Retaliation

[firsty]

http://buffaloreport.com/2006/060914.ch ... ation.html

The Buffalo Report is a GREAT resource for current news articles and original commentary. It's run by a couple of my former profs at the University at Buffalo. They get it. They get it big time.

Retaliation

by Diane Christian

Retaliation is giving back in kind. We are struck, we strike back. Both President Bush and Osama Bin Laden believe in retaliation; both argue that their strikes are answering attacks, that they are protecting and avenging their people. Both anathematize the other as ruthless and evil. And both are far from the forgiveness and peace their religions preach. In the Koran Allah says "My mercy embraces all things." In the Christian Gospel Christ says "Do not resist evil with evil. If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." Israel also is very righteously into retaliation, answering the abduction of two soldiers with war. Are Bin Laden, Bush and Olmert, reigning leaders who affirm the great monotheisms, more than warriors? The fusion of political and religious leadership in these figures is volatile--they license crusades without check.

The Pope, the moderate imams, the pacifists in all camps, seem pretty impotent. Is it that they lack legions, as Stalin might observe? Or is potency only in striking?

The sense of the lex talionis, the law of the talon, is proportionality: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The idea is to limit the escalation of violence, to balance strike for strike. Christian apologists often treated the Judaic principle as cruel, and felt superior with the ideal of Christian forgiveness and turning the other cheek, though Christian history is full of terrible violence, excessive cruelty and no mercy to Jews and infidels. All the histories have terrible violence, excessive cruelty and no mercy to the others.

read the rest of the article by clicking on the link (please):

http://buffaloreport.com/2006/060914.ch ... ation.html

[mtmynd]

But retaliation is so, hmmm... so macho. Think sports. Think Hollywood heroes. Think WWE. Think Dubya/Cheney. Think of the talk around the beer fests... whose ass can get whupped first and how badly.

Competition and winning is all that is at stake, isn't it? What else matters besides the win? Loss of life of the innocents doesn't enter the competitive ring... not when super egos are at stake.

Winning at any cost is the rule, not the logic. Logic and love is for whimps, and who trusts a fucking whimp?

[isn't this why we're always fighting for one thing or another - revenge or competition, the yin/yang of war?]

[firsty]

hm. i dont think retaliation is a macho trait. it can be part of one's macho canon, but it's not gender-dependent at all.

if we started everything all over again tomorrow, there would be a war brewing by monday.

[mtmynd]

Are you suggesting Hillary and Condi are not mucha macha?