Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, Heroes...

[melon]

...and postmodernism.

Postmodernism, at least to me, signified the end of "truth," per se. Certainly, the idea of the freedom fighter/terrorist/hero is no different. George Washington, for instance, would likely have been the leader of a "terrorist organization" in the eyes of Great Britain. Perhaps, ultimately, this is why I almost feel that a "war on terrorism" is unwinable. You can kill people, but you can't kill ideas; and religion is enough of a reactionary vehicle for unquestioning complacency that it can never end. Will they jump off a bridge if their friend did it first? Not necessarily. Will they murder millions of people if God supposedly said to? Yes.

War and violence will never end, because it is too much of an ingrained part of religion, which, in thousands and thousands of years, has really changed very little at the core.

Thoughts?

Melon

[Spiral_Staircase]

Thought:
War and violence will never end, because it is too much of an ingrained part of humankind, which, in thousands and thousands of years, has really changed very little at the core.

[AcrobatMan]

Fighting is the general human tendency.

AcrobatMan

[Lilly]

i agree with you about this:

George Washington, for instance, would likely have been the leader of a "terrorist organization" in the eyes of Great Britain

i'm not defending al-quaeda or anything like that, so please don't accuse me of that. but the ideas won't die.

we need more diplomacy here, which i hope we get.

[daisybean]

One Man's Terrorist is another Man's Revolutionary....That is an interesting point you bring up Melon. I have never really thought of Washington being a "terrorist" in the eyes of the British. If anything the early European settlers might have been considered "terrorists" by the Native Americans.


Like Lilly said...my point is not to agree with terrorist groups and what they believe in, just that Melon gave a different perspective or perception, something to think about.

[anitram]

melon, have you read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael"?

It's an interesting read into the "real" side of humanity, into how our cultural myths have shaped the way we abuse the world and ourselves. The basic contention is that humans now believe that evolution and purpose of the world concluded when modern man came on stage, and that very belief has caused our destruction, wars, starvation and ecological collapse.

[melon]

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase
Thought:
War and violence will never end, because it is too much of an ingrained part of humankind, which, in thousands and thousands of years, has really changed very little at the core.

An interesting point, but perhaps you miss my point (which is more my fault than yours). Humanity has, indeed, progressed rapidly over hundreds and hundreds of years. However, what is that ancient relic that simply hovers over us? Religion. Humanity, indeed, was violent and harsh 2000+ years ago, but, since then, we have progressed dramatically in terms of non-violent resolution...

...but that often seems to be a foreign language when you are dealing with making "holy warriors" saints. I am not anti-religious at heart, really, because I really do believe that love is (or should be) the real core of it. However, at least with our nature regarding religion, we seem to take the word of people 2000+ years ago most at heart, because we simply refused to accept further scripture. Medieval religious writings are markedly different from even the Biblical era. Yet, we seemingly cannot get over our violent ancestry, as encoded in scripture, whether it be Jesus coming not to bring peace, but to come with a sword (Gospel of Matthew) or Mohammed commanding the destruction of infidels.

*sigh*

Melon

[Not George Lucas]

It's been my observation and experience that while human technology has advanced greatly over the past several thousand years, the human mind, spirit, or nature has not. We're constantly finding new ways to express ourselves, and, for the most part, we're saying two opposing things:

1. You must die.

2. Play nice.

I don't have time to get any deeper into the discussion, since I get off work in 2 minutes, but think about it.

[OzAurora]

This is a very interesting thread that you have started here Melon and does get ones mind thinking, so let me start here first;

Originally posted by melon
You can kill people, but you can't kill ideas; and religion is enough of a reactionary vehicle for unquestioning complacency that it can never end.

I guess that I would also add to this the notion of sovreignty aswell. The idea of the nation state has been throughout history a very keen player in the wars and trials of countries throughout history and this generally does tie in with some kind of religion aswell and the idea that you said where you can kill people but will not kill their ideas is indeed very powerful when thinking about sovreignty, I think tht the Vietnam war exemplifies this as well as the image of the lone student standing before a tank in the middle of Tienamen Sqaure..........I also believe that the notion of sovreignty uses the ideology associated with religion to carry out its acts of violence, Al Queda believe in a 'pure' muslim state- this notion of control and seeking a nation that is a pure state solely founded on the principles of Islam is seen to be using what I believe are very sacred and fair ideologies of Islam for the manipulation of Al Queda - they have validated their own movement through their religion- albeit a very harsh view of what is essentially a peaceful religion.

War and violence will never end, because it is too much of an ingrained part of religion, which, in thousands and thousands of years, has really changed very little at the core.

Thoughts?

Melon

This is also very true, whilst we have the pleasure of saying here in the western world that technologicaly we have progressed and advanced quite considerably, one must remember that a great proportion of the world are still very primitive by such technolgical standards and also where does the distinction come from that if one area or facet of life or society advances does this mean that all facets must also aswell??? just because technoligically we have progressed why should religion also??? is religion something that is sterile?? its ideologies do not foster new thoughts??? it would appear that this is the case, religion it would appear is only advancing in its condemnation of various peoples and events, however at the core I would not say that it is the ideologies of these various religions that spawn such acts of hatred and violence, rather it is those in power who manipulate the various ideologies associated with their religion and therfore create these attrocities- however as history has shown time and time again man will sometimes see himself at times as superior and therefore will condemn those who he sees as inferior and violence will ultimately sometimes be the result.........and if there is a solution to any of this, well I really dont know what it could ever be as it would appear that these religious ideals are so entrenched in the various peoples throughout the world that even a catastrophic shift in consciousness, the likes of which I cant even exemplify, would still not alter their way of thinking