Aaron Bushnell, a US Air Force active-duty soldier, died in front of the Israeli Embassy in the United States a few days ago, with the "Israeli invasion of Palestine". 
I think that if you are only willing to die for your ideals, Aaron's choice is worthy of respect. In fact, this ** Aaron reminds me of another controversial American from nearly two hundred years ago – John Brown. John Brown lived in the United States in the 19th century, although he was white, but his family was a staunch abolitionist, and in John Brown's generation, he was not satisfied with promoting his views in the local legislature, but did a shocking thing - directly took his sons, pulled up a team, formed a militia team to go deep into the south of the United States to fight guerrillas. Of course, this matter is considered a rebellion in other countries, but the United States is special, and the Constitution guarantees that ordinary people have the freedom to own guns and organize armed forces. So the federal ** didn't care about it at first. But the problem is that John Brown behaved in a way that was a bit out of the circle - he rushed straight into the manor and shot the slave owner and announced the emancipation. In 1856, Brown led a group of his first to drag five openly pro-slave Southerners from their homes to the Potevatomi River and kill them one by one, exposing their bodies to the streets, which is the so-called "Portvatomi Da**", after which Brown also seized the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, publicly claiming to kill more supporters of slavery. But ironically, the first person to be killed by John Brown's team in this attack was Hayward Shepard, a free black man who worked for the Baltimore and Ohio railroads. At this point, the U.S. Confederation finally couldn't sit still and sent troops to exterminate John Brown's militia group. He took Brown to court and sentenced him to death. But the elder Brown had his head iron until the end, and when he heard the verdict, Brown said, ". .If it is deemed necessary for me to give my life for the purpose of justice, to mix my blood with the blood of my children, with the blood of the millions whose rights have been trampled on by the decrees of **, cruelty and injustice in this slave country, I obey and do so! Brown left a note before his execution that was even more famous: ".I, John Brown, are now very sure that the sins of this sinful land can only be washed away with blood. I had thought in vain that I could do this without much bloodshed
I heard John Brown's story when I was younger, and heard these quotes from him, which at the time referred to Brown as a "hero." And the United States is also quite strange, for such an obvious and radical "hater of the country", during the Civil War, some people made up his story into a minor tune "The Body of John Brown" and sang it widely in the Northern Army. But for a long time we ignored the judge's verdict in this case when he sentenced Brown to death: ". .It is the defendant's legal right to possess and assert his claims, and the law has never deprived him of his freedom ...... to assert his claimsBut he has no right to deprive others of their lives on the basis of his claims. "I think it's normal for judges to think about it — you Brown has the idea of abolition, which is okay, even great, but can you have something to say? The newspaper industry in the United States was booming at that time, and you could have written a letter to express it, or a public speech to express your abolitionist views! If you don't think it's enough, then you can participate in politics, become a legislator, elect a governor, and even **, promote federal legislation, and urge the federal ** to abolish slavery as soon as possible! Even if this is not enough, you can learn from Steele, the "father of the Underground Railroad", and do you succeed in engaging in the "Underground Railroad" to pick up black brothers to the North? 
In fact, at that time, there were many people in the United States who did this, and the reason why the American Civil War finally broke out and the abolition of slavery was realized was the result of the joint efforts of countless abolitionist journalists, congressmen, and "underground railroad conductors". But John Brown didn't do these things, he directly skipped the freedom granted to him by the law, and chose to lead a group of people to the south, and when he saw someone openly supporting slavery, he killed them directly, and thought that he was extremely righteous because he held up the righteous name of "abolition". Even the free black man, Hayward Shepard, who you say he provoked, was suddenly killed by a gang of gangsters who rushed in - the most ironic thing is that this gang of people is still in the name of giving him freedom. As for John Brown's last words, which seem to be heroic, they are actually terrifying: Brown's logic is that the land of the United States is guilty because of slavery, and since it is guilty, it must be "washed away with blood", and he now believes that Americans can only atone for their sins by shedding more blood. Putting aside the imprint of some ** religions in this passage that are prone to extreme "atonement" thinking, according to his logic, a society, as long as I think you are guilty, I advocate that "cleansing sins with blood" is legitimate, and less blood is not enough, more blood will be shed. And the death of an innocent person is nothing in this great atonement. This logic can be used today to condemn slavery, and tomorrow it can be used for anything else – like you're too rich, or you're biased against your sexual orientation, or you don't believe in a certain religion. In the end, everyone can go to everyone in the name of all the great and righteous reasons, and they can all be called "cleansing sins with blood".John Brown's last words are actually a passionate and narcissistic celebration of a hell on earth with mountains of corpses and a sea of blood. So you say, is John Brown a hero? Of course, he was willing to put his own life and his family's life in order to realize a righteous ideal, and his death was heroic, but heroism does not necessarily mean greatness, and greatness does not necessarily mean right. The disregard for life in the logic of Brown's actions is chilling. If such a person is considered a hero, then you better pray that such a "hero" does not come to you. Because even if his ideal is to be "for your good", if necessary, he will kill you like he killed that hapless free black man without discussion. And I think the question the judge asked is the most valuable: Did American society deny John Brown the right to express his claims? If you have something to say, can you go through legal channels and say it well? If the United States at that time had been like Tsarist Russia, which pursued serfdom at the same time, and implemented a harsh system of tsarist centralization and censorship of the press, the people would have no way to promote the realization of their ideals through normal channels. John Brown, like the reformers of Tsarist Russia at the time, even went to assassinate the Tsar for excusable, even heroic feats. Because you don't have any other choice. However, it was precisely these channels in American society at that time, as mentioned earlier, that you were contributing to the realization of your ideals by becoming a journalist, a commentator, a politician, or even an "underground railroad conductor." But when all other roads were open, Brown had to kill people in the most radical and violent way. If such an act is deemed heroic, there is legitimacy. So, what is the significance of a modern social security for citizens' freedom of speech and the right to participate in politics? You don't want to talk properly, you have to lift the table, so that everyone can't eat. In fact, a similar problem actually exists in Aaron Bushnell's body, and I think before we discuss whether this person is a "hero", we must first recognize such a question: his proposition is to support and sympathize with the Palestinian people, which is okay, so does the American society give him the freedom to insist and express this proposition? Will he be able to express his views through normal channels? I think there seems to be, you see our news is reported every day, and there are a group of people at the door of the White House at every turn, holding signs in solidarity with Palestine. If the active duty military cannot have political leanings, then Aaron can apply for retirement or, like boxing champion Ali, simply refuse to enlist and go to court with the Federation. Then the public debate will be held, and Aaron can make a good presentation of his claim. Wouldn't it be better to inspire the American public? But like John Brown, Aaron chose to abandon these legitimate gambling paths and chose to kill people in favor of murder – the only difference is that John Brown kills someone else, while Aaron kills himself. Killing people in order to force society to agree with one's own views when there is a legitimate path to follow but not to follow is an act that we commonly refer to today as "terrorism". And when there is a legal way not to follow, in order to force society to agree with one's own point of view, what should be called this kind of behavior? I don't know, but I think it should not be related to "heroic" or "great". A mature society that pursues stability and harmony should not regard such behavior as "great", otherwise, once such values are formed, dozens of such people who have something to say and are not good at saying and have to seek death and life will follow Aaron's example of such "greatness", and put it on the shelf to any country, and no country will laugh. Zi said: Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself. Don't glorify an act that you don't want to happen to yourself. At the end of the article, two questions come to mind. First, a few months ago, Hamas suddenly launched more than 5,000 rockets and attacked Israel on land, sea and air at the same time, causing thousands of Israeli civilians, and kidnapping a large number of Israeli women and children, and kidnapping them as hostages to Gaza, provoking this unwarranted ......disasterExcuse me, at that time, a person like Aaron who was compassionate and full of a sense of justice was there? Why didn't anyone run to the door of the mansion of the Hamas leader in Dubai? Second, another war that is going on in the world at the moment is the Russia-Ukraine war, if in a country where the general public opinion tends to be generally pro-Russian, there is also such an Aaron, and such an Aaron is also carried out. How would you feel about this person? The second question is to be answered by yourself, I believe that everyone has a rod and scale in their hearts. I have the answer to the first question - in fact, everyone knows that Israel is at least a normal country, and its people are normal people. You see this time it's clear that even a lot of Jews and even Israelis have expressed sympathy for Aaron. 
But this is not the case with Hamas, which – including the people of Gaza who strongly support Hamas's terrorist attacks as Aaron's "heartache", to be honest, people don't care if you die or not, and even the purpose of terrorist attacks is to kill more people. So if a sympathetic person for Israel comes to them and does this, most of the people's perception will only be - burn well! Die well. Damn all those who sympathize with our enemies! You kill yourself and save us from doing it. 
The joke reminds me of the joke that Gandhi could only become a "Mahatma" if it was Nazi Germany and Hit......ler who had colonized India at the timeHe probably had already been made into soap. And if a person puts the greater evil and does not hold him accountable, he will only bully the "devil with a bottom line" and be afraid of the hard ......I think it's okay to show respect for his courage to stand up for his opinions. But isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that he is a hero?