The endless cycle of violence

[The Great Quail]

Toby writes:
>And to me a life is a life.  A person dying of starvation in 
>Afghanistan is just as indefensible as a person dying in the World 
>Trade  Center.

Quail:
>>  Then I assume the Taliban dead are also as indefensible? From your
>>  statement above, ultimate pacifism could be the only conclusion -- a
>>  pure Christian sort of inaction that refuses at all cost to take a
>>  life. Is that what you are saying? Or do you only mean "innocent"
>>  lives? I am honestly "just curious."

Toby:
>Are you certain that the only alternative to military action is  "a pure
>Christian sort of inaction" ???

No; as I have made clear, I think appeasement and diplomacy or other 
possibilities, but not, in my opinion, good ones in this situation. 
But more to the point, I made my statement regarding *your* words 
about the value of life; and not regarding other alternatives to 
military action. I was questioning your beliefs; I am sorry if I was 
not clear -- I can see how my use of "solution" can be directly 
attached to the war as opposed to a solution to violence in general. 
I posed my question regarding your stance on a broader level, based 
on the fact that you made a statement to the effect that "a life is a 
life is a life." Do you, in fact, believe that you should turn the 
other cheek at all times? For instance, if it came between 200 dead 
Nazis or 10 dead "innocents" (I know this example is ludicrous and 
facile, but it does cut to the point), which would you choose, based 
on your ethics?

This is not an inquisition, I am just curious, just trying to learn 
more about your views.

>In response to racist bombings of churches resulting in the deaths of
>children, Martin Luther King broke the endless cycle of violence with a
>principled nonviolent response that wrought great changes in our society.

Yes, but he was changing his own society from within; adopting a 
policy of passive resistance to enact a change of the legal system 
and increase awareness of his goals among his own society. (And it 
was just in response to church bombings!) I don't see who this 
example is relevant to the current situation. Just because there are 
peaceful solutions to some situations does not mean they are 
universally applicable.

Perhaps you can suggest how we can stop the Jihad through ideas 
espoused by Gandhi and King? I would certainly like to hear them, 
perhaps I am missing something.

>I am certainly not espousing "inaction." I am saying that our response to
>criminal activity is to bring the pressure of world anti-crime policing
>to bring the criminals to justice without  afflicting the innocent in the
>process.

You are not the only one to say this, but I ask, HOW? Even the police 
use violence to extract their targets. How do you use non-violent 
criminal justice against the Taliban and al-Queda? What kind of 
"pressure" are you talking about?

>Isn't that what OUR justice system is all about?

Yes, but this was not an infraction of our laws by a citizen of our 
own society. This was an attack by an outside network that has 
actually, years ago, DECLARED WAR ON US. A network that has an 
illegal government in their pocket, numerous weapons, and a land-base.

>And I don't
>know if this fits the "pacifist profile" but I have always been in favor
>of life imprisonment with hard labor over capital punishment.

So have I. But not because I think it isn't morally correct to take a 
life -- I, for one, would take the life of someone who killed someone 
I loved -- but because (1) I am uncomfortable giving the government 
the power to execute its own citizens, and (2) I don't think the 
death penalty is evenly and fairly applied.

Best,

--Quail