Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Best Defense Against Attacks Like 9-11

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Sylvia Clute       (Page 1 of 4 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   24 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 9/12/10

Author 52375
Become a Fan
  (20 fans)
- Advertisement -

Immediately after 9-11, much of the world extended unconditional support to the United States. That support began to wane around the time President Bush indicated the path his administration would take in response to the attack when he spoke at the Pentagon on September 17, 2001.

Toward Osama bin Laden, President Bush demanded vengeance: "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" Having chosen the punitive model of justice, he then launched us into war and peace is still not in sight.

- Advertisement -

It is time to realize that attack after attack is not our best defense. When we lash out to attack those who attack us, we are caught in the trap of dual morality, and our enemies are, as well. First one side declares, "My killing is moral; yours is not." Then the other side makes the same declaration, feeling self righteously moral in answering harm with more harm.

- Advertisement -

How does each side claim the moral ground? By projecting responsibility and blame for their harm upon those whom they are harming. "They make us do it," is the logic behind the insanity. The harm becomes endless.

What would one standard of morality look like? It says that harm by anyone is unacceptable. We do not condone killing by anyone. How do we escape the trap of dual morality and begin to move toward one standard of morality (monomorality)? The path to peace begins only when one who has been offended does not respond in kind.

- Advertisement -

For example, if the dispute is minor, perhaps a meeting is requested at which the other side is asks if they caused the harm that was experienced. Confronted with a question, instead of judgment, they might admit that they did cause the harm, and explain what they were thinking when they did so (the perceived wrong or circumstance that made them feel justified in causing the harm).

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4


- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Moral Dilemma of Military Service

Lessons from the Stanford Prison Experiment

Time for Another Civil Rights Movement?

Punitive Justice Distilled: the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Death Penalty: Un-Christian Barbarism

How Did Our Criminal Law System Become So Broken?