Do I want my government's agencies to protect me from being blown up by someone for whatever purpose? Of course I do ... not just blown up, but harmed, period.
Do I want my government's agencies to to protect me by preventing someone to harm me? Yes, of course.
However, what if an ounce of prevention isn't a pound of cure, but a ton of provocation? Ah, therein lies the rub.
Maybe we should start with some basics ... like what is "terrorism" anyway?
Merriam-Webster Online defines terrorism as, "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
Merriam-Webster further defines terror as, "4: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands ."
Right about now in this discussion international governmental activities become very interesting indeed.
If "terrorism" basically is a first group of persons committing acts of violence against a second group of persons in order for the first group to get the second group to give in to the demands of the first group, then who in today's world is (or should we say "is not") committing acts of terrorism against whom?
So ... am I being protected by acts of prevention which are provocating others to act to protect themselves by acts of prevention against me?
Are we all becoming blind and toothless ... as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?
In condemning all violence did Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., have it right after all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment