I'm not sure where I said it was justified. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that if offends my personal morality as a North American. The difference between my opinion and 'yours' (not any one in particular, just one opposing opinion) is that I do not feel the other side is any better nor do I suggest that my opinion is the right one as an absolute. This is the aspect of GW I despise the most - the belief that western ideals and values are correct, and those with different views are wrong and morally inferior.
Am I justifying the Chechen response by suggesting maybe things aren't black and white, maybe things the west does in Iraq/Palestine/Afghanistan/et al are just as bad if you evaluated them on the results rather than on the supposed rationale fed to you by the powers that be? NO. What I am suggesting is that if you held Israel, Russia, the US, etc. to the same standards and look at what they have wrought in various places in the world, maybe you would start to think that speaking in moral absolutes is dangerous b/c our governments, both directly and indirectly, have committed acts that have exactly the same results. We explain these away by saying look at the circumstances and motives. For example, who is worse: a soldier who abuses prisoners (and potentially kills some as there is an investigation into around 20 prisoners who died in captivity) in Iraq simply b/c they can, or a militant who blows up a bus to accomplish some nebulous goal like having a country to call his own. In case A, we blame circumstances and say not every soldier is bad and the situation made them do it, in case B we say there is something morally abhorrent about a whole group of people. In my mind, both are equally bad, and I think it's time the world started calling a spade a spade.
|