Sunday, July 24, 2005

The good intentions of the past

Sometimes we forget good things that have been done in the past. Take the link below for instance that I came across. It's all about the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which now forms a crucial cornerstone for international law. To sum it up the Pact, signed by scores of nations since it's first inception in the late 1920's, states that the use of war is, essentially, illegal. Of course this does not make defensive mitliaristic measures illegal, but invasions and other aggressive uses of military are thus classified. It would appear everyone had good intentions but we sure as hell haven't followed up with them. Here's the link to the full article on the pact.

What can someone say about the ways of the world

Hey there folks . . . It's been some time since I last posted something. There have been a slew of riotous world events recently, as you may have been made aware of via your local news provider. I have been debating for some time how I might respond to these violent actions. I even debated whether or not I would even trapse into the touchy world of geo-political commentary. So, after a great deal of thinking I decided that I would step up on my soap box and go ahead and tell the listening crowd what I have to say about the whole thing.

Well, let's take a quick review before I get going: there have been two bombing attacks in London within this month (or at least this many as of the date of this post); add this tally to the bombings and attacks in Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Egypt; finish the tally off with the school hostage shoot-out in Russia and the Sept 11th attacks in the U.S. I'm sure there are others that I've forgotten . . . once you start making the list it becomes incredibly huge.

Overall you get the picture that this is more than just a daunting issue. This is a frightening and depressing reality of the world. So here's where I stand:

-First off the killing of innocent people cannot, in my opinion, ever be justified. The adjective "innocent" is the real catch phrase there: without relation, guilt, etc. Regardless of where it happens, be it in a declared war zone or in a sudden attack in a peaceful residential area, the killing of bystanders is not acceptable.

-Despite how I might view the attacks, and the attackers, with disgust I cannot help but see some shreds of validity in their course of action. Basically, are they justified in attacking something they see as an aggressor? Well, they would be as justified as George Bush was in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. To tell the truth I don't feel either cases are justified; you can't have one but have the other. Yet all you have to do is look at the home countries of the attackers and then you see where the urge to attack comes from. Imagine your own home country is being overrun culturally, politically and militaristically by a foreign aggressor. You would want to do anything and everything in your power to remove this foreign threat from your home.

-The West cannot take the moral high-ground in this so-called "war on terror." Why? Refer yourself back to the invasion/war in Iraq and how it did not receive support or sanction from the U.N. What this amounted to was an illegal annexation. It would seem the Imperliastic Age, the one so glorified during the 1800's and early 1900's, is back. This invasion, and those related to it, have led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent bystanders. Think about this: if one of the defining characteristics of a terrorist is the killing of innocents, why isn't George Bush labeled a terrorist because of his order to illegally invade a sovereign nation? The West must realise that the problem of terrorism is being inflamed by the very actions the West has been taking in order to stop terrorism. It's like trying to put out a forest fire using gasoline.

-Terrorist groups should not use a religion, in which they have taken hideously out of context, to further their own causes. Terrorists might claim they act in the interests of a particular faith but, in truth, they act to further their own greed, hatred and other negative desires and passions. To use a religion, which has respect, lawfulness and love as some of its main tenets, as a means to encourage people to kill other innocents goes against the very essence of the religion supposedly supported. But the finger should not be solely placed on one particular religion. A quick survey of the major world religions will show you many conflicts "in the name of God." Take these examples:
Christianity: Crusades of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition
Islam: modern day terrorist attacks
Judaism: expansionistic attacks and conquests of the early Jewish nation under its kings chronicled in the Torah (Old Testament).

Basically we live in confused times. The terrorists are wrong for killing innocent people and for using misinterpreted slim selections of a religion to justify their killings. The nations of the West are wrong for bending and breaking international law to further their own causes as well as refusing to accept responsibility in the creation of an environment that fuels these extremists.

So what must be done? Oh, I'm not even going to venture into that area. To tell the truth, I don't really know. If you have any suggestions feel free to let me know.