Subject:
|
The killing needs to stop.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:51:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
167 times
|
| |
|
|
Amongst the dozens of messages here I would like to offer my support for &
bring attention to this message posted by Richard Marchetti:
richard marchetti <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:GJMBso.CFI@lugnet.com...
<snipped talk about increasing airport security>
> As to everything else, I would simply say this: nothing we do now will
> rebuild what was savagely torn down -- it's gone; nothing we do now will
> bring back those we have lost -- they are gone from this world for good. • I
> mourn them all, we all mourn them together.
>
> If we can find those truly responsible, and not just some convenient • patsy,
> I say let's round them up and make them pay for what they have done with
> life in prison. For once, let's be an example of civility -- and not just • a
> wannabe. If you or I do not individually have the right to kill each • other,
> then there is no basis for thinking that the state as a collective has in
> any way been bequeathed such a power either. Justice demands prison terms
> -- not the hooliganism of war abroad. I want to be stainless before the
> world and show them they we can bring those who are guilty to justice
> without having to resort to the low violence of those who have so
> egregiously wronged us as would be the case with indescriminate bombing. • I
> don't want to create martyrs -- I want to catch murderers. Of those who
> might peripherally be the support group or relatives of the guilty, I • would
> suggest we engage them in a dialogue and find out what they think is wrong
> that some of them are so vehemently opposed to the U.S. I would suggest we
> try to arrive at some kind of policy of "live and let live", if not actual
> friendship, with such people that future violence and terrorism may be
> forestalled. Hey, I am just saying that sometimes its hard to see our own
> faults and that they have to be pointed out to us. It's not okay to point
> out our faults by killing our people -- surely there must have been • another
> way to get our attention. But too, let's be sure they get our attention
> before they feel more desperate and that there must needs be violence.
>
> The U.S. is a great country. Many of us honor the idea of the U.S. as it • is
> supposed to be, and what it may some day become. Many of us defend the
> ethics and republican ideals of it's founders. Many of us hold almost as
> sacred the much emulated U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights --
> documents whose creations stand as triumphant moments in human history. We
> have a long way to go before we can truly be thought to have fulfilled the
> dream of what the Untied States may be and was intended to become. We • will
> not arrive there by being the bullies of the world. We will arrive there • by
> being the most civilized, peace-loving people on earth.
>
> Peace is not something that happens by itself -- it must be actively • worked
> on! If we applied the same dedication that we have for our interpersonal
> relationships to foreign affairs, things like Tuesday just wouldn't • happen.
> We wouldn't be mad at others in the world -- they would be our friends and
> nieghbors. We would have a forum for settling disputes without war. We
> wouldn't let our neighbors and friends kill each other over issues like
> where the fence can be erected, we would have a dispute resolution
> methodology in place to stop such things. Hey, people get on each others
> nerves -- but must it end in bloodshed?
>
> Giving peace a chance might mean something like turning over 1/2 of what • we
> spend on the military and giving it over to education (I have the insane
> belief that educated people tend to shy away from violence as the only
> solution). Giving peace a chance might mean engaging "third world"
> countries in a meaningful share of the riches of the world, instead of • just
> bleeding them for cheap labor. Maybe peace might mean a computer in every
> human dwelling -- so that no one feels left out -- everyone can dialogue
> with anyone else in a time of need (Motherbox anyone?). There simply must
> be a way to create peace, rather than simply allowing hatred and murder to
> continue because of our indifference.
>
> Do we want peace or do we want to move forward as brutes? That's the
> choice. If all we do is keep enacting the Hatfields and McCoys in the
> world, who then is the first to put down their sword or drop their gun?
> Shouldn't the strong yield to peace first?
>
> I say we are the strong and that we may yield to peace first.
>
> -- Richard
I would also like to add this myself:
IMO the argument of 'they started it' won't help to bring world peace.
Someone at some point has to stand up & say "I am bigger than that, I will
not take part in any more killing".
Surely the most powerfull nation in the world could go a long way towards
bringing this world closer to peace.
Carl
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The killing needs to stop.
|
| (...) To add to this, I listened to an uplifting editorial yesterday evening on NPR. I believe it was from a mother of a WTC victim. Basically, it was an appeal to our government not to kill innocent people in retaliation for the attack. Dan (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The killing needs to stop.
|
| (...) Let me say this before I delve into responding point by point below: Ideally, I agree with the sentiments below. They reflect the Christian principles that I hold dear and believe will someday be realized when Christ returns - but not before (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
