 |
 |
 |
|
Re:And with that I've said my peace
I've got a real dilemma on my hands - jeneane talks about the warbloggers [sic] unwillingness to see the other side and Doc says that being pro-war is being pro-killing and death. My dilemma, of course, is that I can't decide which of these remarks is more stupid, vapid, self-serving, and asinine. I said, "I believe that war bloggers (along with bloggers in general) get a bum rap. But it's a plain fact that to advocate war is to advocate killing and death. Goes with the territory." I'm speaking literally, here Richard. We can rationalize the killing any way we want. It's still killing. In favor of "seeing the other side," it would help me if jeneane or someone else who feels that way would kindly explain the side that believes that bombing the WTC and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was a Good Thing. I haven't heard a persuasive argument for that point of view, but I don't deny that there might be one in some parallel universe. Factually, even people who have a hard-on against Western Civilization admit that the attack created backlash and didn't help their cause. Advocating peace isn't a matter of taking sides. If anything, it 's a matter of taking sides against sides. One of the unintended consequences of the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" statement President Bush made shortly after 9/11 was that many who heard it were not listening closely. He carefully referred to countries,not individuals. But some of us who urged care and restraint after 9/11 were subjected to some very creepy emails. I was privately (and, it seemed to me at the time, threateningly) told that my highly qualified pacifism gave solace to Palestinian terrorists, making me personally responsible for killing Israelis. I'm not that brave a guy, so I shut up. And I know I'm not the only one. In favor of "pro-war is pro-death" we have the fact that war is seen by its proponents as appropriate in some circumstances and inappropriate in others, where the ultimate goal is bringing peace and protecting life. Being pro-war because you think the just war brings peace and security is certainly no more contradictory than selling a magazine promoting free software; it's a means to an end. And don't talk to me about Gandhi, because he was very clear about the fact that his tactics only worked because the British were fundamentally moral and decent. You can't shame somebody who has no conscience. I didn't say anything was simple here. I'm full of ambivalence about the War on Terrorism, and about the conflicts in Middle east. I wonder how it's possible for the few of us who advocate peace to say anything and not also come off as pulpitizers preaching at too safe a distance from where people are being killed. So I avoid the subject. After writing on line for many years, and in print for decades more, I have a pretty good sense of when I'm having some kind of positive effect. On this subject my effect has been small at best. On others I've had much better luck. Better to spend my precious time on those. Since I've been logging my thoughts on the Web since 1994, I've enjoyed seeing the work of newbie bloggers who've come online in the last 5 years... You've got me beat by a year. ...but let's not get too arrogant about our points of view or pedigrees, OK? I have no pedigrees. As for arrogance, I have no idea how I could be more humble in what I say, without saying nothing at all. Is that what you want? There are responses to this message:
|
