Well, there are good guys and there are bad guys

[vovat]

I haven't really said anything on either the Israel-Lebanon war or the foiled terrorist plot in Britain, and I probably won't say that much about them. I do have to say, however, that it disturbs me how people STILL insist on seeing such conflict as "us vs. them," with one side as Good and the other as Bad. I think we can all agree that terrorists are Bad Guys, but does that automatically make everyone they attack Good Guys? The thing with terrorism is that it can be perpetrated by anyone against anyone, regardless of religion, political philosophy, or national alliances. The United States is supposedly engaged in a "War on Terror" (which I'll generously de-dumbify to "War on Terrorism"), yet some people insist on saying, "We're at war with Islamic fascists!" That must come as a great relief to terrorists who belong to other religions and/or don't support fascism. [1] They apparently get a reprieve in this war.

Speaking of non-Islamic terrorists, during the period when I was growing up, I kept seeing news about the Palestinians and Lebanese attacking Israel, but also about Israel attacking THEM. I have trouble understanding why some people still hold to the idea that Israel is an innocent victim that can do no wrong. The thing is, after World War II, the Jews had been through one of the most heinous persecutions in history, and they needed some place to live. On the other hand, the Palestinians had been there for centuries, and to tell them, "Hey! Here are your new neighbors, who don't like you!" was most likely not welcome news. But it's been SIXTY YEARS! A lot of people in positions of power in that area of the Middle East presumably weren't even BORN in the time when Israel didn't exist as a nation. Can they REALLY not learn to peacefully co-exist in that amount of time? Okay, that's a stupid question. Of course they can't. It really makes it difficult to see ANY of those nations or groups as being in the right.

I tend to think nothing will get better unless we can get some leaders who stop seeing every conflict as an us-and-them affair. Obviously, that wouldn't mean an end to war or terrorism; but, if nothing else, it would be much less irritating for those of us who don't buy into nationalism. Also, people need to realize that negotiation is not the same as appeasement. It drives me to distraction when people act like there's no difference between "Let's talk this over instead of killing each other some more" and "Sure, you can have Czechoslovakia!"

[1] Considering that Al Qaeda is a non-governmental organization, whether or not its members are fascists seems irrelevant to me. Fascism is a political ideology. But it's also a term that's guaranteed to get people riled up, even when used inappropriately. Mind you, since I used the word "de-dumbify" is this post, I might not be qualified to be discussing matters of vocabulary. {g}

Comments

[k1cup.livejournal.com]

But it's been SIXTY YEARS! A lot of people in positions of power in that area of the Middle East presumably weren't even BORN in the time when Israel didn't exist as a nation. Can they REALLY not learn to peacefully co-exist in that amount of time?

At the risk of sounding elitist, many of us moderates who actually think rationally mistakenly believe that everyone else do so as well. Sadly, that is not the case. I would say that most people who fervently believe in one cause to the point of dismissing everything to the contrary don't think. Otherwise, they'd be moderates. :D That could be said of any militants, be they pro-lifers, staunch Republicans or Democrats, any activists. For them, it's all or nothing.

Imagine being able to procreate like bunnies and then brainwashing your progeny to act as automatons. If that's what your children have to look forward to, there's no need to strive to provide for a better future for them.

I tend to think nothing will get better unless we can get some leaders who stop seeing every conflict as an us-and-them affair.

True, but where will those leaders come from? Our current system of electing public officials can provide us with no better than George W. Bush or John Kerry. Anyone else on the rise is equally pandery to their lobbyists.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

pro-lifers

Hey, watch with the terminology-- militant so-called "pro-lifers" are ANTI-ABORTION, not pro-life. To be Pro-Life, at least according to the Catholic Church's definition, you also have to disagree with the death penalty, which leaves abortion-clinic bombers way far out of it. (I once didn't vote for a guy who said in a campaign commercial, "I'm pro-life, and I support the death penalty" and I said back "You're stupid and you suck and I'm not voting for you!") Technically I don't completely fit the Catholic church's def of a Pro-Lifer myself since I don't completely disagree with artificial birth control-- since nothing is actually DYING because of it-- but I wish more people would embrace Life in general instead of just hypocritical politics. I support being TRULY pro-life.

For Nathan, I'll just add my comment on to this one.

Also, people need to realize that negotiation is not the same as appeasement. It drives me to distraction when people act like there's no difference between "Let's talk this over instead of killing each other some more" and "Sure, you can have Czechoslovakia!"

I guess the tricky part is learning to tell the difference between a nice nation who is going to war with you because you're both being stupid, and a not-so-nice nation that wants to take over the world. WWI Germany vs. WWII Germany, perhaps. Like you said, "us vs. them" mentalities-- it's easy to see when two sides are just being stupid if you're not one of the two sides, but I guess it's harder when you're in it. I mean there are some times when war must happen, because some nasty person who doesn't want to talk about it is running down your homeland, but then ...it gets into gray areas... and everyone is just stupid. Which brings me to my usual point, which is, people suck.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I would say that most people who fervently believe in one cause to the point of dismissing everything to the contrary don't think. Otherwise, they'd be moderates.

Actually, human nature being what it is, perhaps it's those of us who think we should get along who are the true radicals. I don't know. I just couldn't really imagine having intense hatred for someone based entirely on where they lived, or what religion they followed (well, except possibly if it's a religion that believes in killing others), or anything like that.

I tend to think nothing will get better unless we can get some leaders who stop seeing every conflict as an us-and-them affair.

True, but where will those leaders come from?

I suppose that's where it all breaks down. Political systems tend to be self-perpetuating, whether intentionally or not.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

To be Pro-Life, at least according to the Catholic Church's definition, you also have to disagree with the death penalty, which leaves abortion-clinic bombers way far out of it.

What if they only bomb abortion clinics when there are no people in them?

Technically I don't completely fit the Catholic church's def of a Pro-Lifer myself since I don't completely disagree with artificial birth control-- since nothing is actually DYING because of it

Well, the more common idea among anti-abortion activists today (the ones who think about it at all, anyway) seems to be that life begins at conception, but there have been times in the past when people thought that life began BEFORE conception, and that men had limited amounts of sperm. Combine this with the idea that sex for any other purpose than to produce children is wrong, and you can see why some cultures that valued as much reproduction as possible weren't too fond of birth control.

I guess the tricky part is learning to tell the difference between a nice nation who is going to war with you because you're both being stupid, and a not-so-nice nation that wants to take over the world.

Yeah, that's definitely true, and it can be tricky. To automatically assume the latter makes YOUR nation evil in the eyes of others (which is very much the case with the United States), while to not take the latter into consideration can be dangerous. Still, it often seems nowadays that war is far from a last resort.

it's easy to see when two sides are just being stupid if you're not one of the two sides, but I guess it's harder when you're in it.

I guess so, but I don't think simply living in one of the countries automatically makes someone feel they're in it. My country is at war with Iraq, but I don't consider myself to be at war with Iraq, you know? Maybe part of this is due to belonging to a post-Vietnam generation. It seems like a lot of my peers have taken the objection to and ultimate failure in the Vietnam conflict into consideration in their opinions on more recent wars, while the government is made up of people who didn't fight in Vietnam but supported the war anyway.

There are situations in which war is probably inevitable, but I'm not totally convinced that such is the case with a lot of the conflicts that have been in the news as of late.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there really is a difference between pre- and post-Vietnam attitudes, isn't there? It's really interesting.

Hmm, I have no idea whether it could still be pro-life to bomb an abortion clinic when there's no one in it. You'd have to be really SURE no one was in it and also that there was no one in surrounding buildings who could be injured and also that there were no animals living around the premises either. Actually I just added the part about the animals.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there really is a difference between pre- and post-Vietnam attitudes, isn't there?

Yeah, it seems like anti-war attitudes became much more mainstream during Vietnam. I remember learning how the United States had an isolationist attitude before becoming involved in World War I; but the general impression given in class was that, after we DID get involved, everyone was on board. I'm sure this wasn't the case, but there doesn't seem to have been the same level of extreme and visible anti-war sentiment that there was in the sixties and afterwards.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Ooo, I actually did a research paper on American war attitudes in WWI! Yeah, there didn't seem to be much really VOCAL anti-war stuff, but most people just really didn't care. When the US went into the war, they actually started a massive propoganda campaign to raise support, playing songs in theaters and so forth, but once they got started others joined in and started creating their own patriotic Lets Go Get 'Em songs and public attitude went very dramatically from Let's Stay Out of It to Make Those Germans Pay! (which is funny considering it wasn't Germany who started it that time) in no time flat. Incidentally, this research project was for Honors Research Writing-- I don't know what section of that you took-- but there was an early assignment where you had to find a family story in your own family and put it in historical context, and I chose to base mine on a WWI propoganda song my great-grandmother had written. I was really surprised by what an interesting story the attitude toward the war, and the part music played in it, was. Music is pretty powerful-- when you think of the music about the war in the Vietnam era, it's ALL negative, so no wonder public opinion goes that way. I don't recall much negative opinion toward the first gulf war, and the only related music I can think of at the time is that dang "Proud to Be an American" song. Nowadays, we've got lots of anti-war music again, and so goes public opinion. I'd normally say art imitates life, but after that report on WWI, I wonder at the power of music to shape public opinion!

Fighters for Texaco, fighters for power, fighters for longer turns in the shower

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I took Research Writing during the summer after sophomore year. It wasn't an honors section, and I only had to write two papers.

Moxy Früvous had a song about the Gulf War, with the totally crazy title of "Gulf War Song."