Dangerous idea?

[R. Duff Doel]

Hi,

My name is Duff and i have been mostly a lurker on this list.

Let me begin by saying that inherent in my discussion below is the basic
premise that even attempting to convince someone else of the veracity of
one's opinion is an attempt to control. And therefore, i need to say;
please take from what i share what works for you and discard the rest.
Of course that does not preclude the sharing of dissenting or agreeing
ideas...

I agree that by resorting to such tactics, they have already won. And i
agree that much of the responsibility lies with the media's inherent,
apparent need to sensationalize the negative. And i agree that
ultimately it is all about money and therefore power.

The second thing i thought when i stood at my Taiji class watching the
second plane hit the tower on the fitness club TV, was that this was the
most politically useful thing that could happen to a right wing
government that was failing in the popularity polls. It creates a
vehicle for breeding fear in the general population. Such fear allows
for the immediate and permanent reduction of civil liberties and the
increase of control.

The third thing i thought while everyone was talking about the horror of
the situation and shouting reactionary cries for action and vengeance
was, what would serve more in creating a peaceful world would be to ask
"Why do they hate us so much that they would do such a thing?"

If we look just at the money situation and put it into real, personal
terms, think of this: For the second and third installments of "The
Matrix", Keanu Reeves was paid a salary of $100,000,000 dollars (not
counting whatever other residuals and promotional money he might get).
This is enough to feed and water the entire third world for more than 2
years. Now as much as i enjoyed the Matrix, there is something that is
just not breeding peace in that. I am happy for Keanu that he has become
so successful for himself but how does a society that wholeheartedly
supports this, bridge to heartfully serving the world?

This, to me is the true essence. Forget value judgements like "good and
evil" or "positive and negative". I feel that there are two possible
motivations in any choice that we make. Does our choice serve ourselves
or does it serve all? If our choices serve self at the expense of others
then our choices breed divisiveness and conflict. If our choices are
motivated toward serving all, then they breed inclusiveness and peace.
This applies on a "national" level as well. A country is an entity just
like a person. If a country makes a self-serving choice, that is the
same as a person making such a choice only it has much more far reaching
effects.

So, to answer your original question: If we were to take an action like
targeting suspected terrorists with computer viruses, then it would be
an act of serving our own desire to have them think like us. It would
not breed peace but would rather escalate the conflict in just the same
way as a military response does. (an that is not opinion, it's
observation. Just look at what is happening in Iraq right now, today...)
Such an attempted solution is as much an act of terrorism as what the
targets of the act are doing, albeit with probably less immediate
bloodshed and suffering, but perhaps not so in the long run. It is an
act that says that if someone who thinks differently than we do wants to
speak her/his mind, then s/he will be attacked overtly for doing so.

Self-defense is stopping someone from hurting you. Defending one's ward
or dependent or even an innocent bystander, is preventing someone from
hurting that person. Attacking the attacker in response is an attack not
self-defense. Attacking a potential attacker preemptively is terrorism.
As an example, if one walks down a street and sees someone being
attacked in an alley and interferes, preventing the attacker from
harming the victim, then one is protecting someone. If one then beats
the crap out of the attacker, one is waging a vengeful war. If one goes
around looking for people who might be potential attackers and beats the
crap out of them to make them afraid to be attackers, one is a terrorist.

Even if one goes about sanctioning anyone who might say something
hateful one is serving one's own self-interest. Who decides where it
stops? Who defines what is the line that can't be crossed? Today, it
might be a website showing horrific videos. Tomorrow it might be a
website making statements against military involvement in Iraq. Next
week it might be anyone who disagrees with G.W.B.

While it is possible, though not probable, that such a sanction as
targeting the websites of suspected terrorists or those making hateful
statements, might prevent some bloodshed, it is at the cost of becoming
hateful, manipulative and controlling just like them and ultimately
creating more excuses for them to feel justified in their actions. In
other words, the end does not justify the means. The means must be
defensible on their own merit, independent of the outcome. And further,
it won't work anyway because such a stand only breeds more divisiveness.

And finally, none of us as individuals can make such choices of service
for anyone else. Especially, we can't make such choices for whole
nations. We can however, make them for ourselves, every moment of our
lives. If we consistently choose serving all instead of just ourselves,
then we become examples, beacons for others to see. If one person lives
as much as humanly possible this way of being, and just a handful of
people see that and see that it might be a happier, more peaceful, more
constructive way to live, then we create a grassroots movement of peace.
This is, to me, the only way peace can happen. One person at a time. As
Chris Mac Rae pointed out, large media interests, large corporate
entities and most large driving forces in our socio-politico-economic
structure are inherently motivated toward self-serving goals. They can
only be relied upon to create more conflict unless the general
"marketplace" is only willing to buy peace. Then they would be selfishly
motivated to act in a selfless manner. It wouldn't be real, but at least
they would get out of the way of peace.

A clear and decisive choice that is motivated by serving all is to
simply refuse to open any website that would show any such horrific
thing. One person at a time.

Wow, i didn't intend to go that deep when i started this, but this is
how i feel.



Douglas D. Germann, Sr. wrote:

>Hi--
>
>I had this thought yesterday, and was going to put it on my blog, but then
>I thought perhaps it is too dangerous an idea to post too widely.
>
>It is attempting to harness a negative in the service of positive, but it
>still repulses almost as much as it attracts. Is there a seed of good here
>that could be developed? I know the people on this list can be trusted to
>find it if it exists....
>
>      Could we as internet community deny these terrorist
>      websites access to the world of publicity by using viruses,
>      or something like them, in a positive way?
>
>(I had in mind the sites that are posting the videos of beheadings, and
>similar atrocities.)
>
>                              :-Doug.
>
>*
>*
>==========================================================
>OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>------------------------------
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
>view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
>To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
>http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist