded as crude.
Killing in the end is killing whether ones weapon is complicated or expensive. Also one’s means has nothing to do with tactics or justifications for the killing.
I see people picking sides for who they wish to identify with rather than an honest appeal towards a fair view of justice. And that view is usually limited to the action committed rather than the depth of the motivations and history behind it.
I also don't feel that tanks, missiles, or planes to kill with has anything to do with honour or sophistication. It doesn’t remove barbarism simply by owning a better design at committing violence. Yet I get the sense that people have a better perception of the side who can fight by these means (our western means) when the other side resorts to methods that in comparison are regarded as crude.
Killing in the end is killing whether ones weapon is complicated or expensive. Also one’s means has nothing to do with tactics or justifications for the killing.