You say tomato…

Posted on 5/12/2005 by Younghusband

Definitions definitions… Seen this image floating around on the Net and thought I would see if CA readers agreed with the statement. Click on the image to enlarge and answer YES, NO, OTHER and why.

About Younghusband

Sir Francis Edward Younghusband (1863-1942) was a British explorer, army officer, military-political officer, and foreign correspondent born in India who led expeditions into Manchuria, Kashgar, and Tibet. He three times tried and failed to scale Mt. Everest and journeyed from China to India, crossing the Gobi desert and the Mustagh Pass (alt. c.19,000 ft/5,791 m) of the Karakoram mountain range in modern day Pakistan. Convinced of Russian designs on British interests in India, Younghusband proactively engaged in the nineteenth century spying and conflict over Central Asia between the British and the Russians known as the Great Game. "Younghusband" is a Canadian who has spent a number of years bouncing back and forth between his home country and Japan. Fluent in Japanese and English with experience in numerous other languages from Spanish to Georgian, Younghusband has travelled throughout Asia. He graduated with an MA from the War Studies Department at the Royal Military College of Canada, where he focussed on the Japanese oil industry and energy security issues. He has recently returned to Canada from Japan, and is working in the technology sector.
This entry was posted in Terrorism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to You say tomato…

  1. Curzon says:
    5/12/2005 at 8:40 am

    Hell yes. Check out Kaplan’s “Five Days In Fallujah” or “listen to this segment on NPR from last year.”:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1943038 Terrorists hide behind civilians because 1.) they don’t care — look at the abandon with which they are murdering civilians with car bombs in Iraq, and 2.) they know soldiers will not shoot near civilians if they can help it.

  3. Dan says:
    5/12/2005 at 11:47 am

    Also note the Israeli is using his high-tech education to aim in some sort of parabula. :)

  4. Joe says:
    5/12/2005 at 3:43 pm

    Well, I suppose terrorists could go around in the open like soldiers, if they didn’t mind getting blown to smithereens by the soldiers. Having the sanction of a state government and tons of military aid from the most powerful nation in the world tips the balance in the soldier’s favor. If the terrorist hides, he’s being a “realist.” (Not that I think they’re using a realistic policy at all, but I don’t claim to understand what’s going through a terrorist’s head.)

  6. Dusty says:
    5/12/2005 at 5:02 pm

    Of course.

  7. Dan says:
    5/12/2005 at 5:13 pm

    Of course, the realist discussion isn’t the point… It’s that terrorists are evil, regardless of effectiveness.

  9. Joe says:
    5/13/2005 at 2:27 am

    Terrorism is abhorrent, no question, but it didn’t just spring out of the gates of Mordor. They hide behind civilians for reasons unrelated to good and evil.

    This terrorist-soldier contrast is correct, but it’s a rather insignificant point to make. It’s certainly not “the” difference between the two. It says less about good and evil than it says about the realities of warfare. If the soldiers were outnumbered and outgunned by the terrorists, you’d better believe they would be hiding, unless they wanted to get picked off in the open. So yeah, this picture describes the situation, but what’s the point of it?

    I don’t play the “coward” or “evil” cards. That’s like comparing someone to the Nazis. It’s so easy to do and it rarely sheds any light on anything.

  10. MSD says:
    5/13/2005 at 5:04 pm

    “I don’t play the “coward”Â? or “evil”Â? cards. That’s like comparing someone to the Nazis. It’s so easy to do and it rarely sheds any light on anything.”

    But, what if they ARE evil cowards? Then you are just refusing to call a thing by its proper name.

    The point is that actions exist in a moral universe. It is a moral use of force to protect the innocent. It is not moral to shield yourself behind the innocent.

    That is the difference shown in the picture. There are of course other differences. One can observe somewhat different attitudes regarding hostage taking and execution for instance.

  11. Saru says:
    5/13/2005 at 5:08 pm

    Thanks Joe.

  12. pissant says:
    5/13/2005 at 6:00 pm

    i tend to agree. obviously if a u.s. marine got stuck in a tight spot outnumbered in iraq by himself, he’s going to hide. but there’s no way in hell he grabs a civilian woman and starts shooting, using her as a shield. it is a reality of warfare, but there is a moral component as well in my opinion…

  13. Jing says:
    5/13/2005 at 7:05 pm

    Taking a cue from the your own website, to speak pagan, I would have to say no. Terrorists are in an inferior military position in men and material and must rely on asymetrical methods to continue the conflict in order to maintain their own combat effectiveness. This is a cardinal rule of warfare. To commit to open fighting against overwhelmingly superior forces is simply suicidal and while granted many terrorists do not seem to have a particular regard for their own lives, they certainly do want their deaths to count for something.

    Call me a relativist, but the difference between combatants is only material. Strip away the superficial trappings and materials that make a man a soldier and you have two men both willing to kill each other for an abstract cause. The marked difference is that one maintains the trappings of civility due to the luxury of his overwhelming position, but in a war for survival, there will never be any mercy.

  14. Joe says:
    5/14/2005 at 12:58 am

    Jing: RELATIVIST!

    But seriously, I don’t see what’s wrong with relativism when it comes to analyzing terrorism. Once you start seeing the world in black and white, you’ve entered Partisan La-La Land, never to return. You might get some nice publishing deals and some cable news appearances, but at least half of the planet is going to think you’re a moron (or, worse, the Great Satan).

  15. Younghusband says:
    5/14/2005 at 10:05 pm

    Thanks again, Joe.

    Though I think this little piece of propaganda has potential, it _is_ an emotional comparison, and as Joe said, “certainly not ‘the’ difference between the two.” I hope Israel’s brand managers back this up with more logical arguments, or this is going to be completely rejected by the audience intended.

    Marshall McLuhan, signing off…

  16. Younghusband says:
    5/14/2005 at 10:16 pm

    Okay, I am back for a sec:

    Kiran over at “Kamesh’s Musings”:http://www.cyd.liu.se/~kamva881/blogs/musings/archives/2005/05/difference_betw.html#comments notes:

    bq. Once more difference I can see is the dress of women in the photo, Did u get something?

    Hmmmm…

  17. Curzon says:
    5/15/2005 at 12:05 am

    Jing has a great point here, actually, as does YH’s second to last post.