But this is not a sane world. We are so deranged by the constant onslaught of agitprop that we think of incendiary or illegal violence or threat of violence by American patriots to be acceptable, while the same behavior by official enemies, once “communists” and now “terrorists,” is somehow crazed.
And the scale of violence in our eyes is so small – I mentioned in another post that American pilots commit massacres daily “while texting.” It was hyperbole, but only to point out that we think that our pilots massacring people is normal and acceptable. The fact that we do our murder and mayhem on high and from afar, by fighter jets and B52’s and long-range missiles and by use of drones does not remove us form culpability for our behavior.
And yet, when there is blowback, as with 9/11, it is them! They are the terrorists.
Violence comes home to roost, attitude precedes action, actions follow rhetoric, agitprop inflames psychos to murder, and we’re shocked! Shocked.
Piece of Mindful 
I am beginning to think you belong to some weird pacifist cult. Or are you just a crypto-Christian who has been secularized?
Get used to it, Trotsky. Read some history. Determine how the world works.
PS: I am happy you finally admitted to adolescent hyperbole when you wrote, “American pilots commit massacres while texting.” The truth is, they listen to the Doors: “This is the end / Beautiful friend / This is the end / My only friend, the end.”
Hahaha.
You have to admit, that slogan from the Vietnam air war, “Death from Above,” was pretty cool.
LikeLike
If you read me closely, you know that I am not at pacifist. I believe in just war – for instance, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis in the resistance to the American invasions are fighting just wars.
I like your Doors lyrics.
I know how the world works. The only bee on my bonnet is our projection and inability to look in the mirror.
LikeLike
“Just war,” huh?
1. What is the definition of a “just war”?
2. Who decides which wars are just and which ones are not?
///
If you had any clue about how the world works, then you would not be continually whining about just wars and, presumably, unjust wars. You would not be wasting your time trying to assign blame to one belligerent party or the other. And you would stop making a fool of yourself by attempting to apply some nebulous moral calculus to warfare that you cannot even articulate.
LikeLike
Surely you’re yanking my chain? OK – I’ll play – you don’t know about the Catholics and the concept of the “just war.”
A just war is fought for a reasonable cause – merely wanting to control someone else’ oil is not such a cause.
Wars are messy, and unintended victims are normal. The decision to go to war must have a higher moral imperative than the cost of the innocent lives that will be taken. Again, wanting to control someone else’s oil does not qualify.
When harm is inflicted unnecessarily on one party, correcting that harm or attempting to minimize it or eliminate its source is a just cause. Therefore, the Iraqi who resist the American invasion, even if they are targeting quislings, are engaged in a just cause. (The notion that Americans are not responsible for Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence in the wake of the invasion is utter nonsense.)
There must be some hope of success. In AfPak, for whatever reason the U.S. has decided to invade those countries, there is no hope of success. Even assuming good intentions, which I do not, it is not a just cause due to absence of any hope of success.
All peaceful means to solve a conflict must be exhausted before resort to force. You might note that the U.S. uses force first, and only reluctantly even considers accepting negotiated solutions to problems. The reason is simple: Generally, the U.S. just makes up its reasons as it goes.
The benefit must exceed the cost – here it can be said that any attempt to confront U.S. power is futile, but in fact guerrilla wars often succeed at bringing unchecked power to the bargaining table.
Generally speaking, self defense is a just cause, so that countries that the U.S. attacks that resist are automatically involved in just war, while the U.S. is committing crimes.
The only reason that there is no punishment for the crimes is what you call “the way the world works” or some such rationalization. The way the world works can be changed.
LikeLike
Oh, the “just war” is a Catholic concept. That sure explains for the Crusades!
Anyway, I am happy you are coming out of the religious closet. I look forward to hearing more about what the Vatican thinks of world events.
LikeLike
Like the Immaculate Conception to explain a teen pregnancy, the Catholic concept of a “just war” might make some gullible people feel good, but it has nothing to do with the way the world really works. The concept of “just war” is no concept at all. It is merely a crackbrained slogan with no possible application to actual events.
Historical example: On the eve of WW II, Germany and Soviet Russia enter into a non-aggression pact. The agreement calls for the partition of Poland along the Bug River. Germany overruns western Poland, and Russia moves her troops to the agreed line of partition.
Now, at this point, according to the Catholic concept, we have Germany and Russia winning an “unjust war,” and Poland losing a “just war.”
Next, unjust Germany attacks unjust Russia. This causes Russia to claim she is fighting a just war against Germany, and the Allied powers side with unjust Russia in her just war against unjust Germany.
Finally, at the close of WW II, Russia attacks Japan at the urging of the United States, who is involved in a just war with unjust Japan.
However, Japan has done nothing to Russia, so now we have just Russia fighting an unjust war again, while Japan is fighting a just war and an unjust war simultaneously.
LikeLike
Case by case. Each that you mention bears scrutiny, but when there is a rogue superpower in the room, then chaos is the rule.
LikeLike
The concept is widely accepted. Geneva accords address the matter too. I’m not a Catholic by any means, as I have too much respect for the structural integrity of their buildings (Mom: The roof will fall in if you show your face in church).
LikeLike
Your glib reply is OK with me, Trotsky. I have no need to lampoon your moral beliefs, but you really ought to be more forthcoming about the source of your moral beliefs, if not with your readers, certainly with yourself.
Having studied Christians and Christianity for many years, I can spot a believer a mile away, even when he is claiming to be an atheist or a church hater. The fact that you are steeped in Christian morality is no surprise to me, since everyone in Western Civilization is. The fact that you usually try to hide it, however, is somewhat humorous, not to mention hypocritical. What are you afraid of?
Professionally speaking, I must also add that you will never get a good grip on history so long as you persist in making moral judgments about history.
LikeLike
Regardless of your taunts about my hidden belief system, I maintain that I am a simple idealist and humanist. The former is a rather useless trait, but part of me nonetheless, much as the remaining hair that grows form my dead.
The imposition of morality on human affairs is not new nor even Catholic. Long before there was a Jesus, there were sanctions against murder within one’s own tribe and theft of property. The fatal flaw of humans is what Dawkins describes as an evolutionary need to believe in authority figures. We are a doomed species in that manner, in that we will always know a form or “rightness” of behavior, and yet will always set it aside when someone in power [identifies an enemy that] is less right than us, and so worthy of death.
Ain’t gonna change.
LikeLike
Also, you need to stop agonizing over going bald. If you have any hair left, I suggest you shave it off and get with the program.
Trust me, women like bald men. (I could elaborate, but this is a family blog.)
LikeLike
You don’t know what you’re advocating here. I am not Mr. Clean – I’m more the Ron Howard type that should cover it with a baseball cap.
LikeLike