Jackson Free Press

I think this interview is one of the best things I've read regarding the war in a really long time.

Nick Berg's father, the American who was beheaded by the now dead Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, speaks about forgiveness and how violence should never be used to keep "peace".

When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously.

I've been shot at. I've been showed horrible pictures. I've been called all kinds of names and threatened by all kinds of people, and yet I feel that I have nothing left to lose, so I do those things.

Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?

That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?

The entire interview is worth the read. I really wanted to say "Hell Yeah!" at the end of it.

Previous Comments

ID

106195

Comment

I agree that it's bad to rejoice in anyone's death. And there is certainly a strong case to be made for pacificism as a principle. I know there arey Christians who embrace this, and you can make a very good case for it from looking at Jesus' life. But it is noteworthy that this position extends to all forms of violence. This means that there can be no police, no protection of children from abuse, no self-defense, nothing. And, indeed, when you read things like the Book of the Hebrews, it looks like some of the early Christians might have done just this: watched as their children and wives were raped and killed. But if you allow ANY circumstance where violence is considered JUST, any circumstance where killing someone is preferable to allowing them to continue on their chosen path, then you have a allowed that there is indeed an appropriate use of violence. And then you must establish criteria. Adn then it gets much, much more complicated. Mr. Berg said something telling. He said the following: "Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy." On the contrary, ALL government is upheld by the threat of violence. ALL sovereighty is defended that way, ALL justice is enforced that way, ALL of it. Maybe not the threat of death, but improsinment is still a denial of freedom, and you can't imprison anyone without forcing them into prison. ALL government is repressive. Democrary is just a form that seems to approximate the balance between order and freedom in a way that is better than most other forms have done. Remember Monty Python... "Come and see the violence inherent in the system"? Well, he's right. But this is the real world, and it requires violence against some to guaranty justice for others. We just hope we are on a path to minimize it as best we can. Are we on that path? I don't know. This is not indended as an apology for any policy, including the war policy. it's just a discussion of the realities of pacifism. Also, one more thing. it is possible for there to be no need of violence, but that would only happen if every person on the planet voluntarily renounced it. This could happen, for example, if everyone converted to a pacifist religion or something, or even just a pacifist philosophy. So if that happened, violence would be unnecesary for society to exist. But otherwise, I don't think it can happen. One more thing. I can only be humbled by the courage of pacifists who risk their lives to promote and fulfill their beliefs, just as I am humbled by the courage of soldiers why are fighting for others' freeedom. Again, I'm not trying to say one is more noble than the other: I'm just trying to flesh out the consequences of the pacifist position. Sorry for rambling.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-08T15:18:25-06:00

ID

106196

Comment

no protection of children from abuse In what way is protecting children from abuse "violent"?

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-08T15:21:39-06:00

ID

106197

Comment

How do you protect them otherwise? How do you stop an abuser, if they are unwilling to stop. I don't mean that violence is the first option, but it is the last option , is it not? Let me put it this way. Why do you call the police to stop crime? Because the police have guns. Even if they are unarmed at the time, they carry the force of the state behind them. The police can arrest people. Why do people acquiesce to being arrested? Because the police are given the "right" to take their proviledge to walk around freely away from them. The police represent the threat of violence from the state.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-08T15:31:00-06:00

ID

106198

Comment

Actually, you pick them up and walk away. I've never hit any abuser and managed to get what I want. Its called using my brain. Thing is, GLB, I actually believe in that world where all people renounce violence. Simply tossing the idea aside because you think it has no merit, or will never happen, ensures that it never occurs. The more people like Mr. Berg that announce these beliefs, the more we perpetuate that thought in the next generation. I get what you are saying...that polite society is held together by the threat of violence...or the fear of retribution. But, does that mean it always has to be? Youv'e said you think it will never happen. I guess I live for the day when I get to say "I told you so". 'Course, I'm three months from thirty and still allowed at least 90 more days of idealistic youth. ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-08T15:43:59-06:00

ID

106199

Comment

I'm five years past thirty, so all I dream about now are "The Golden Girls". I hope you do get to say "I told you so". I think Ghandi espoused a similar view. But I tihnk you are stil missing my point. I am jsut that most times, what you have said would work. Most times it does. In all (or most) interactions, violence has nothing to do with it. But if someone, for example, is thretening a child's with his life, and a police sniper has a clean shot, should he take it? I know that sounds like a made-for-tv question, but it does happen. The point is, there ARE situations in life where violence appears to be the only means to prevent something horrible from happening. So, in those situations, should you allow the violence to occur, or do you allow the people to commit the horrible act?

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-08T15:58:35-06:00

ID

106200

Comment

That's actually a difficult question to answer. I've never been put in the position where I would be forced to choose to harm someone to protect another. If it came down to that, I would like to think there would be a way around actually taking the abuser's life... I guess the problem for me is this....I think a lot of people say, "Well, if someone broke into my house I'd just shoot them." They say that statement like ending a life is easy. If faced with the decison of having to kill another human being, having a brother that died when I was 18, well...it would be extremely difficult for me. Because, like Mr. Berg says, I now see everyone as having a mother, a father, and a family. I think I couldn't answer it until placed in that position. I might do it, I might not. There's really no way to tell.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-08T16:16:41-06:00

ID

106201

Comment

every night before i go to sleep i replay the scenario in my head that if someone set off my alarm and still proceeded to the back room i would grab my stiletto and hide in the bathroomthen when they came in the room i would jump from behind and take them out, no need for explicits. Very primitive but there is a part of the brain that still allows those kinds of things to happen. Fight or flight some would say, take into account that the possibility exists that i may not be hidden well or they could be stronger than myself and the thought of just handing over my wallet and begging for my life seems more practical.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-06-08T16:30:05-06:00

ID

106202

Comment

Superstar- You're a girl? OHMIGOD. I have so been wrong this entire time. I mean, I guess I shouldn't assume you are a girl because you would kill someone with a stiletto. Its very eighties of me.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-08T16:34:37-06:00

ID

106203

Comment

NO WAY SUPERSTAR IS A GIRL. Tell me it's true. That's fabulous.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-08T16:44:22-06:00

ID

106204

Comment

Ali, it is good to always be aware that everytime someone dies, someone else grieves. You are right about that, absolutely. And I do want that to be sidi more in the world, because right now life is so, so cheap in so many places. But I think that is really a separate issue from whether or not violece is sometimes necessary or maybe even just. I know we don't often have to face the "kill or be killd" scenario ourselves, but the truth is we allow violence to be used to guaranty our freeedom and protection everyday. Consider that all our "rights" are really just priviledges protected by our governmet, and ultimately protected by the threat of force against those who would violate them. We can talk about "inherent" human right all day long, but they are only inherent if everyone acknowledges them as such. Consider Zarqawi (sp)? Do you know why he cut off people's heads? He was indicating to his buddies that Non-Osamites (militant islamists) are NOT HUMAN. Thay are sheep, to be dealt with as such. Threfore, in his eyes, you literlly don't exist. They have no compuction about treating you however they wish, because you are not a person at all. So, for him, your "rights" are non-existent. And he is just one example. Violence can be used to take away people's freedoms, but it can also be used to guaranty them. And it does. Right now. Today. For you. I'm not saying this to challenge you or anything. To be honest, this stuff is very tough for me, and I want to think it through with others who are thinking too. I thought a lot about this when I went ot Afghanistan, because I knew I could realistically find myself in a positon where I had to shoot at someone. Fortunately, that didn't happen. But I wanted to think it through as best I could.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-08T16:50:17-06:00

ID

106205

Comment

HAHA, i almost want you to keep on thinking that for later conversations. think what you will. a stiletto is a shoe but there is also a knife, i also mentioned a wallet also although some girls carry them.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-06-08T16:51:20-06:00

ID

106206

Comment

GLB- Well, I would understand why we would have two very different opinions on the subject. You've actually been placed in the situation where you had to seriously consider the action of killing someone. Although, whatever Zarqawi believes about me really has no bearing on my feelings for him. If I stop seeing him as human simply because he sees me as less than human, we have all lost. You know that as well.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-08T17:27:59-06:00

ID

106207

Comment

You bet, Ali. I agree with that. I know Zarqawi was a person. I wish he had made different choices in his life, but he didn't. I am not interested one way or another in what he deserved. If there is a God, he'll figure that out; it's not my job. But I tihnk he had to be killed, because he made choices that made that the only viable way to stop him from killiing other people. But, regardless, he was someone's son, and that son is dead now. And that is a shame.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-08T17:52:53-06:00

ID

106208

Comment

Unless he was the son of a bitch...then it's fine. :P

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-08T17:56:33-06:00

ID

106209

Comment

Mr. Bergs comments just as easily have been made during World War II. He is wrong, violence wiped out the enemy in Germany and Japan and they both got over it to become our allies. War works.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-08T20:05:58-06:00

ID

106210

Comment

I'd say that war CAN work, if you judge by the results. But it also depends on how you measure the impacts, and whether or not the price it worth it. Stil, it is certainly the case the there are times in history when decisive military action saved lives and granted freedoma dn justice to thousands, even millions of people. There are also (let frequently, but no less powerfully) times when restraint has done the same. Of coruse there is also civil disobedience. Buit although that is very powerful, it requred the existence of a free media and a sympathetic lieral society to work. So, for example, civil disobedience in Sadaam Hussein's Iraq, Stalins Russia, or Hitler's germany woudl simpy be snuffed out brutally, without a peep in any media outlet. Anyway just some musings.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-09T10:07:50-06:00

ID

106211

Comment

So sorry for my typing. Sheesh, I really need to take the time to proofread.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-06-09T10:08:51-06:00

ID

106212

Comment

I cannot thow any stones in that regard. I left the word "could" out of my original comment.

Author

pneville

Date

2006-06-09T10:35:37-06:00