From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 15:06:18 MST
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Samantha,
> > Can you prove that we who support the war against the
> terrorist are
> > "simply assuming violence is the best answer?" I have seen no
> indication of
> > that at all.
>
> I said "many *seem* to do". I was not pointing at you
> personally or even at this particular "war". The first part of
> the sentence above is a bit more important anyhow. The
> so-called "war on terrorism" will not decrease terorism if it
> involves endless war as Bush as proclaimed. It can only
> increase lack of safety and deplete us in every way including
> economically. This "war" is also being waged using means that
> decrease real freedom at home and aborad. Attacks on freedom in
> the name of ending attacks on freedom make no sense.
Even the most liberal sociologist can point to many studies which shows
that collective violence achieves its goals far more often than
non-violent collective action.
Non-violent collective action is only effective when the civilian
sector of the enemy population has a high degree of respect for such.
The only two real movements that successfully used non-violence were
Gandhi's campaign to turn British public opinion, and King's campaign
to turn northeastern American public opinion. Both target cultures have
had a history of christian sympathy for the downtrodden.
Nonviolence directed at the muslim world does not bear out any similar
degree of efficacy in turning public opinion. For example, during the
first Gulf War, Iraqi missiles rained down on Israel, and Israel did
not retaliate. Instead of sympathizing with Israelites, muslims around
the world danced in the streets at the suffering of Israel. Muslim
society instead regards nonviolence as weakness and dishonor, only
worthy of disgust and delight at the suffering of the non-violent.
>
> > I do believe that present strategy may well "maximise peace"
> as the
> > violent ones find their violence doesn't work and that their silent
>
> > supporters are melting away. The present strategy IMHO has a
> strong
> > component of "finding non-violent solutions."
>
> A strategy that includes violations of several Amendments in the
> Bill of Rights is likely to "maximize peace"? How so? What
> kind of peace? How will using great violence against say,
> Iraq, when Iraq has never been shown to have any real links to
> the 9/11 perpertrators or Al Qaeda, maximize peace?
More lies. Lorie McElroy, in her book published last year, presented a
very good case for real links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which included
contacts between the lead hijacker and one of Iraq's intelligence
agencies while under the observation of the Czech government.
Furthermore, it is a historically standard approach in the US that
civil rights are restricted during wartime than during peace, and that
such help minimize the ability of the enemy to infiltrate the home
front. How, exactly, do you expect to prevent the next terrorist attack
here otherwise?
>
> I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe the current
> solution is viable and asking people to think again, especially
> to think about what they are lending sanction too and its
> possible very negative consequences.
All actions have negative consequences, just as they have positive
consequences. Just because they do doesn't mean we should refuse to
act. Furthermore, I have yet to hear you propose anything that would
resemble a strategy which would be a better alternative. Your sniping
from the wings serves little purpose, and your lack of rational
alternatives demonstrates your lack of credibility.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:39 MST