Rouspeteur writes:
You imply from your choice of quote that if a group of people recognise evil and try to do something about it then they are mindless robots.
Evil dwells in the hearts and minds of all of us. How can any one group 'recognize' this in certain others? Don't kid yourself that the 'War on Terrorism' is anything other than a clash of two simplistic fundementalisms, each beating the war drum in the name of God on both sides. It might be worth considering whether the basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women isn't either the result of spoon-fed propaganda or just a negative and confined Weltanschauung. Either way, these feelings do, of course, haunt us all. Perhaps we can use this 'space' for breaking down those feelings of otherness, rather than trying to strengthen them. We may all have very different histories and cultural influences, but we all infinitely more simliar than most will admit - every atom in every person.
> If you don't think that people blowing up synagogues and flying airplanes into buildings pose a threat that should be responded to, that is your opinion.
You seem to have very strong ideas on regarding this - am I right? You would go to war for it?
I suggest that what you say points to a perpetual tension in society: a significant proportion of people who care enough about single issues, have a more or less unhealthy relationship to them. Change tends to happen initially as reaction, but only if we accept the inevitability of this with its attendant distortions, and strive to keep a longer view, can we discover worthwhile pro-activity. Only in this way will we not be defined by a negative perception of what is at stake.
> Is there any case where you would say: "This must stop. These people must be stopped."
Conflict will always occur, physical or not, and the most profound change will always occur where the two most different forms of mankind clash. The following quote reflects my views. We must always remember that no country or person that participates in any war is ever free of guilt, regardless of how provoked they are. Certainly Western countries like Britain and the U.S. who produce the diabolical weapons used by both sides in the conflicts have bloodied their hands in more conflicts than I'd care to mention. To view these wars as 'just' is to admit yourself a conditioned animal.
All advanced thinkers, all men who realize the divine plan, desire and intend the solidarity of humanity. And the patriot, in the narrow and infuriated sense of that word, is a traitor to the true interest of man. It may be neccessary, now and then, to defend one's own section of mankind from aggression; but even this should always be done with the mental reservation: "May this war be the nurse of a more solid peace; may this argument lead to a better understanding; may this division lead to a higher union."... The deliberate antagonizing of nations is the foulest of crimes. It is the Press of the warring nations that, by inflaming the passions of the ignorant, has set Europe by the ears. Had all men been educated and travelled, they would not have listened to those harpy-shreiks. Now the mischief is done, and it is for us to repair it as best we may. This must be our motto: Humanity First.
