(02-09-2018, 03:35 PM)Octo Wrote: Many people are honored posthumously. I don't see anything wrong with that
Nothing wrong maybe,
unless in cases like this it is felt as a gesture that hurt others, enemy victims!
Why not honor them [if they really deserve] when they are alive?
Is it possible that there are no other soldiers still alive who have the same merit?
...... sorry boys, we will honor you when, wait, if you die at war.
My point is what difference does the honor make to the dead, or what will the dead gain from it?
I'm not arguing about a simple funeral for family, friends, corps and officials, and I agree also with Strigoi about the symbolic. But I don't like the fact of making it bombastic, declaring a hero and honoring him [for fighting].
I do not have the statistics, but I assume that the reasons of most wars or terror attacks have been acts of revenge.
“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.” ― David Mitchell
And like Strigoi explained very well, I thought, is that honoring the dead is not for the dead, it's for us living people. I too have put down roses and candles on the graves of fallen heroes. It's a token of gratitude and appreciation, not done to "gain" anything.
What does he need "the Russia Highest Honor Award" for?
It will not be worth a credit for his next life, his deeds and actions will!
It's to convince the civilians that his death was for the greater good. What it does is put a price on life.
That said, is it real?
I was recently having a conversation with a friend. The possibility arose that, if this is all a simulation, that the POO might know and that the lives lost may have no consequence.
I am speaking of the life of a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children; who has undertaken to cherish it and do it no damage, not because he is duty-bound, but because he loves the world and loves his children… - Wendell Berry, 1971