Hellfire
Everybody’s talking about the scandal in the Catholic Church these days, but the church has also done good things: the Second Lateran Council in the year 1139, for example. Innocent II was pope then and he was successful in unifying the church; that is to say, he finally got rid of all the anti-popes. While he managed to do that, he and the council also issued a ban that could have had significance in world history.
The Second Lateran Council banned the crossbow. Because of its long range and its power to pierce armor plate, the weapon was considered immoral. It was, namely, unchivalrous. Now these council members, who had many worldly possessions, would have been downright naïve about their own best interests had they not also issued a special dispensation along with their ban. Christians would be allowed to continue killing heathens, especially Arabic or other Muslim heathens, using the crossbow from far away.
Sadly, the ban hasn’t worked very well among Christians, either. Three centuries later, troubadour Oswald von Wolkenstein sang, in near-journalistic tones, of many casualties at a battle in the South Tyrol caused by a hail of arrows fired from their crossbows. This singer, poet and warlord (the Germans called them “knights”) wasn’t blamed for anything, least of all by the 15th Ecumenical Council of Constance, in which he had taken part in the year 1415. One doesn’t accuse piously orthodox warlords of anything, and if they happen to have a literary bent, their power politics are generally overlooked. That’s how the talented Chinese lyricist Mao will pop up in literary history one of these fine days after the revolutionary philosophy he enforced from the muzzle of a gun has long since been reversed.
By the way, it’s quite easy to justify the use of long distance killing machines as moral. All one has to do is attach a label to the victims (even after the fact) that reads “Taliban”, “al-Qaida” or “terrorist.” One’s own terrorists are always called “freedom fighters,” representing righteous entities such as the CIA, for example.
Today’s warrior is far advanced compared to the days of the crossbow; he wouldn’t even consider such outmoded junk. He carries out his orders from much further away, say about 10,000 miles. That’s how far he is from the drones that rain the rockets they call “hellfire” down on those they've labeled suspects. If the label doesn’t exactly fit the targets, then they’re called “collateral damage.” It makes no difference whether the collateral damage is 5 years old or 85 years old, whether they’re male or female, whether they wear tribal uniforms or civilian clothes.
What is the drone so far away from? From the console with the “joystick” (yes, it’s actually called that) being operated by a guy in his mid-twenties, guiding the drone and launching the “hellfire.” The operator doesn’t even have to know where Afghanistan is.
It’s not even condemned — churches of all faiths have long since engaged in blessing their nation’s weapons. But in the ecumenical council sense, it’s still “unchivalrous.” It’s a war crime, as several American human rights advocates have pointed out in testimony before Congress. Of course, the CIA justifies it. Anti-terrorist operations are always justifiable. And where there are no courts to decide, other laws don’t count. The United States doesn’t recognize international courts anyway.
The Second Lateran Council banned the crossbow. Because of its long range and its power to pierce armor plate, the weapon was considered immoral. It was, namely, unchivalrous. Now these council members, who had many worldly possessions, would have been downright naïve about their own best interests had they not also issued a special dispensation along with their ban. Christians would be allowed to continue killing heathens, especially Arabic or other Muslim heathens, using the crossbow from far away.
Sadly, the ban hasn’t worked very well among Christians, either. Three centuries later, troubadour Oswald von Wolkenstein sang, in near-journalistic tones, of many casualties at a battle in the South Tyrol caused by a hail of arrows fired from their crossbows. This singer, poet and warlord (the Germans called them “knights”) wasn’t blamed for anything, least of all by the 15th Ecumenical Council of Constance, in which he had taken part in the year 1415. One doesn’t accuse piously orthodox warlords of anything, and if they happen to have a literary bent, their power politics are generally overlooked. That’s how the talented Chinese lyricist Mao will pop up in literary history one of these fine days after the revolutionary philosophy he enforced from the muzzle of a gun has long since been reversed.
By the way, it’s quite easy to justify the use of long distance killing machines as moral. All one has to do is attach a label to the victims (even after the fact) that reads “Taliban”, “al-Qaida” or “terrorist.” One’s own terrorists are always called “freedom fighters,” representing righteous entities such as the CIA, for example.
Today’s warrior is far advanced compared to the days of the crossbow; he wouldn’t even consider such outmoded junk. He carries out his orders from much further away, say about 10,000 miles. That’s how far he is from the drones that rain the rockets they call “hellfire” down on those they've labeled suspects. If the label doesn’t exactly fit the targets, then they’re called “collateral damage.” It makes no difference whether the collateral damage is 5 years old or 85 years old, whether they’re male or female, whether they wear tribal uniforms or civilian clothes.
What is the drone so far away from? From the console with the “joystick” (yes, it’s actually called that) being operated by a guy in his mid-twenties, guiding the drone and launching the “hellfire.” The operator doesn’t even have to know where Afghanistan is.
It’s not even condemned — churches of all faiths have long since engaged in blessing their nation’s weapons. But in the ecumenical council sense, it’s still “unchivalrous.” It’s a war crime, as several American human rights advocates have pointed out in testimony before Congress. Of course, the CIA justifies it. Anti-terrorist operations are always justifiable. And where there are no courts to decide, other laws don’t count. The United States doesn’t recognize international courts anyway.