Evan Thomas
Inactive
Yes -- except that there's nothing particularly subconscious about it. Dehumanizing the enemy is a common strategy on the part of those who decide to make war. Those who actually have to fight it are often the intended recipients of deliberate propaganda designed to have this effect. Hence, rumors of "baby-killing" etc., derogatory names for an enemy -- "nip," "gook," raghead," -- and all the rest.cracked91 said:There is usually (not always) at the very least, language barriers between the fighting sides. In many conflicts, this is coupled with racial and religious differences. It would not surprise me a bit if this helped soldiers subconsciously alienate the opposing force into something less than human in their minds.
And it doesn't occur only in a military context. There's a tendency of some members here (they tend to be the more chest-thumpy ones) to label people who commit certain crimes as "predators," scumbags," even, literally, "animals." It's all about dehumanizing them, and it's unfortunate, I think. Natural, but unfortunate...
I trust you're not including me among such... I think my posts in that thread made it clear that I found the celebrating distasteful. By chance, this essay by a former NYC firefighter was posted this morning on Counterpunch. In criticizing the public celebration of bin Laden's death, he writes:MLeake said:I thought I should point out that for all the people who today are saying they would never celebrate the taking of a human life, there were a whole lot of TFLers doing exactly that in the forum the other day, when the SEALS bagged Osama Bin Laden. I believe some of those people are saying they'd never celebrate such in this thread...
This isn’t a sporting event. These inappropriate celebrations violate human dignity, and the inherent sanctity of human life. Celebrating death, even an enemy's, reminds me of the anger I felt at seeing Afghans dancing in the streets the day the Towers fell.
It's worth reading.Me too.lawnboy said:I'm willing to call this horse dead.
To make an attempt to bring this back to tactics: as I think about this incident, it's forcing me to reconsider something I've taken as a given, up to now: that it's always a bad idea to hide loaded guns around the house, without locking them up in some fashion.
But I don't see how this woman could have reached her handgun if it had been locked up; it seems to me it must have been in a nightstand drawer, or perhaps in a holster behind her headboard... Don't know if we'll hear anything about this, but in that particular situation -- very close quarters with an attacker who is trying to force one to submit -- it doesn't seem that a handgun in one of those little safes, for instance, would do one much good. If there are children in the house, guns do need to be locked up or worn, I think, but if not -- I may have to rethink this.
And as I wrote above, I'd think a long gun would have been much less useful at such close quarters, with an attacker perhaps literally breathing down one's neck. I may have to rethink the shotgun as my main HD weapon, as well.
Last edited: