10/21/01 23:28:55
Comments:
To Brian, mostly, but a couple others, too:
Alright, let's go right from the beginning. I don't know how many of my posts you read, but I would hope that in reading them a person would not come to the conclusion that I want to die. Do I anywhere say we should stand and take MORE violence? No. Do I anywhere say I would enjoy dying, or not mind dying? Of course not!
1) I agree wholeheartedly that if a CRAZY person attacks you for no reason you must fight back to defend yourself. But there is a difference between a crazy person and a rational yet stupid bully: A bully beats you up because he wants to increase his ego, and make himself look cool; A crazy person has no rational reason for attacking you. In the latter case, I see it as okay to defend yourself, since you are completely innocent.
My argument is here: These are not crazy people. You can call them evil, or whatever, but it's all bullshit. No one is inherently and by nature evil. My argument is that we have created the evil... NOT that we deserve to die because of it. I am saying we must forgive all of the past stupid things we and everyone else on this planet has done. The first problem one must overcome in changing themselves or anything is to admit that they have a problem. This is the only way any type of progress happens.
Most Americans have an uncanny ability to completely ignore everyone else in the world while they focus on how they will manage to pay for their next SUV and big screen television.
2) The Taliban's idea of good is destroying us; it's what their ancestors and "god" tell them to do.
Let's say Christianity represents America, since the majority of Americans are Christian. They follow the ten commandments. Christians see moral "right and wrong" differently than the Taliban does(obviously). This necessarily creates a conflict.
We should come up with a nonviolent solution to our current conflict. Personally, my idea of a solution is to create a world situation where all religions, ideas, and people can coexist nonviolently.
3) You tell me that I am only touting meaningless garbage and not coming up with a solution. But what are you doing? You say we should bomb them, or send in ground troops. You do not come up with a concise battle plan... Why should you? This would be like playing a board game, since you have no control over what our country really does. Likewise, I do not design a concise plan to end world violence(not to say I could).
I believe the U.S. and the entire world could use this as an opportunity to show all of the smaller countries in the world (Whether they hate us or not) that we really aren't just the destructive imperialists that we have shown ourselves to be in the past.
One Last thing:
"To rid the world of violence, you must rid the world of aggressors."
Uh, yeah, this is obvious. But instead of killing them, which would take generations longer and far more lives on both sides to resolve, you might simply convince them to like us, no?
This is a pretty intolerant viewpoint you have. It means destroying everyone who does not like us enough to become violent. You kept saying before how I would not mind having people in this country die, or giving my own life. Of course I do! SENDING PEOPLE TO WAR KILLS PEOPLE... Far more people will be killed in a war then in a peaceful resolution. You so blindly justify the deaths of all sorts of Americans! You just hide it behind a mask of patriotism, self interest, and hate.
I wonder if your views would not differ if you were in the position to be sent over to fight in Afghanistan? After all, you said you would not put yourself at risk in this. Well, that's okay! It's not you! Right? I am almost 17 right now. If there were to be a drawn out war and it lasted until I was 18, I might personally be drafted to fight in a war I protest vigorously. Not your life, though: American Soldiers and the Afghanis.
Key word for you: Americans. The ones you so much want to protect, right?
Editor's note: My favorite part is when you characterize the act of killing people who initiate violence against you "intolerant". If your morality entails "tolerating" your own murder, isn't it about time you question your morality?
Your arguments are so full of holes that it's not even worth the time to mention all of them. But I can't resist mentioning a few anyway:
Point 1: You think it's ok to defend yourself against a crazy person, but not against a "rational yet stupid" person. In other words, before you get your ass whipped, you should first evaluate whether the right person is whipping your ass. Interesting. Not very practical, but interesting. You also prefer not to acknowledge the existence of evil. Do me a favor: tell a woman who's been date-raped that her assailant was just "rational yet stupid".
Point 2: Your idea of a solution is to "create a world situation where all religions, ideas, and people can coexist nonviolently." That's perfectly vague, Mr. Lennon, but unfortunately it's not all that easy to get a group of people who believe in the violent overthrow of non-Islamic governments to coexist with people who believe in "non-violent coexistence".
Point 3: Again, you don't have a shred of a solution. You sound like Phil Donahue did on The O'Reilly Factor. Even when Leftists like you come up against a brick wall, and you realize your ideology cannot supply you with answers, you refuse to acknowledge it. Even when your very existence is at stake, you choose to live in your fantasy land of rose petals, waterfalls, and "make love not war" with people who fly planes into buildings.
The thing that pisses me off the most is that people like you who truly advocate the death of innocents are considered by many to be the "idealists". Well, for the record, my ideals do not include the sacrifice of my life or my country for the sake of the toleration of my murderers. For the record, I am the idealist. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Fountainhead. You have a lot of work to do.
This discussion is now closed. I know, very intolerant of me. (JR)