Comment: I'm sorry that your

(See in situ)

I'm sorry that your

I'm sorry that your grandfather was the victim of criminality. No one should be vandalized, whether war veteran or not. I don't understand the reason to make the event about his status, though. Are those involved in the military forces of any country in a different moral or respect category? I think it is not a conscious thing, but the way this post is written and titled one would except to see over-emotionalization of the incident and frantic questions of "how could this happen to a veteran?!"

As a class, veterans were either forcibly kidnapped or voluntarily allowed themselves to be brainwashed by a coercive and imperial states to become paid killers who would attack anyone they were told by the state to attack. Germany, Great Britain, the US, Japan, and Russia were all creating veterans left and right during World War II, to be later revered by their own citizens. Does the US stand alone as the only country whose veterans were actually not involved in evil during their service? A few examples: bombings, shootings, rapes, theft, destruction of property, bribery, chemical warfare, indiscriminate killing on mass scale of civilian centers. What did they learn from their experience of war? Are they teaching their progeny the evils of war and the fact violence is not a valid way to resolve problems with others, or do they glorify it and justify all the evil done as necessary? I think not the former, or the reverential title of "veteran" would not be used. If something is of ambiguous morality, it is not used in this way. We are immersed in cultural and media lies about how the state is always doing its best to protect you and soldiers are the central pieces in it. If we can't argue for the validity of the many and frequent wars we engage in, we must instead transfer the debate to the soldiers and say they are good since by fiat the state says they are protecting "the people". If we accepted only defensive violence but not the initiation of aggressive violence, then we could not value soldiers for doing the will of the state when in 99% of the cases, no initiation of force by outside enemies is being responded to. Far more often our foreign policy follows the sequence: US gives verbal threat, enemy does not surrender, US "defends" itself by attacking enemy. If soldiers happen to be in a situation, just like any of us could be, where he has the means and opportunity to defend an innocent person in a conflict and does so. He is rightly a hero for doing this. He does not get to transfer his good deed onto the class "veterans".

I know most likely you post this because your wife's grandfather is a good person who didn't deserve this and you wished to highlight his goodness with that description. I hope this is not taken as hostile. I just wanted to think out loud about the common usage of the word veteran. I wish you and him luck in recovering from the aggression against him.