a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2013, 06:01
I am not trying to diverge the conversation here. I am trying to make a point that I find it a bit amusing how a bunch of men and women likely born after the Vietnam War are giving respectful statements to a man who committed war crimes against the French and sent thousands to get slaughtered by Americans in order to kill thousands of Americans. The war might be over, but I am sure there are still Vietnam veterans still alive that wouldn't lay flowers on his grave.
Lots of people here put up a solid front against my attempt at an Osama death thread that wasn't just high fives and jingoism, I am just curious whether the time difference is really the reason whether someone considers a man a monster or just another actor in a long and complex play.
The recent Gal Giap provoked a question that has been bothering me since the last judging history thread where we all talked about the standards used to judge men long ago in "history".
This topic I want to bring up the issue of when a man has become "history". As you can see from my quote above, I certainly do not view Gal Giap as someone you read about in a history textbook in a boring class. This was a man that many Americans still alive today fought against. A man with a clear case of atrocities and distasteful tactics in order to win a war.
I wish to hear why his thread should be in good taste and respectful while Osama's thread was aggressive and rampant cheering. I don't want to give the wrong impression, I no longer have any problems with how the Osama thread was handled, my opinion back then was probably more than a little naive.
But I want this question in specific to be answered, if the War on Terror was deemed a failure and ended tomorrow, and Osama was not killed already but instead died of natural causes 30 years from now, would that death thread show the same neutrality or even positivity that Gal Giap has received today? Do we only show emotion when the monsters are men who have lived in the same time as us?
Lots of people here put up a solid front against my attempt at an Osama death thread that wasn't just high fives and jingoism, I am just curious whether the time difference is really the reason whether someone considers a man a monster or just another actor in a long and complex play.
The recent Gal Giap provoked a question that has been bothering me since the last judging history thread where we all talked about the standards used to judge men long ago in "history".
This topic I want to bring up the issue of when a man has become "history". As you can see from my quote above, I certainly do not view Gal Giap as someone you read about in a history textbook in a boring class. This was a man that many Americans still alive today fought against. A man with a clear case of atrocities and distasteful tactics in order to win a war.
I wish to hear why his thread should be in good taste and respectful while Osama's thread was aggressive and rampant cheering. I don't want to give the wrong impression, I no longer have any problems with how the Osama thread was handled, my opinion back then was probably more than a little naive.
But I want this question in specific to be answered, if the War on Terror was deemed a failure and ended tomorrow, and Osama was not killed already but instead died of natural causes 30 years from now, would that death thread show the same neutrality or even positivity that Gal Giap has received today? Do we only show emotion when the monsters are men who have lived in the same time as us?