I am not a Pacifist

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Reeka: First, I must state up-front that I am not nor will I attempt to be objective about this. Though, I am not a violent person, and abhor violence as the answer or solution in any given situation, violence is a part of our lives. I would dare to go so far as to say that if we look, we, ourselves personally, or someone we know has had violence intrude upon their lives. I think pacifism is an admirable philosophy but basically unworkable. I, myself, have experienced violence in a personal sense. (Victim of two violent crimes.) First, I wish I had had the ability and means to protect myself. Secondly, I admit to wanting the perpetrators of these crimes to suffer in the same way I have. I just want it clear that I am not nor will attempt to be objective on this subject. As terrible as it may be, I believe that sometimes you have to take lives to save lives. I know that this appears to be a contradiction in terms; however, I think one has to consider the overall picture. I believe that to know to "do good" and not do it, is as bad as committing a bad act to begin with. I remember (vaguely so if anyone knows the details please help me here)a case where a woman was raped and murdered in front of many witnesses. No one intervened on her behalf. I believe these people have her blood on their hands as much as the man who committed the crime. I believe that violence, even justifiable violence, is always the path of last resort for right-thinking people. But to do nothing to stop evil and destruction, is to become a passive collaborator. I do agree that those who should be vilified are those who bring about the circumstances that require people to take such action. The responsibility I believe rests with them and them alone. There is no easy answer or ideal solution. I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone, but I truly believe that having been in violent situations does color one's point of view, essentially making it very difficult to continue to hold to a completely pacifistic point of view.

Good post, Reeka! I politely disagree to some of that, though. And pacifism does work (if not always) - Gandhi?

------------------


Kazara

Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB
Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe
Guardian of the Temple of Aerie (specialized in GenCon and BG)

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Memnoch: I think some of the issues we need to look at are: - the SHORT-TERM solution - bringing the perpetrators to justice and destroying/emasculating the network of organizations/nations which train/supply/fund these terrorists). This is easier because we have a clear moral purpose, which is to deliver justice to those who lost their lives on September 11 and to eradicate terrorism - NOT to assuage the injured pride of a superpower (the HOW DARE THEY! syndrome). - as well as a LONG-TERM solution - looking at the causal factors which have facilitated such inflamed passions, beliefs and hatreds (misguided though they may be) which can cause fellow human beings to overcome the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and sacrifice themselves for a cause that they BELIEVE is right. We need to be careful that we don't get caught up in an unwinnable tit-for-tat conflict like the Israelis and Palestinians - they blow up a couple of buildings, we kill a major terrorist leader, they retaliate by blowing up a US Embassy, we retaliate by bombing Kabul, and so on. More importantly, we all need to think of what ways can America and the rest of the civilized world influence some of the factors that are driving these feelings of hatred towards Americans/Westerners and ask ourselves if a) we want to do anything about it; and b) if so, what can/will we do about it. Some of these factors, such as the way groups like the Taliban use the hopeless situation for many Muslims in the middle east as fuel for their extremist, militant, destructive view of Islam, may unfortunately prove beyond the scope of the West to influence. Is it in the collective best interests of Western nations to try and leverage some of the more moderate Islamic nations to mediate, or do we just say stuff it! and nuke all the bastards? Nobody said that finding a solution to the long-term problem would be easy.

This says it all.

Also, I believe that bombing the s*** out of Afghanistan or any other country will create many more problems then sending in commandos/snipers/special forces... Yes, some of those elite soldiers will die in the process. That's the way it is. If you think that bombing a country to save the live of 100-200 soldiers is justifiable, let me just ask you if you would rather deal with a terrorist network of about 10-20,000 (fictitious number) or a terrorist group of 10-500 millions. Your call.

Finally, just a side note: the situation in Japan in WWII was different than what we have here. In Japan, the entire country (children, elderly, women, men, soldiers, elites, workers, government...) viewed the Allies as the Ennemy. In Afghanistan (and other countries) you are talking about possible supportive government and extremists that consider us the ennemy. That doesn't justify bombing indiscriminantly to save a few lives. Mind you, the cost on lives will actually be much higher on our side if we have to deal with millions of possible terrorists.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Reeka: First, I must state up-front that I am not nor will I attempt to be objective about this. Though, I am not a violent person, and abhor violence as the answer or solution in any given situation, violence is a part of our lives. I would dare to go so far as to say that if we look, we, ourselves personally, or someone we know has had violence intrude upon their lives. I think pacifism is an admirable philosophy but basically unworkable. I, myself, have experienced violence in a personal sense. (Victim of two violent crimes.) First, I wish I had had the ability and means to protect myself. Secondly, I admit to wanting the perpetrators of these crimes to suffer in the same way I have. I just want it clear that I am not nor will attempt to be objective on this subject. As terrible as it may be, I believe that sometimes you have to take lives to save lives. I know that this appears to be a contradiction in terms; however, I think one has to consider the overall picture. I believe that to know to "do good" and not do it, is as bad as committing a bad act to begin with. I remember (vaguely so if anyone knows the details please help me here)a case where a woman was raped and murdered in front of many witnesses. No one intervened on her behalf. I believe these people have her blood on their hands as much as the man who committed the crime. I believe that violence, even justifiable violence, is always the path of last resort for right-thinking people. But to do nothing to stop evil and destruction, is to become a passive collaborator. I do agree that those who should be vilified are those who bring about the circumstances that require people to take such action. The responsibility I believe rests with them and them alone. There is no easy answer or ideal solution. I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone, but I truly believe that having been in violent situations does color one's point of view, essentially making it very difficult to continue to hold to a completely pacifistic point of view.

*The sound of loud applause is clearly heard throughout the room*

Awesome Post!!!

And, my most sincere condolences for what happened to you. *HUGS* if you want em.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[ScottR]

Ryanamur - I think there is a large range of options in between "Bombing the sh** out of Afghanistan" and deploying units of special forces. I am not even suggesting a carpet bombing of Afghanistan dwellings or anything close to that.

You say a few hundred troops will die and this is preferrable to bombing a country and enlarging the terrorist network. Firstly, I have a number of friends in the British Army. Some in the Parachute Regiment who seem likely candidates to be involved. In a truly emotional response, yes I value their lives above those who are strangers to be in another country. By the same logic you could conclude that the deaths of those in the tragedy of the World Trade Centre do not justify inciting Fundamentalist ire. How many of our men should die before it becomes "unjustifiable".

As to an expansion to the terrorist network. I would say the Taliban and Bin Laden are only a symptom of anti Western sentiment in the Middle East. How many anti Western demonstrations have we witnessed over the years by the people in any number of countries. Just what is a "possible supportive government". When the Taliban first rose to power they were quite popular as they systematically assassinated the various warlords throughout the regions. If the terrorist movement could increase expontentially following a discriminating military campaign in Afghanistan then surely we shouldn't count on any long term support no matter what happens.

Yes Japan is a different situation but Britain and Japan became allies in 1905 when the Japanese defeated the Russians. Westerners were certainly not seen as a traditional enemy in that sense. Yes there was support for a war when it was being fought but that was patriotism as much as anything else.

[Kaz]

Scott: I think if any special troops are sent, they should go voluntarily and fully knowing that there is a large chance that they will die.

------------------


Kazara

Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB
Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe
Guardian of the Temple of Aerie (specialized in GenCon and BG)
Most Illustrious Arch-Magess of the Illuminati
Lux omnis est

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by ScottR: Ryanamur - I think there is a large range of options in between "Bombing the sh** out of Afghanistan" and deploying units of special forces. I am not even suggesting a carpet bombing of Afghanistan dwellings or anything close to that. You say a few hundred troops will die and this is preferrable to bombing a country and enlarging the terrorist network. Firstly, I have a number of friends in the British Army. Some in the Parachute Regiment who seem likely candidates to be involved. In a truly emotional response, yes I value their lives above those who are strangers to be in another country. By the same logic you could conclude that the deaths of those in the tragedy of the World Trade Centre do not justify inciting Fundamentalist ire. How many of our men should die before it becomes "unjustifiable". As to an expansion to the terrorist network. I would say the Taliban and Bin Laden are only a symptom of anti Western sentiment in the Middle East. How many anti Western demonstrations have we witnessed over the years by the people in any number of countries. Just what is a "possible supportive government". When the Taliban first rose to power they were quite popular as they systematically assassinated the various warlords throughout the regions. If the terrorist movement could increase expontentially following a discriminating military campaign in Afghanistan then surely we shouldn't count on any long term support no matter what happens. Yes Japan is a different situation but Britain and Japan became allies in 1905 when the Japanese defeated the Russians. Westerners were certainly not seen as a traditional enemy in that sense. Yes there was support for a war when it was being fought but that was patriotism as much as anything else.

I would just like to point out that soldiers in the West are not coerced into serving in the army, they do it of their own free will, and for a salary. If you decide on a army career, well, then you must accept that that entails a certain amount of risk. Everyone who joins the army is made very aware that their life is likely to be on the line at some point.


------------------


Ascended Mistress of Illumination OR Paws R Us

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: I would just like to point out that soldiers in the West are not coerced into serving in the army, they do it of their own free will, and for a salary. If you decide on a army career, well, then you must accept that that entails a certain amount of risk. Everyone who joins the army is made very aware that their life is likely to be on the line at some point.

Same point as me! But yours was phrased better *All Hail Silver Cheetah, The Ascended Mistress Of Illumination And Good Phrasing!* er...

------------------


Kazara

Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB
Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe
Guardian of the Temple of Aerie (specialized in GenCon and BG)
Most Illustrious Arch-Magess of the Illuminati
Lux omnis est

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by ScottR: Ryanamur - I think there is a large range of options in between "Bombing the sh** out of Afghanistan" and deploying units of special forces. I am not even suggesting a carpet bombing of Afghanistan dwellings or anything close to that. You say a few hundred troops will die and this is preferrable to bombing a country and enlarging the terrorist network. Firstly, I have a number of friends in the British Army. Some in the Parachute Regiment who seem likely candidates to be involved. In a truly emotional response, yes I value their lives above those who are strangers to be in another country. By the same logic you could conclude that the deaths of those in the tragedy of the World Trade Centre do not justify inciting Fundamentalist ire. How many of our men should die before it becomes "unjustifiable". As to an expansion to the terrorist network. I would say the Taliban and Bin Laden are only a symptom of anti Western sentiment in the Middle East. How many anti Western demonstrations have we witnessed over the years by the people in any number of countries. Just what is a "possible supportive government". When the Taliban first rose to power they were quite popular as they systematically assassinated the various warlords throughout the regions. If the terrorist movement could increase expontentially following a discriminating military campaign in Afghanistan then surely we shouldn't count on any long term support no matter what happens. Yes Japan is a different situation but Britain and Japan became allies in 1905 when the Japanese defeated the Russians. Westerners were certainly not seen as a traditional enemy in that sense. Yes there was support for a war when it was being fought but that was patriotism as much as anything else.

Yes, I believe that 100-200 body bags are an acceptable price to pay to get Bin Ladden. I do not believe that bombing will hurt Bin Ladden in anyway, shape or form. To the contrary, I believe that bombing will only increase the anti-american sentiment present in other ethnic groups (both in and out of the so called Civilized world). Even 200 is far less than what it would be if we take full blown military action against any country that deals with terrorists.

As for your friends in the Army, I'm sorry but I also put my name on the dotted line once in the past. I knew and understood the consequences when I did. So did they or they wouldn't have signed in.

I don't believe in indiscriminantly killing Arabs, Muslims, Jews or any other by-standers to get to Bin Ladden. It can be done efficiently without getting more Arabs or Muslims against us.

I trully believe that it's in our best interest to actually help the people of not only Afghanistan but also other countries that need help rather than simply turning a blind eye with an "you supported him and now you'll die" attitude.

I have no problem with the Talibans except that they execute indiscriminatly their citizens. If they believe that music is the word of the Devil, so be it, that's their opinion. I won't tell them what to do or believe in and, in return, I expect them to do the same. But when you're talking about genocide (especially within your own ethinic group), I can't turn a blind eye. The fact that Bin Ladden is in Afghanistan doesn't mean Afghans support him. It means the government does. So what, we're no less Saints. How many did we kill over the Cold War? Does that mean that Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and other Western leaders should be executed? No it doesn't. And it certainly doesn't mean that all Afghans should pay for this.

This going to war thing and full blown deployment of military might is nothing more than a big display to please public demands after the outraceous acts of terrorism that we witness. Ironnic that we are quick to point responsability to Bin Ladden and his groups to only fail to realize that our own inefficiency, lack of professionalism and sentiment of compleciency got us were we are.

Ever since the USSR fell we've been hearing about how going from a bi-polar world to a uni-polar world will create instability thereby increasing drastically the risk of terrorists attack on us. What did we do? We kept cutting budgets, cutting personnel, making security more and more lax. Now, we got the wake-up call that experts have been predicting for over 10 years.

The funny thing is: those people that made really bad judgement calls are also responsible for what happened. They are still sitting in their nice office, still making recommendations for the elected body of our nations to base their decisions on. We're not going after them and their error in judgement are we? Why, because we're not ready to admit that we also royally screwed up.

These and future terrorist acts should not come to a surprise to any of us. Hell, they told us a year, 2 months and again 2 weeks before they attacked that we were going to pay. All we did was send a small warning that no one took seriously.

Mark my worlds: Unless we clue in and solve our problems (both at homes and abroad), terrorists will just keep hiting us and we'll just keep going "bad terrorists, we didn't take any real measures to ensure that you wouldn't strike again, why would you strike again, bad, bad, bad terrorist".

We didn't clue in yet. Our economy is going to down the drain. So far 125,000 workers in the airline industry have lost their jobs. When the ripple effects will stop, you'll be able to bring that number up by about 10 times. Yet, we didn't do anything to solve this problem. We are so focused on getting Bin Ladden, we didn't even realize that those guys totally destabilized our whole economic system and way of life. Guess what, so far, they've proven themselves to be way wiser and head of the issues than we.

I'm sorry I had to be so harsh but I did edit ALOT of it before posting. This is what I've been thinking for over 2 weeks and finally posted it. Fire away, I'm wearing kevlar.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-28-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Just some quick thoughts as I'm still on holidays here in Australia's Top End and so have not kept up with the threads but I just thought I would make a couple of comments. People seem to be confusing a reluctance to indulge in immediate military action with pacifism? I didn't think they were the same thing. Use whatever tools are required to deliver to justice (dead or alive) those proven to be responsible for those slain in the attacks on WTC - surgical strikes, commando raids, diplomatic pressure, bombing raids, etc. if they are deemed to add value to the ultimate goal and will minimize collateral damage - but let's be smart about what we do, and who we do it to. Speaking of collateral damage -don't you love that term? So dehumanizing, like talking about sprites on a computer screen. Let's pretend that we have a relative working in Kabul who might be at risk of being "collaterally damaged" (like I did in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War) and see if we are still able to throw that term around in such a cavalier fashion. I think some of the issues we need to look at are: - the SHORT-TERM solution - bringing the perpetrators to justice and destroying/emasculating the network of organizations/nations which train/supply/fund these terrorists). This is easier because we have a clear moral purpose, which is to deliver justice to those who lost their lives on September 11 and to eradicate terrorism - NOT to assuage the injured pride of a superpower (the HOW DARE THEY! syndrome). - as well as a LONG-TERM solution - looking at the causal factors which have facilitated such inflamed passions, beliefs and hatreds (misguided though they may be) which can cause fellow human beings to overcome the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and sacrifice themselves for a cause that they BELIEVE is right. We need to be careful that we don't get caught up in an unwinnable tit-for-tat conflict like the Israelis and Palestinians - they blow up a couple of buildings, we kill a major terrorist leader, they retaliate by blowing up a US Embassy, we retaliate by bombing Kabul, and so on. More importantly, we all need to think of what ways can America and the rest of the civilized world influence some of the factors that are driving these feelings of hatred towards Americans/Westerners and ask ourselves if a) we want to do anything about it; and b) if so, what can/will we do about it. Some of these factors, such as the way groups like the Taliban use the hopeless situation for many Muslims in the middle east as fuel for their extremist, militant, destructive view of Islam, may unfortunately prove beyond the scope of the West to influence. Is it in the collective best interests of Western nations to try and leverage some of the more moderate Islamic nations to mediate, or do we just say stuff it! and nuke all the bastards? Nobody said that finding a solution to the long-term problem would be easy. Sorry, but my time at this internet cafe is just about up, I hope I've given you guys some food for thought. Sweet water and light laughter till next, I'll be back soon for soft songs and bright wine.

Hey Memnoch, great post mate. Thanks. Stay safe. Don't be a statistic.

Hugh



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: We didn't clue in yet. Our economy is going to down the drain. So far 125,000 workers in the airline industry have lost their jobs. When the ripple effects will stop, you'll be able to bring that number up by about 10 times. Yet, we didn't do anything to solve this problem. We are so focused on getting Bin Ladden, we didn't even realize that those guys totally destabilized our whole economic system and way of life. Guess what, so far, they've proven themselves to be way wiser and head of the issues than we. I'm sorry I had to be so harsh but I did edit ALOT of it before posting. This is what I've been thinking for over 2 weeks and finally posted it. Fire away, I'm wearing kevlar.

Ryanamur, I think this is possibly the best post I have seen on this topic since we all started discussing and debating it. Your clarity is awesome.

Your point regarding the economy - yes, and not just America's! All over the world, countries that have committed to liberalisation of trade, who have borrowed money to develop, and who have contracts with America are suffering already. (I edit a business retail site, and the stories that are coming in are full of woe.) Many of these countries have huge debts (which they took out to finance development so they could compete in world markets), and rely on exports to pay them.

Where some of them are now is called up shit creek without a paddle, where I come from. (Globalisation of trade = dangerous dependencies, in my view, - as we are now seeing. But that's a whole other topic...)

------------------


Ascended Mistress of Illumination

[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 09-28-2001).]