War heads

When I was travelling by the shuttle today across the campus, the radio was tuned into 700 WLW. The broadcaster normally intersperses the news tidbits with his own views on them. I normally don't have an objection to that method of presentation because the views expressed are usually moderate and more like rhetorics. But today I was outraged beyond words and was fuming by the time I reached my lab.

Today's top news was that the Hiroshima bomber, Paul Tibbets died at his home in Ohio after living a ripe age of 92 years. The radio announcer apparently after much "thought" subscribed to the bomber's views on the bombings and was "mourning" the death of a brave soldier and a true patriot. Mr. Tibbets had no remorse for his act of having annihilated 140,000 people in a split second. He probably never understood the full import of his execrable act because there are another 80,000 Japanese (called Hibakusha) who suffered inconcievably terrifying diseases and mutations. The consequences of his act even today loom large over a population that was undeniably blameless in this whole ratiocination of why his act was "justified". I can even exempt the aforementioned bomber for having had such views, because that was one way for him to psychologically shut out the brutality of having killed thousands of stillborn children and condemning several others to misery and suffering. Escapism and reiteration of his intentions of ending war was one way to keep himself mentally sane which explains his longevity I suppose!

It is however, beyond my comprehension that the radio announcer should endorse such a view! What really incensed me was the fact that he illuminated only one side of the aftermath. The bombing brought a halt to the imminent war and nipped the alleged plans of Japan to attack the US in the bud. The highlight which was underscored repeatedly was that the incident saved the lives of some 10,000 odd GIs: a "commendable" achievement from the RJ's highly parochial and bigoted standpoint. While he reiterated that the war could have wrought havoc on 200,000 lives, the bombing doesn't seem to have made a significance difference given the aforementioned numbers, unless by "lives" he meant American lives and not human lives.

So isn't it as good (or as bad) as supporting the opinions of a terrorist-bomber? How is a terrorist any different from Mr. Tibbets? Every Jehadi believes in the nobility of his violent acts, so did Mr. Tibbets. A Jehadi decimates the perceived threats with bombs to safeguard his clique, so did Mr. Tibbets. The only difference being that a president of a nation that redefined the word superpower, ratified Mr. Tibbet's act.

If a broadcaster can advertize such a view openly, I won't be surprised if another 40% of Americans espouse it too. I now fully understand why George W Bush got re-elected! Most Americans haven't seen misery, the only graphic image of destruction that their eyes would have encountered is that of the WTC crashing. They will never understand or empathize with the destruction in the rest of the world sitting in their pretty glassy buildings with leather chairs and suede cushions. All they know is their lovely fantastic little microcosm needs to be protected from "percieved" or "potential" threats. So in their "global" view its the American lives and the American interests that need to be safeguarded.

Coming to think of it at a macro level, I think such Americans are really no better than some of the uncivil Indians in terms of selfishness except that the scale is much larger and the consequences more significant: the latter keep their houses clean and throw the garbage outside onto the street while the former keep their country bomb-safe by throwing bombs on other nations. Consequentially we Indians have to only deal with a few dirty streets, while America creates a few mutilated nations.