Violence knows no state boundaries and respects no one:
“A car explosion and what appeared to be a suicide attack injured two people, killed the apparent bomber and caused panic among Christmas shoppers in Stockholm.
Stockholm police spokeswoman Petra Sjolander said a car exploded Saturday near Drottninggatan, a busy shopping street in the centre of the city. Shortly afterward, a second explosion was heard higher up on the same street, and a man was found injured on the ground He was later pronounced dead.”
People have a hard time understanding empathy and compassion; retribution and revenge though have been internalized quite thoroughly.
“Ten minutes before the blasts, Swedish news agency TT received an email saying “the time has come to take action.”According to the news agency, the email referred to Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan and Sweden’s silence surrounding artist Lars Vilk’s drawing of Muhammad as a dog.
“Now your children, daughters and sisters shall die like our brothers and sisters and children are dying,” the news agency quoted the email as saying.
Define someone as the “other”, marginalize them, strip them of their humanity call them terrorists or fanatics or zealots, it does not really matter. Eventually, because we know revenge and because we know violence it will visit all those involved.
“Two people were taken to hospital with light injuries. It was not immediately clear in which explosion they were hurt.”
Empathy, respect, compassion. Any of the three take more time, courage and dedication than revenge or retribution, and usually produce more amiable results. Retribution makes the infidels/terrorists pay though. It teaches the extremists/unbelievers a lesson that they will not forget.
The problem is that the wrong lesson is learned, and therefore the bloody game continues: an eye for an eye.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
11 comments
December 12, 2010 at 3:50 pm
World Spinner
The Bombings in Sweden – What an Eye for an Eye begets. « Dead ……
Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……
LikeLike
December 13, 2010 at 9:06 am
Vern R. Kaine
An eye for an eye? I can’t remember the last time the U.S. let off a suicide bomb in the middle of a public street, specifically targeting innocents.
Now, I predict a response of “No, they prefer to let others die for them”, “They use bombers to level entire cities”, etc. or whatever the usual anti-war, anti-US response is, so I’ll just leave it at two simple questions that I don’t think were ever directly answered so as not to get wrapped around the axle again:
1) Do you believe if the U.S. was not in Afghanistan or Iraq that Al-Qaeda would stop these terrorist acts?
2) If no, then where do you believe Al Qaeda’s “stopping point” would be?
If these have been answered, I apologize and it will be the last time I ask. Not trying to stir a debate, just trying to better understand the viewpoint.
LikeLike
December 13, 2010 at 9:20 am
The Arbourist
Of course Vern. The short answer is the sooner we stop doing evil malicious things to people the less of target we can become. The idea of “international condemnation” can then start to mean more than the “US says this was a bad thing”.
1. We are talking root causes. OBL was/is pissed off because of what the US was doing in Saudi Arabia his knickers have been in a twist ever since. Anyhow, the retribution would continue because I am fairly sure the West would find another target that had the capacity to strike back and the cycle would continue.
2. Probably roughly the same as our own, we allowed Iraqi children to die because of our noble sanctions, we bombed South and North Vietnam into rubble, sat on our hands while East Timor screamed. This was done by rational people, the modern ‘civilized’ western world. Given that we have the pretense that we are somehow better than Al-Qaeda (more rational, fair, just) I am much more worried about our stopping point than theirs.
LikeLike
December 13, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I was actually hoping for a “yes/no” answer to the first question. Is yours “No”, or ?
As for the second question, we definitely see different start and end points with this and anybody, including me, could jump in at any point and call that “the beginning”. Therefore I cannot say with certainty where things actually started or got off track, nor can I say accurately with whom, so I was curious as to your opinion. Starting points, though, are less important to me as to where people see the end.
Your reply is an interesting one to me. The only thing actually proven to reduce their (Al Qaeda’s) numbers seems to be military action. Without that, I could see them growing and continuing their acts of violence regardless of who is where. I don’t know what we can do to truly/realistically stop that.
What I do know is that with the U.S., someone stops becoming our enemy when they play nice with us – whatever one takes that to mean – and moreso, they can actually become our ally.
Al Qaeda does not appear at all to have that capacity. I think the fact is that we have a stopping point, and we’ve proven it. They don’t, and they’ve proven it.
They have no economics or politics, so they can’t have an economic or political enemy, nor can they truly have economic or political allies. They can only have a military enemy/ally, or a religious one.
From that perspective, a military stopping point is ceasefire, surrender, or death. Al Qaeda can say whatever they want, but in reality they will do none of the three. They can’t kill us all or wipe us out (death), and any possibility of the other two is automatically impossible because they’ve tied it to their religion where neither the beginning of a war nor the end of the war needs to be based upon any sort of reality.
With your stance on religion, I find it interesting that you leave them to decide (“fairly”) their own start and end point of a war, based upon a religion.
LikeLike
December 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Alan Scott
The Arbourist,
So you are in favor of the Neville Chamberlin response to aggression ? Or was it the Belgium answer ? In both World Wars Belgium hoped that neutrality would save it. Have you ever studied history? Do Atheists know what evil is ? Is everything a moral equivalent to you ? If some one broke into your house a couple of times, would you just ignore them ?
LikeLike
December 14, 2010 at 11:31 am
The Arbourist
I was actually hoping for a “yes/no” answer to the first question. Is yours “No”, or ?
The question is hard to shoehorn into a yes/no response as, you are well aware, there are many interconnected issues which are dependent on each other etc, etc. Let me try again. If the US was not in Iraq and Afghanistan the frequency and magnitude of attacks against western targets would not be as intense. The activity in the two theatres are significant recruitment tools for people who want to strike out against the West. If we had not armed the Taliban in the 80’s would we even be having this conversation today? I do not know, but when you promote violence through proxies and warlords it is hardly unexpected that eventually the sharp knives will be pointed at you.
The only thing actually proven to reduce their (Al Qaeda’s) numbers seems to be military action.
Given that we have only been shown this method, it does seem like the only way. I would put forward that a clandestine operation in Afghanistan whose focus was only to bring OBL to justice would have been the correct response to 9/11. That would have been the sane rational response, but instead 9/11 was the precursor to two imperial wars and once engaged the other options, clandestine, diplomatic are taken off the table.
What I do know is that with the U.S., someone stops becoming our enemy when they play nice with us – whatever one takes that to mean – and moreso, they can actually become our ally.
In certain contexts, I agree. When it comes to established powers, the UK, Old Europe, Canada, China there can be a moderately equitable relationship. When the power differential is big, then becoming a US “ally” usually is not such a good thing for the country in question (see central/south america).
I find it interesting that you leave them to decide (“fairly”) their own start and end point of a war,
I’m a little confused to what you mean here Vern, but I’m give it a shot. Will the radically religious stop? Probably not, but my main thrust was that if we decide to adopt a less imperialistic policy we’ll be less of a target for the radicals looking for cause to fight the great Satan etc. I think you may have to rephrase the last bit of your comment, I’m not really getting your point.
LikeLike
December 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“If the US was not in Iraq and Afghanistan the frequency and magnitude of attacks against western targets would not be as intense.”
I would have to disagree, but hard to prove either way, I suppose. I personally think the attacks and their intensity would continue. If it wasn’t American occupation, it would be western decadence that they would attack, or decide that 100, perhaps 1,000 years of terror is the “right amount” of retribution for Iraq and Afghanistan. At each milestone they’d just increase it.
Doesn’t help that we give them MORE excuses, sure, but they would always have an excuse nonetheless, including religious excuses that are not within anyone’s control.
Without politics or economics, their only way to stay visible and have a “brand” is through violence. If they go underground, the case can be made that they’re defeated, or that there is no war. They can’t afford that, since their strength is solely in their numbers.
Notoriety is their oxygen, and I think if they don’t get it automatically from us, they’ll create it elsewhere.
LikeLike
December 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I find it interesting that you leave them to decide (“fairly”) their own start and end point of a war,
I’m a little confused to what you mean here Vern, but I’m give it a shot.
I was saying that the start point and end point for these guys lies inside their religion, something that you believe to be completely ridiculous. Inside their religion, they are sheltered from ration, debate, accountability, or even sanity regarding their actions.
I therefore found it interesting that you would worry more about the US’s stopping point than someone who bases theirs upon what some “Skydaddy” or whatever term you use says it should be, and albeit a stopping point that has been proven with these guys to not exist.
LikeLike
December 26, 2010 at 10:07 am
Vern R. Kaine
This is an old post, I realize, but recent events that relate to it.
Where’s the “eye for an eye” in this?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201097story_7-9-2010_pg1_5
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/25/pakistan-suicide-bombing.html
“Your people kill our people, so I’m going to kill… our people.”
LikeLike
December 27, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The Arbourist
Terror is easy to sow. I really do not understand the motivation of this particular bomber other than to increase the fear of the people. It may have backfired though because targeting the civilian population is going against the bread and butter of how insurgents stay in the game. One needs the population onside to continue an insurgency. Turn them against you and you will have trouble.
People do terrible things while under the influence of religion or ideology, or both. We need less of both in the world.
Thank you for the links Vern, they were very informative.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 10:30 am
Vern R. Kaine
“targeting the civilian population is going against the bread and butter of how insurgents stay in the game.”
Yes and no – it keeps control over the people who would otherwise go against them. The argument of whether we should be there or not aside (along with how much better a job we could be doing), allied forces are the only ones actually protecting the civilians in any way, shape, or form over there. I think this alone justifies why we are there, and why we’re stuck there until the country’s own people care enough about their futures to do this on their own. Unfortunately, the people there have yet to see or believe that they can win over these acid-throwing, demented freaks.
People do terrible things while under the influence of religion or ideology, or both. We need less of both in the world. “
Yup, especially ones that glorify the killing of innocents.
LikeLike