(no subject)

[realexplodingcat]

Recently, I spoke to someone who had just seen Tom Cruise's new film, "The Last Samurai." Apparently quite a good film, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. This satisfied viewer admired the samurai culture, and couldn't help but mention that it had more bravery and honor than, say...the entire Middle East (yes, obviously a gross generalization based upon the actions of a few suicide bombers).

Now, I agree about that honor part. Not only the Middle East, but most of the world (including the USA) cannot compete with the amount of honor and respect the Japanese culture has built into itself, especially in its golden age of the samurai. However, in defense of fundamentalist islamic suicide bomber wackos...they do believe that it is most honorable and brave to die for their religion. Also, don't forget that Japan's own rules of honor also created the kamikaze, the original fly-your-plane-into-stuff attackers. Within the context of their own societies and the war culture that created them, both suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots are highly esteemed for their bravery.

However, I suspect that nearly the entire nation of Japan revered it's kamikaze pilots during WWII (which is kinda scary), while only the small (yet very vocal and dangerous and often in control) fundamentalist islamic groups promote suicide attackers.

One could have an interesting academic debate over which suicide squad has the most true honor...and I think most outsiders would agree that neither of them do. They are both just plain crazy. Their minds are clouded by an erroneously extreme war-time interpretation of a truly honorable doctrine.

Comments

[nolovelost.livejournal.com]

you know, i was just reading a thread in houstontx and one common thread came up about innocent people dying. the pro war person was saying that innocent lives are lost all the time in war, it's just a matter of fact. but then these are the same people who cry over the suicide bombers. it's a war to them. i'm not saying i agree with all of that though. there are definitely better ways to address their problems.

and so i also think about the revolutionary war. before then, all wars were fought where everyone stood in front of each other and just fired away. and some of our generals started a new method of actually hiding or laying down or whatever instead of being sitting ducks. and they also started targetting officers rather than just foot soldiers. this whole new way of fighting was considered barbaric to the english.

point is, the way wars are fought are always evolving. what is barbaric now may become the new way of fighting future wars. i hope not though. you'd think with the evolution of man and technology, etc, that we would find ways to AVOID war altogether.

[explodingcat.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of something I heard once...that the our Civil War is sometimes considered the last civilized war (if war could be called civilized). What happened to the good old days of aristocrats leading hired grunts into battle?

[sheilamarie.livejournal.com]

I think there may be one point missing from your dissertation, kamikaze pilots tended to avoid civilian targets where as suicide bombers seem to aim primarily for civilians. Yes it's nuts to kill yourself purposely in any situation, but I think that one can see more honor in "throwing yourself on the grenade" during war so to speak in the way the kamikaze did for their country. Suicide bombers just want to kill people, it's about taking out as many of "them"(Israelis, Americans, those who aren't fundamentalists) as they can. Granted, you can say that the bombers are at war but it's the fact that they repeatedly go for CHILDREN that makes them lack any and all honor...

[explodingcat.livejournal.com]

Very good point. Thank you, that part slipped my mind. I do have more respect for the kamikaze...but when I wrote that I couldn't figure out why...maybe it was just a personal preference for that culture. But, you're right, that was the missing element. Of course...if the kamikaze pilots had enough fuel and protection to fly across the entire Pacific, would they have attacked civilian cities in the same way? Maybe so.

[alierakieron.livejournal.com]

Given what the Japanese forces did to Mainland China (a la NanKing?)
I imagine they probably would have. The footsoldiers showed very little distinction between one and the other.