as with so many things, it all depends on the parameters, change them and the opinion might change

parameter 1: total numbers
killing 4 civilians with intent is worse than 60 without intent, but that change at a certain point. Killing 60000 without intent is worse than 4000 with intent for me.

parameter 2: ratio
what if it's killing 1 with intent versus 100 without intent (as is the case it seems now in Gaza), then I think it's worse that the hunderd people got killed

parameter 3: statements of guilt/fault/regret (also gives a look at intent)
for the killings with intent, we know their intent and it's bad
for killing without intent, we actually don't know whether there was intent, they could just as easily be hypocrits, which makes it worse in my view, it shows a lack of spine and character if you hide behind your own sanctimoniousness

one of the ways we can gauge intent is by what they say after innocent civilians have died, do they show regret or not, if you just see them as collateral damage and don't show support to the casualties, you're as bad as the ones with intent, maybe worse in my book

so mix those 3 parameters and you can start determining which one if worse in which situation

every nation and people makes mistakes, it's how they own up to the mistake and deal with the aftermath that says something about that nation or people.
Nobody is as pure as virgin snow, so stop hiding behind that image, accept your greyness and always try to make it a lighter shade of grey

by callisto on 01/06/2009 01:06:09 PM EST