mor·alˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/adjective — “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character”

Killing has been in style since man made his first weapon.  How come some methods of killing are viewed as unjust, and have always been out of fashion. We’ve read a lot about chemical weapons in Syria these days. Chemical weapons have always been a faux pas among society at large, save for a few. Hussein’s Iraq being one when he used chemical weapons against Iran and his own countrymen in the north (the Kurds). Even Hitler himself had a disdain for them in warfare, concentration camps aside, probably because of his own exposure to chemical weapons in the first world war.

What’s acceptable and what’s not?

Ask yourself if you would rather see dead women and children killed à la collateral damage via Predator drone, or chemical weapons.  Which is more humane? Why is their moral outrage when you think of the latter, and the images it provokes?  Much easier to think about the sudden death that comes from a rogue drone missile or bomb. It took an American fire bombing campaign, and two nukes to bring and end to WWII with Japan. Over half a million dead people, mostly innocent civilians.

Syrian chemical weapons victims in the suburb of Ghouta

Children killed in an Afghan drone strike courtesy: Asian Tribune

It’s a tragedy that we live in a world where evil exists on such a large scale that we still have to engage in warfare, but it’s a reality that I’ve accepted with the hope that one day it will all end, and hopefully in my children’s lifetime.

Debating appropriate or humane methods of killing people in warfare is interesting, maddening, and a ridiculous exercise all at the same time.

For the time being, evil men need killing, and good men must answer the call regardless of the demons that will come to haunt them late in the night.