"Thou shall not kill" reads the 6th Commandment. Or maybe The New International Version translation: "Thou shall not murder" gets to the real meaning. Are we talking about premeditated murder, killing with malice aforethought? Second degree murder, a killing which is intentional as a result of an assault or vicious act, not planned before? Third degree murder which is killing without any excuse or reason? Or manslaughter ,a killing which resulted from being reckless or negligent?
These questions go to morality, ethics and perhaps culture--what is accepted behavior in society. Regardless, we are talking about bringing about the death of a human being.
Most would agree that killing in war is defensible, but what kind of war? War to defend the country, repel invaders, war to defeat an enemy who has attacked yourcountry? Or war to defeat and destroy a perceived or potential enemy.
In these days of perpetual war--war against terrorists in general , AlQaeda, Taliban,
communists in Viet Nam or fascists in Germany or Italy, or any other individuals, groups or lands declared to be our enemies for whatever reason.
Somewhere we have to draw the line, and not "a line in the sand" as some spin merchant declared.
"The true test of a society and its leaders is the extent to which every effort is made to both properly define a problem as one worthy of military intervention and then exhaust every option other than the use of force" --Scott Ritter, 12/10/09 "Our Murders in the Sky",www.Truthdig.com
We have not always been blessed with such statesmen. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan come to mind, when thinking of those who have kept us out of needless conflicts.
President Obama's speech at West Point-- his stage for committing 30,000
more troops to Afghanistan-- suggested that the simple souls of Afghanistan who throughout history have repelled invaders and rejected any central authority placed over them, are the planners and conspirators of the 911 attack. This is pure hogwash and a deliberate attempt to justify aggression and pointless marauding and homicide.
Scott Ritter went on to state ". .The notion that the Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida fighters operating in both countries are part of an overarching Islamic fundamentalist movement seeking to export violence to the shores of America is fundamentally wrong.
The events of Sept. 11, 2001, created problems best dealt with through diplomacy, law enforcement and intelligence. That the United States chose to define it instead as an act of war means that we have never assembled the tool set necessary to solve the Afghan problem, which explains a recent admission by U.S. military officers that, after eight years of war, America was at “square one” in Afghanistan."
Let every citizen examine their conscience. Is it right for us to be murdering and maiming innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Are these simple people really our enemy and deserve to be destroyed?
With Love and Kindness,
THE HATMAN
No comments:
Post a Comment