Monster 2

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of
Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the
word "Monster".
I feel as though it is not fair for the independent to use the word
monster as a label for Karadzic and Milosovic. Even though what they
were doing was completely wrong they do not deserve the term monster.
The blame cannot be placed entirely on them, for if the people of
Serbia had not lied and thrown rocks at each other Milosovic would
have never said the famous words “you will not be beaten again”. He
did not have the original intent to kill the Muslims, but only did so
when he felt it was revenge/defense for his people. A monster would
originally have the intent to hurt, and be looking for a reason to do
so, not the other way around. Plus a monster would not have human
driven motives such as revenge or defense, but would only kill for the
sake of killing.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to
Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The
Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
I think the phrase of calling Karadzick and milosovic would be
justified through authority and reason. News articles such as the
independent are authoritative sources and are telling people that
these people are monsters, so then it must be true. In the Peter Maas
article we are able to read a first hand account of the witness of the
brutalities committed. They are presented to us with such distaste and
we take what we are learning about to obviously be extremely inhumane.
Since we see the actions as being inhumane it is easy to place the
term of something none human to apply to the persons in charge, i.e.
monster.

3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can
look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I think a monster can be defined as something inhumane, or something
that is not human. Monsters thoughts are purely based on blood and
destruction with no other motive or reasons for their actions. A
monster does not stop until everything is destroyed, it does not have
a certain goal or objective.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
My answer has not changed since my first entry. It has not change
because I still feel as though a monster is just a term used to place
the blame on these two individuals, making them look horrendous
instead of showing their side of the argument and seeing why and
where these cruelties really manifested.