Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: collapse

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
  • To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: collapse
  • Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:25:43 -0400


Medical Illustration wrote:
> Just to start a discussion (as if we need to blow the list up any more than
> it already is) how many people are ready to destroy the people who did this
> (if we can figure out who they are-- and that's a big if, I realize) and how
> many would really be ready to turn the other cheek, or something close to
> that.

Count me out. I will not perpetuate the cycle of violence.

The perpetrators should be captured, tried and punished, but this is a
crime, not a war. Treating it as a war would be a grievous mistake.
War is irrational and always harms innocent people. We, as a nation,
are above that.

Turning this crime into war would be taking the bait. It would be
responding as these criminals intended. They want us to escalate into
hatred against peoples, nations, cities, to justify their own hate.
This is evil at work, we must not respond with more evil.

Look at what happened in Palestine/Israel. They were on the verge of
peace more than once, each time turned back by assasins and terrorists
on both sides who preferred hate and violence to peace.

> Personally I wish I could even think about turning the other cheek, but I am
> vindictive by nature and wish that they people who did this would we rounded
> up and tortured to death-- actually, tortured for long life -- death is a
> little too kind.

The death penalty would simply provide a martyr for them, and
perpetuate the cycle of violence. Treating the crime as a crime and
imprisoning the perpetrators would blunt the vindictiveness of their
followers.

> But even vindictive nature aside, and my wish to see justice (that word
> alone should start some philosophical disagreements) aside, my thought
> process runs something like this.
>
> Thought Process:
> 1. Whoever is responsible for this has succeeded in doing this once
> 2. The responsible party's goal is most likely to hurt America as much as
> it can--they are already seeking a retribution for a perceived wrong,
> and will not likely stop with this action

Well, why is this? What can we do to change their views and actions
in
a way that doesn't involve obliterating them?

> 3. The responsible party is not likely to stop until i. America & it's way
> of life is destroyed or ii. The Responsible Party is dead.

They can be stopped without obliterating them. The evildoers can be
captured, their followers can be shown the error of their ways. Making
war against them will only increase the evil and increase their violence
against us.

> 4. If the Responsible party strikes again, I may not be one of the lucky
> people whose loved ones are not affected

All of us will die eventually. All of our friends, family and loved
ones will die, too. In all likelihood, we will all suffer loss, pain,
and grief. There is nothing in this life that we get to keep. The best
we can do is hope that the good we create in this life endures and
continues past our own deaths.

Don't get me wrong: I do not think we should turn the other cheek.
But there are ways of protecting ourselves and subduing the evildoers
that do not involve increasing the violence and compounding the evil.

It is always easier in the short to respond to hate with hate, to
violence with violence. It is much more difficult to collect ones self
and respond rationally. It is much more difficult to do the right
thing.

But American responds to difficulty with determination. To despair
with hope. And to pain with help. Let us take care of those in pain,
let us respond to this tragedy with clear thought and determination to
end the cycle of violence.

TaB




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page