Last night, I was listening to the BBC interview with a Taliban spokesman, who was explaining in very rational terms their strategy for their war against the coalition forces, and the extent of their determination. I looked up the transcript today, and for the first time I realized that as with tyre and tire, color and colour, we've managed to make another break with Great Britain's language. England has officially gone with Taleban, while we, of course, have gone with Taliban. When did that happen? Why?
The interview is strange, a little beyond anything NPR will do, I suggest reading the whole thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
I'd say these quotes were key for me (Yes, I understand the PR mindset that probably went behind them):
John Simpson: Every suicide bombing kills innocent people. Don't you have a problem getting people to carry out the kind of mass murder we saw here last Sunday?
Zabiyullah Mujahed: Using explosives in war always involves casualties. We do our best in our suicide attacks to avoid civilian casualties. These are our Muslim countrymen, and we are sacrificing our blood to gain their freedom. Their lives are important to us, of course.
But fighting with explosives is out of the control of human beings. As a result, there are casualties. But our opponents also kill ordinary people.
JS: Do you care about the lives of the people you kill?
ZM: Of course it's regrettable for us. But I can tell you, that no fighting is possible anywhere in the world without this. During the Soviet invasion we lost a million and a half people, all of them innocent.
But the important thing for us was to gain our freedom and independence.
Compare to this two days ago in the NYT:
But the American ambassador, William B. Wood, said the coalition went to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. "Unfortunately, when the Taliban are using civilians in this tactical way, instances of civilian casualties, just like instances of casualties from friendly fire, cannot be completely avoided," he said.
It feels great knowing everyone is so concerned about civilians, huh? I mean in the end, it's just for their good. And their freedom.
What am I saying? If it can be done without killing people, it should be done that way. If you're using bombs, you're doing something wrong. As in morally and logically.