Thursday, July 07, 2005

War Against Terrorism

This morning's news about the bombings in London made me very sad.

My students often think that nonviolent action cannot be very effective against terrorism. Then I ask them: Is violence an effective response to terrorism?

What if you don't really know who is responsible? Or what if those responsible are suicide bombers? Then they are already dead. So, instead, retaliatory violence too often gets unleashed on someone else. Innocent civilians die. If what made the terrorist attacks evil was that innocent civilians were killed, is our country evil for killing more innocent civilians in return?

Violence is irrational.

"But we have to do something!" the students say.

"'Doing something' does not have to mean engaging in violent attacks!" I reply.

"So," my students press me, "what would be an effective nonviolent response to terrorism?"

They are right to press me on this, and so I am proud of them. I have only given half an answer, if that. Ok, less than half an answer. Ok, hardly any answer at all.

What does the peace movement have to say about the problem of terrorism?

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just couldn't resist testing the delete button. It's fascinating that one has the control to swallow their words in this setup. Here's the original message again (smile):

    "Thanks for sharing your insight. I've posted links to your blog at http://echoworker.blogspot.com/ and will likely do so on a regular basis. I will enjoy rambling through your blog occasionally as it appears to be a fine catalyst for thought!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your kind words about my blog! I had a look at yours and very much appreciated it -- I will enjoy continuing to read it!

    ReplyDelete