OasisBU wrote:PresIke wrote:Silverfuel wrote:PresIke wrote:haven't really read the comments here, but i wrote this on facebook this morning...does anyone teach their children to seek revenge, and engage in harm as a means of resolving conflicts? do we teach them to celebrate someone's death? as with osama bin laden, that does not mean there should be no consequences for one's actions, but the sort of celebration by some of his reported death has a frightingly jingoistic tone.
a friend of mine responded:
"Actually they do quite frequently in the Middle East. You should see the propaganda machine at work over here teaching babies to hate Israel. And I think I am about to be forced to sit through another one of their school indocrination assemblies on either Wednesday or Thursday. Seriously they show dead Muslims after battles in Palestine to kids in the 1st grade while playing patriotic and religious music and screaming death to Israel. It's ****ed up and one of the things I don't like about this country."
i replied:
you make a good point, and it leads me to wonder about a possible factor behind young people in america being most of those shown reacting. certainly, there is a natural tendency for young people to be excited about events that evoke a sense of hope for changing society/establishing a new identity from their parents -- obama's election being one example. so, spending most of ones formative years as a child in the paradigm of post-september 11th u.s. life, with constant indoctrination regarding 'the war on terror', resulted in a diminished sense of hope, loss of "normal" childhood experiences, and a desire to move past this.
another friend posted something else i was thinking:
"this news immediately made me think of the video footage of children (supposedly) cheering because of the 9/11 attacks, and how disgusted americans were with the footage."
another wrote this:
"Our society is a violent one. And yes we do teach our kids to resolve conflict violently and that one must be right all the time."
As someone who works in a school this contradictory message is something i see as a problem. when we try to mediate conflict amongst students the fact that not merely some parents, but our society perhaps still values revenge seeking through violence as a legitimate form of justice.
i saw a commentator say that the reactions about bin laden's death are about justice.
if a "jihadi" is willing to blow themself up as a form of justice, or that the u.s. was so concerned with the manner in which bin laden's death was carried out, then are we really certain that death is the best form of "justice" for someone who has committed mass murder?
what about the number of innocent civilian pakistanis and afghanis that have been killed by u.s. drone attacks and other military actions?
where is the justice, from the perspective of their families and society, for their death towards the u.s.?
from the perspective of those who cheered for the september 11 attacks, that event was a form of justice.
can we not see the problem with using killing someone as an even useful or respectful form of justice?
i stood on 6th avenue when the sept. 11th attacks began and never thought that the actions of mass war on "terror" was a justifiable manner of handling what happened. this is not to say no response should have taken place either.
peace.
You make some very good points. There is a time and place this applies to. But Bin Laden does not belong to that time and place. There are some problems only fighting can solve. They hit NYC, we hit Afghanistan and Iraq. And on and on it goes. War, hate and violence will go on forever. The only way we stop fighting each other is to fight a common enemy.
peace, silverfuel.
my feeling is that, sure, bin laden was killed in (what we are told was) a firefight when he realized he was being raided, which is to say that is different and perhaps more understandable than via a missle (which is what we are also being told was obama's call). i can also recognize the need for some closure for many people on the matter given the acts of violence and hatred he has had in his own response to acts of violence and perceived disrespect towards islam by the u.s. as a nation.
that is more than understandable, as is anger when we first experience loss, but when we hold onto that loss too anger, leading to improper approach to such emotions, and feel a need to act out so angrily by vehemently celebrating someone's death, i don't care who the perpetrator was, there is something else going on. it is also exactly such kind of reactions that have led to the same violence that we claim to want to end.
if we think about all of the thousands and thousands of innocent people, soliders, etc. who have died as a result of the quest to destroy this man, that is sure a lot of collateral damage, as well as knowing that it isn't exactly as if his death is likely to end the violence (although obama could use bin laden's death to look to pull out of afghanistan and de-escelate our military industrial complex...not that i expect this) and something that keeps me somber and muted in my response.
While I get where you are coming from, I think you fail to see the significance of this. Like others have mentioned, Bin Laden is a modern day Hitler, not because he killed so many people but because of howhe spread his evil throughout the world impacting the lives of hundreds of millions ina very negative way.
When I turn on the tv and see college and high school kids as the faces celebrating I am reminded that they have lived the majority if not all of their life under the dark cloud of fear this man helped propagate. Are others to blame? Sure. Could the US have done things differently? Yes.
But reality is that Bin Laden represented a special brand of evil reserved for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and every other anti Christ who has plagued the world since humans first began walking the earth.
I don't think it's wrong to feel a little bit happy that part of that cloud disappeared with news of Bin Ladens death. I even believe that some of those peace loving quotes that have been mentioned would also say that today the world is a better place without Bin Laden.
Do we need to be careful of bloodlust? Yes we do. But we also cannot excuse this kind of ideology and turn the other cheek.
respect, but i don't believe there is much evidence that osama bin laden is the same as hitler other than how he was portrayed as such by the propaganda of the media and the u.s. government (which is not to say he was not a threat to human life either, because he was). what are you basing such assertions on? bin laden's motivation for violence was not as far removed from the reasons the u.s. state justifies its own violence towards innocent people as i believe some of us realize. how so? threats to "the state" (in his case "the state" is islam, of course which is not a state) are considered acceptable to be taken out by military force, and sometimes there "has to be" collateral damage..
bin laden stated that the u.s. occupation of saudi arabia was a major insult to islam (or something to that effect), was supportive of repressive rulers in the region who suppressed peoples' ability to practice certain forms of islam, and that the u.s., in general, was seeking to destoy islam, to which he used historical evidence to support his views of american involvement in historically islamic nations. low levels of education and horrific economic conditions in many of these nations, combined with a sense of humiliation over all these conditions helped him attract followers. i ain't saying that's an okay way to view the world, or live, but it isn't about some anti-christ myth as much as an explainable way that human beings can be affected by their life exposure and circumstances.
one major difference i see is that bin laden overtly saw everyone against him as an enemy (although sounds a bit like bush's "you're with us or you're against us." no?), however at what point does collateral damage become reasonable when trying to get one man? i'll repeat, so many thousands of people have died in the hunt for this "anti-christ." you think they all believe it's okay to have sacrificed so many human lives as a result, especially when it is quite clear that his death is by no means the end of this "war" against a mostly invisible enemy that has no borders or normal form of functioning state to dismantle.
this outlines some of the reason bin laden's death is a much different situation. hitler was also a much greater threat than bin laden is because the nazis were on the verge of taking over all of europe (which bin laden never came even remotely close to achieving). bin laden was more of a symbolic leader to those that follow him. when hitler was taken out, world war ii (on the european front) was over. the same when tojo surrendered in japan. is the "war" we are fighting against bin laden and his followers now over? hardly.
however, there are similarities, as mentioned earlier, to what motivated their behavior, because hitler actually rose to power in similar ways to bin laden.
but overall, sorry, this is nothing to get too excited about. if by some miracle this leads to the end of these wars that have ruined so many things in the world and in this country as we spend ourselves into oblivion and ruin with so many military around the world, while our economy is still suffering, then i'll say it was worth the praise.
regardless, i am not saying that the u.s. should "turn the other cheek" either. read what i first wrote.
they attempted to apprehend him, sounds like he tried to fight back, he was shot and killed. that's what happens in police raids, and is part of the deal. however, this does not mean i need to celebrate the death with all of my might, especially considering the context.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
5/2/2011 4:57 PM