A Global Appeal for 'No more violence!'

"Deeply saddened by the suffering and deaths of thousands in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, we, people of many different backgrounds from around the world, join with millions of others to denounce these latest acts of terror against innocent civilians. We believe that military retaliation in response to this mass murder will only accelerate the cycle of fear, anger and violence."

Read more of this petition, and please consider signing and telling all your friends.


Comments

    Bullshit [79]
    by Anonymous on Monday, September 17 @04:50PM
    The time for pacificism is over.

      No Subject Given [81]
      by Anonymous Poster on Tuesday, September 18 @09:12AM
      nonviolence is NOT pacifism !!

      Someone agreed with you, and look what we got!!! [88]
      by Russell McOrmond on Thursday, September 20 @01:10PM
      Westerners need to take off their blinders and realize that the only "explanation" for the events of September 11, if there can be any legitimate explanation for such acts of violence, is as a retaliation for historical acts originating from the US itself.


      Some group of violent people agreed with this anonymous person that "the time for pacifism is over", and we had thousands of additional casualties in the United States because of it. Now another group of violent people, the United States government, are making plans to increase the worldwide casualties.


      I for one find the words of this "anonymous coward" (What SlashDot.org calls people who don't sign their real name) to be frightening in that it indicates that for some even such tragic events do not inspire them to think.

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

      No Subject Given [81]
      by Anonymous Poster on Tuesday, September 18 @09:12AM
      nonviolence is NOT pacifism !!

      Someone agreed with you, and look what we got!!! [88]
      by Russell McOrmond on Thursday, September 20 @01:10PM
      Westerners need to take off their blinders and realize that the only "explanation" for the events of September 11, if there can be any legitimate explanation for such acts of violence, is as a retaliation for historical acts originating from the US itself.


      Some group of violent people agreed with this anonymous person that "the time for pacifism is over", and we had thousands of additional casualties in the United States because of it. Now another group of violent people, the United States government, are making plans to increase the worldwide casualties.


      I for one find the words of this "anonymous coward" (What SlashDot.org calls people who don't sign their real name) to be frightening in that it indicates that for some even such tragic events do not inspire them to think.

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

    Petition the Japanese Government Not to Let Its Te [80]
    by Paul Arenson on Monday, September 17 @08:52PM
    I signed the petition..

    Please come to our site and put
    pressure on Japan--it is one of the forward
    bases from which the U.S. would
    launch an attack, as they did in
    the Gulf War and also in Vietnam.

    http://tokyoprogressive.org


    thanks!






    And if the answer was not retaliation? [83]
    by Dominique Boisvert on Wednesday, September 19 @01:06AM
    I have signed and fully support the plea/pledge, and here is why...


    AND IF THE ANSWER WAS NOT RETALIATION?


    Let's be clear. NOTHING can justify the horrible deadly attacks against the United States on September 11th. But these attacks took place and now the most pressing question facing us is: What will we do?

    Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. President Bush has declared the first war of the 21st century. He has evoked the struggle of Good over Evil. He has promised to venge, with force, the loss of thousands of innocent American lives. He has sought and obtained, in this struggle against terrorism, the cooperation of his NATO allies.

    However, retaliation is perhaps not what is called for in these dramatic circumstances. Instead of adopting the attitude of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", is it not possible, despite the overpowering sadness caused by this horrible carnage, to remain cool-headed? Is it not possible to distinguish, as Elie Wiesel does, between anger and hate, and to choose that which is just rather than that which will please public opinion? Should not our representatives act with wisdom instead of applying a band-aid solution? Is that not the true sense of leadership that we expect from our heads of state?

    Launching one, or several, devastating attacks against terrorist targets, be they authentic or alledged, is a quick and easy solution, especially if it is carried out using military hardware such as missiles rather than soldiers: it is rapid, it is spectacular, and it causes enormous damage. As a result, public opinion is impressed and satisfied.

    Unfortunately such a course of action entails two drawbacks. It not only does not solve the problem but actually makes it worse. The events unfolding every day in the Middle East offer us living proof of this. Disease is cured by attacking its causes, not its consequences. Furthermore, the escalation of violence, which both adversaries consider perfectly justified, kindles an unending spiral of death.

    While the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington are totally unjustifiable, they are not gratuitous. The fanatical hate that some people harbour against the United States, and the West in general, has historical roots: political colonization, economic exploitation, cultural hegemony, military domination, broken promises, overturned or imposed governments, the use of double standards, etc. We must admit that many peoples around the world have legitimate grievances. We seem to have forgotten, all too easily, that our sworn enemies of today were but yesterday our allies. We are the ones who created, trained and armed the power of Manuel Noriega in Panama, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Oussama Ben Laden in Afghanistan.

    Indeed, we must struggle mercilessly against terrorism, against ALL types of terrorism: the terrorism of the poor, so often spectacular and blind, the terrorism of the powerful, more sophisticated or targetted, the terrorism of stateless organizations, and the terrorism of nation-states, be they enemies or allies. Terror, like vengeance, is ALWAYS unjustifiable.

    Therefore, the appropriate response to the horrors of September 11th is not, and cannot be, retaliation. No "military strike", no matter its size, intensity or target, could attain the goals for which any and all political and military decisions should strive: to meet the targetted objectives, and to contribute to improving the situation, not making it worse. "Military strikes" may comfort national or western egos, demonstrate military superiority and satisfy the desire for vengeance. But they will never bring back the thousands of lost loved ones, and they will not address the causes of terrorism. On the contrary, they will generate even more heat to fuel the infernal spiral of violence.


    WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

    1. Declare collectively, loud and strong, our firm commitment to struggle relentlessly against violence and terror, wherever they come from. For our american neighbours, this means two things: discontinuing the pursuit of unilateralism which, up to now, the Bush administration has favoured, and committing itself to a multilateral approach, not only when it suits their fancy, as in the case of terrorism, but in all of their international policies.

    2. Be coherent in our political interventions and stop using double standards, especially regarding human rights, the rule of law, and the resolutions of the United Nations (for example concerning Israel, China, Africa, etc.).

    3. Prioritize the struggle against the profound roots of terrorism. Reducing political, economic and social injustices, contributes directly to diminish tensions and impoverishes the soil in which terrorism grows. This will not solve everything, but prevention is always the best remedy against desease.

    4. Maximize the use of the judicial system and the rule of law in eliminating terrorism and neutralizing individual terrorists: the strict enforcement of current and future national and international criminal codes, the eventual restriction of some of our present rights and freedoms for greater collective protection, etc. As with all crimes, we must learn to effectively reprimand dangerous or inacceptable behaviour without, at the same time, demonizing those involved. If not, nothing is gained and the causes of such behavior remain untouched.

    5. Start moving away from our attitude of self-sufficiency and opening up to the reality of the Other. We westerners often consider ourselves the center of the world. The time has come to learn to look at the world through the eyes of the Other, to learn to walk, if only for a moment, in the shoes of the Other. This is an essential prerequisite for understanding different mentalities and cultures, for developping authentic tolerance and for creating the conditions for peaceful co-existence.

    6. Give up the idea that force and violence are necessary to rectify wrongs and to impose "our" justice. Force and violence have never solved problems over the long run. At best, they have resulted in shallow or temporary victories, and in some cases they have even rendered the situation worse. The wars of the 20th century have abundantly born witness to this and the Gulf War is just one of the more recent demonstrations. At this the beginning of the 3rd millenium, the United Nations has invited us to develop a culture of non-violence as one of the best ways of guaranteeing peace. It is time to put this into practice.

    7. Contribute with our every action, word and attitude to building a little more peace, justice and hope. Each of us contributes, a thousand times every day, to improving the world or deteriorating it, to making it more open, more tolerant and more fit for living, or, on the contrary, more individualistic, more competitive and more threatening. The necessary struggle against terrorism must, of course, be managed by the nation-states, but it also belongs to each and every one of us. Through the many choices we make every day we can contribute to the dynamics of life rather than the logic of death.


    This may not seem like the appropriate moment to suggest such an unpopular, long term course of action. Nevertheless, NOW is the time, more than ever, to resort to reason rather than emotion. NOW is the time to be courageous, to demonstate leadership and creativity rather than succumbing to the intincts of vengeance and retaliation.

    In every conflict, even from a strictly military point of view, victory often depends on the capacity to take the initiative and surprise the opponent where he expects us least. Today, everyone is expecting, as something totally inevitable, that the Americans, possibly with the help of other nations, launch a military attack against the enemy. As the enemy in this case is hard to identify, the chances that there will be numerous innocent victims will be all the greater. It is precisely for these reasons that we must surprise the adversary by changing the battlelines.

    Showering Afghanistan or any other country with missiles will simply multiply the death toll and cultivate hate, without proving or solving anything. We already know that the United States is the biggest military power in the world, that they have bombs and that they are not afraid to use them. We also know that this did not prevent the terrible attacks of September 11th but rather nurtured the hate that made them possible. Is it not time to learn from the past and to modify our course of action?

    Stopping the spiral of violence is an urgent task for which we are all responsible, wherever we are.


    Dominique Boisvert
    7281, 19th Avenue
    Montreal H2A 2L6
    (514) 376-8047
    email : domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca
    (written in French on September 13th
    and kindly translated by a group of friends)

      sort of a tired argument you present [85]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:15AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i><p >"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

      No Subject Given [86]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:17AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i>"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

      sort of a tired argument you present [85]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:15AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i><p >"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

      No Subject Given [86]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:17AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i>"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

    petition link is not working [87]
    by Friend on Wednesday, September 19 @04:31PM
    the link is not working.

    The USA dead [90]
    by Zack on Sunday, September 23 @02:32PM
    I am located in Washington DC, I was here. You overseas members and people from Canada are with us or against us.

    It seems Canada is with us except for a few liberal idiots. Proud to list my true e-mail
    visit http://www.copscops.com
    Join the Law Enforcement community http://anexa.com/lawenforcement/index.Ihtml
    Washington DC Police Department http://mpdc.dc.gov/main.shtm

    " Our military is powerful, and it's prepared."
    The President of the United States
    George W Bush

    God Bless The USA
    http://www.copscops.com/blessusa.htm

    Bullshit [79]
    by Anonymous on Monday, September 17 @04:50PM
    The time for pacificism is over.

      No Subject Given [81]
      by Anonymous Poster on Tuesday, September 18 @09:12AM
      nonviolence is NOT pacifism !!

      Someone agreed with you, and look what we got!!! [88]
      by Russell McOrmond on Thursday, September 20 @01:10PM
      Westerners need to take off their blinders and realize that the only "explanation" for the events of September 11, if there can be any legitimate explanation for such acts of violence, is as a retaliation for historical acts originating from the US itself.


      Some group of violent people agreed with this anonymous person that "the time for pacifism is over", and we had thousands of additional casualties in the United States because of it. Now another group of violent people, the United States government, are making plans to increase the worldwide casualties.


      I for one find the words of this "anonymous coward" (What SlashDot.org calls people who don't sign their real name) to be frightening in that it indicates that for some even such tragic events do not inspire them to think.

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

      No Subject Given [81]
      by Anonymous Poster on Tuesday, September 18 @09:12AM
      nonviolence is NOT pacifism !!

      Someone agreed with you, and look what we got!!! [88]
      by Russell McOrmond on Thursday, September 20 @01:10PM
      Westerners need to take off their blinders and realize that the only "explanation" for the events of September 11, if there can be any legitimate explanation for such acts of violence, is as a retaliation for historical acts originating from the US itself.


      Some group of violent people agreed with this anonymous person that "the time for pacifism is over", and we had thousands of additional casualties in the United States because of it. Now another group of violent people, the United States government, are making plans to increase the worldwide casualties.


      I for one find the words of this "anonymous coward" (What SlashDot.org calls people who don't sign their real name) to be frightening in that it indicates that for some even such tragic events do not inspire them to think.

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

        Watch out you small countries [91]
        by USA Person on Sunday, September 23 @02:35PM
        You idiots around the world feel safe ??? watch what happends when you mess with the USA

    Petition the Japanese Government Not to Let Its Te [80]
    by Paul Arenson on Monday, September 17 @08:52PM
    I signed the petition..

    Please come to our site and put
    pressure on Japan--it is one of the forward
    bases from which the U.S. would
    launch an attack, as they did in
    the Gulf War and also in Vietnam.

    http://tokyoprogressive.org


    thanks!






    And if the answer was not retaliation? [83]
    by Dominique Boisvert on Wednesday, September 19 @01:06AM
    I have signed and fully support the plea/pledge, and here is why...


    AND IF THE ANSWER WAS NOT RETALIATION?


    Let's be clear. NOTHING can justify the horrible deadly attacks against the United States on September 11th. But these attacks took place and now the most pressing question facing us is: What will we do?

    Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. President Bush has declared the first war of the 21st century. He has evoked the struggle of Good over Evil. He has promised to venge, with force, the loss of thousands of innocent American lives. He has sought and obtained, in this struggle against terrorism, the cooperation of his NATO allies.

    However, retaliation is perhaps not what is called for in these dramatic circumstances. Instead of adopting the attitude of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", is it not possible, despite the overpowering sadness caused by this horrible carnage, to remain cool-headed? Is it not possible to distinguish, as Elie Wiesel does, between anger and hate, and to choose that which is just rather than that which will please public opinion? Should not our representatives act with wisdom instead of applying a band-aid solution? Is that not the true sense of leadership that we expect from our heads of state?

    Launching one, or several, devastating attacks against terrorist targets, be they authentic or alledged, is a quick and easy solution, especially if it is carried out using military hardware such as missiles rather than soldiers: it is rapid, it is spectacular, and it causes enormous damage. As a result, public opinion is impressed and satisfied.

    Unfortunately such a course of action entails two drawbacks. It not only does not solve the problem but actually makes it worse. The events unfolding every day in the Middle East offer us living proof of this. Disease is cured by attacking its causes, not its consequences. Furthermore, the escalation of violence, which both adversaries consider perfectly justified, kindles an unending spiral of death.

    While the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington are totally unjustifiable, they are not gratuitous. The fanatical hate that some people harbour against the United States, and the West in general, has historical roots: political colonization, economic exploitation, cultural hegemony, military domination, broken promises, overturned or imposed governments, the use of double standards, etc. We must admit that many peoples around the world have legitimate grievances. We seem to have forgotten, all too easily, that our sworn enemies of today were but yesterday our allies. We are the ones who created, trained and armed the power of Manuel Noriega in Panama, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Oussama Ben Laden in Afghanistan.

    Indeed, we must struggle mercilessly against terrorism, against ALL types of terrorism: the terrorism of the poor, so often spectacular and blind, the terrorism of the powerful, more sophisticated or targetted, the terrorism of stateless organizations, and the terrorism of nation-states, be they enemies or allies. Terror, like vengeance, is ALWAYS unjustifiable.

    Therefore, the appropriate response to the horrors of September 11th is not, and cannot be, retaliation. No "military strike", no matter its size, intensity or target, could attain the goals for which any and all political and military decisions should strive: to meet the targetted objectives, and to contribute to improving the situation, not making it worse. "Military strikes" may comfort national or western egos, demonstrate military superiority and satisfy the desire for vengeance. But they will never bring back the thousands of lost loved ones, and they will not address the causes of terrorism. On the contrary, they will generate even more heat to fuel the infernal spiral of violence.


    WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

    1. Declare collectively, loud and strong, our firm commitment to struggle relentlessly against violence and terror, wherever they come from. For our american neighbours, this means two things: discontinuing the pursuit of unilateralism which, up to now, the Bush administration has favoured, and committing itself to a multilateral approach, not only when it suits their fancy, as in the case of terrorism, but in all of their international policies.

    2. Be coherent in our political interventions and stop using double standards, especially regarding human rights, the rule of law, and the resolutions of the United Nations (for example concerning Israel, China, Africa, etc.).

    3. Prioritize the struggle against the profound roots of terrorism. Reducing political, economic and social injustices, contributes directly to diminish tensions and impoverishes the soil in which terrorism grows. This will not solve everything, but prevention is always the best remedy against desease.

    4. Maximize the use of the judicial system and the rule of law in eliminating terrorism and neutralizing individual terrorists: the strict enforcement of current and future national and international criminal codes, the eventual restriction of some of our present rights and freedoms for greater collective protection, etc. As with all crimes, we must learn to effectively reprimand dangerous or inacceptable behaviour without, at the same time, demonizing those involved. If not, nothing is gained and the causes of such behavior remain untouched.

    5. Start moving away from our attitude of self-sufficiency and opening up to the reality of the Other. We westerners often consider ourselves the center of the world. The time has come to learn to look at the world through the eyes of the Other, to learn to walk, if only for a moment, in the shoes of the Other. This is an essential prerequisite for understanding different mentalities and cultures, for developping authentic tolerance and for creating the conditions for peaceful co-existence.

    6. Give up the idea that force and violence are necessary to rectify wrongs and to impose "our" justice. Force and violence have never solved problems over the long run. At best, they have resulted in shallow or temporary victories, and in some cases they have even rendered the situation worse. The wars of the 20th century have abundantly born witness to this and the Gulf War is just one of the more recent demonstrations. At this the beginning of the 3rd millenium, the United Nations has invited us to develop a culture of non-violence as one of the best ways of guaranteeing peace. It is time to put this into practice.

    7. Contribute with our every action, word and attitude to building a little more peace, justice and hope. Each of us contributes, a thousand times every day, to improving the world or deteriorating it, to making it more open, more tolerant and more fit for living, or, on the contrary, more individualistic, more competitive and more threatening. The necessary struggle against terrorism must, of course, be managed by the nation-states, but it also belongs to each and every one of us. Through the many choices we make every day we can contribute to the dynamics of life rather than the logic of death.


    This may not seem like the appropriate moment to suggest such an unpopular, long term course of action. Nevertheless, NOW is the time, more than ever, to resort to reason rather than emotion. NOW is the time to be courageous, to demonstate leadership and creativity rather than succumbing to the intincts of vengeance and retaliation.

    In every conflict, even from a strictly military point of view, victory often depends on the capacity to take the initiative and surprise the opponent where he expects us least. Today, everyone is expecting, as something totally inevitable, that the Americans, possibly with the help of other nations, launch a military attack against the enemy. As the enemy in this case is hard to identify, the chances that there will be numerous innocent victims will be all the greater. It is precisely for these reasons that we must surprise the adversary by changing the battlelines.

    Showering Afghanistan or any other country with missiles will simply multiply the death toll and cultivate hate, without proving or solving anything. We already know that the United States is the biggest military power in the world, that they have bombs and that they are not afraid to use them. We also know that this did not prevent the terrible attacks of September 11th but rather nurtured the hate that made them possible. Is it not time to learn from the past and to modify our course of action?

    Stopping the spiral of violence is an urgent task for which we are all responsible, wherever we are.


    Dominique Boisvert
    7281, 19th Avenue
    Montreal H2A 2L6
    (514) 376-8047
    email : domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca
    (written in French on September 13th
    and kindly translated by a group of friends)

      sort of a tired argument you present [85]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:15AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i><p >"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

      No Subject Given [86]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:17AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i>"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

      sort of a tired argument you present [85]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:15AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i><p >"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

        sort of a tired argument you present [89]
        by Dominique Boisvert on Sunday, September 23 @11:19AM
        Really sorry that the writer of this response did not provide his name and email so that we could really exchange...

        My text (And if the answer was not retaliation?)was indeed firs written in French and certainly did not intend to evacuate complexity and his own set of arguments. And certainly not to present itself as "THE" truth on the matter!...

        We are all collectively in a serious mess, whoever and whatever contributed to create that mess. The problem is HOW DO WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FROM NOW ON? And my point was that we must try to do our best to IMPROVE the situation, rather than DETERIORATE it. And that violence and war almost always deteriorate the situation in the mid- or long term, as we see everyday in the Middle East, but in so many other places.

        I am totally and firmly in favor of fighting terror, terrorism and terrorist individuals, to prevent them all, as much as feasible, from causing more harm than they already did, not only in USA on September 11, but all over the world for such a long time. But I also strongly believe that violence only breeds violence and that we must urgently explore new ways of solving human very serious problems.

        By the way, I was impressed by my correspondent's early forgiveness for the terrible harm caused on September 11. And it certainly is a sound basis on which to try to build a better answer. As I was impressed by his/her reflexion on the notion of "margin" and how to influence them.

        I hope my anonymous correspondent will come out of anonymity so that we can really exchange in full respect of our various opinions, hopefully contributing to finding a better solution that NOBODY (and certainly not myself) can pretend to hold.

        Dominique Boisvert
        Montreal
        domfeldi@internet.uqam.ca

      No Subject Given [86]
      by Anonymous Poster on Wednesday, September 19 @11:17AM
      I realize this was written in French, so I'll respond to the translation since that's what I have in front of me.<p > <i>Retaliation, not suprisingly, seems to be on everyone's mind. </i>"retaliation" in this context is an ambiguous word, sweeping a diversity of thought under one heading. What's on <i>my</i> mind is retaliation as a deterrent against future acts by these and other terrorists, and not for revenge: I have already forgiven these terrorists for what they have done. In their hearts, I'm sure that they thought they did right, and I'm sure they love their children, and their mothers love them. But, we must do everything we can to stop others from making the same grievous errors of judgement they made. <p >As in all continua, for every terrorist, there are "on margin" (using the economist's definition of that word) some sympathizers who but for some small obstacle would be terrorists, or some who are terrorists but in the face of a small obstacle would stop. Many others, of course, are not near the margin, but they matter less because they are not likely to change their minds. <p >I believe firmly that the negative reinforcement (hunt them down and kill them) is a first order effect and the positive reinforcement (improve social conditions where they live) is a second order effect. We can, and should, do both. <p >So, I will limit my direct response to what I've said so far. I commented because, for all its eloquence, this piece I'm responding to is too simplistic. It does not give me credit for having thought about the issue or for the nuances. It reiterates the same old tired lefty opinion that if we are only nicer to criminals that they will stop being criminals, that other people's problems are really not their problems but our problems, that any of our success or wealth must have come at their expense, or simply that we don't deserve the fruits more than they so therefore we should give them the fruits and they will love us in response. I don't believe that, or at least I believe the opposite view in equal measure. Not only did this piece not change my mind, but by not giving credit to the intellectual complexity of my position (calling it "emotional") he convinced me even more that my thinking is less knee-jerk than his.

    petition link is not working [87]
    by Friend on Wednesday, September 19 @04:31PM
    the link is not working.

    The USA dead [90]
    by Zack on Sunday, September 23 @02:32PM
    I am located in Washington DC, I was here. You overseas members and people from Canada are with us or against us.

    It seems Canada is with us except for a few liberal idiots. Proud to list my true e-mail
    visit http://www.copscops.com
    Join the Law Enforcement community http://anexa.com/lawenforcement/index.Ihtml
    Washington DC Police Department http://mpdc.dc.gov/main.shtm

    " Our military is powerful, and it's prepared."
    The President of the United States
    George W Bush

    God Bless The USA
    http://www.copscops.com/blessusa.htm