I am sick to death of being labeled as a pacifist because I disagree with retaliatory military action in this case. Granted, nobody has called me that personally, but none of the mainstream new sources I've seen seem to make the distinction between the morally based, 'peace-at-any-cost' POV and the dissenting 'retaliation-does-not-make-logical-sense-pursuant-to-it's-stated-goals' POV. Despite the fact that I want peace and love and all that hippie bullshit, I believe that violence should not be thrown away as one of many tools of human interaction. It just will not do what they claim it will in this case.
The mainstream news I read keeps bringing up the concept of "the bully". I find this very interesting. "The only way to stop a bully is to stand up to him." We've all heard this on TV and in the movies and retaliation from the underdog inevitably either melts the bully's heart or scares him away. Now, I don't know if anybody here has ever been at the very bottom of the social food chain, but here is the bottom line truth about hitting the bully back, from someone who has: It does not work, EVER. What happens when you hit a bully back? He hits you back harder. This metaphor works regardless of who you believe the bully is (Agahani terrorists or the greedy US).
The Seattle Times today claimed that "Peace Activists" refuse to accept the consequences of their actions. Bullshit! I am fully aware that non-retaliation opens us up for potential future attacks. Nothing happens without a cause and if the US were completely innocent this would not have happened. If it will balance the scales, BOMB MY HOUSE, but until the cause is known and eliminated (and I'm talking about true motivation, not some infantile concept of 'evil'), this will happen again and again.
One more metaphor, and then I'll shut up. If you are in a boat that is sinking, do you curse the evil water for trying to drown you or do you attempt to find out why and where the hull is leaking? |
