Tuesday, March 21, 2006

"Terrorism" and resistance

Gar over at EnscriptCHUN has a new podcast and posted some musings on "V for Vendetta". He's brought up a number of interesting issues, including the role of art versus news in terms of informing about the world. You should definitely peep it.

His writings got me thinking about the role of violence in a revolution. Basically it comes down to your belief of whether it's worth it--we know that in some cases, non-violence may not be enough to "win" a conflict. Does that justify resorting to violence?

It's a tough question that we can certainly disagree on. There are plenty who point to WWII as a justification for "fighting back" and the most beloved person ever on Earth certainly had His own perspective on the issue...

What doesn't work is the current administration's and popular viewpoint that "When we use violence, it's cool, but when others do, it's unacceptable." That creates gaps in perspective where everyone thinks they are the "good guys" and anyone who opposes them are the "bad guys".

If you think it's ok to kill or torture terrorists, you don't have much leg to stand on when people use your own definition of "terrorist" to justify torturing and killing you and people on your side. Our policy of violence has always been one utterly devoid of empathy for those we oppose and can only result in the destruction of the human race. There's no positive outcome to a doctrine of "Kill them first, then learn to love them once we defeat them!"


Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on