Not all beliefs in good guys and bad guys are hollywood-style.
> Do you think that the Japanese believed then that they were the bad guys?
No, but I do think they were among the bad guys.
If everyone says "I'm not racist", you probably don't say "oh good, that's okay then" and decide racists don't exist.
From memory it goes something like this:
You're in a cabin with the track-switching equipment beside a railway. You can see in the distance a group of 5 people walking along the track. In the other direction you can see an out of control train. You can switch the tracks so the train will be diverted onto another track, avoiding the people and averting a catastrophe.
Most people switch the track.
But now you introduce a single person on the alternative track. If you do nothing 5 people will die. But if you switch tracks one person will die.
People find this a bit harder to think a out, and are hesitant to say that they'd switch the track.
It seems that if the single person is a TERRORIST that many people would switch the track. They might even switch the track if the single person was a taxi driver that someone else had said was a TERRORIST. They might even switch the track if the single person was an innocent relative of a supposed TERRORIST.
To me, the analogy is more like this:
You are mayor of a town. There might be a ticking timebomb in a school somewhere in your town. Watches tell the time and are similar to what is used in timebombs.
Should you (a) torture everyone who looks at a watch, because they might know about a timebomb that might exist, or (b) NOT TORTURE PEOPLE.
To me there is zero justification for deciding (a) in that scenario.
But that's my point: 1 man who would find a cure for millions or 5 who could potentially change the world (themselves or their kids)...
In the same way, the Father made an incalculable cost in giving up his only begotten son, so that no man shall suffer the second death, but experience eternal life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa...
I realised myself that although I abhor torture, if it was my child (or indeed any child) I would probably do anything to get the kidnapper to talk.
I agree that if you assume 'good guy' is an absolute, and any deviation from that one true path is 'bad guy', then everyone is a 'bad guy'. Then the terms becomes meaningless. But I consider these relative terms. For all its faults, the US is still closer to the 'good guy' than 'bad guy' side of the spectrum in most areas. North Korea is closer to the 'bad guy' than the 'good guy' side.
Do you think the person you were replying to would disagree with this? (I agree with it.) It seems more likely to me that they just weren't using the words "good guys" and "bad guys" in the ways you interpreted them.
So, no: "good guys" and "bad guys" were not meant as synonyms for "us" and "them" (unless you mean "us"="USA").