Tags

,

In light of the recent events in Paris this post is sure to touch on some

very raw nerves but if we are to honor those who lost their lives

we  must come to some understanding of the horrification or

glorification of killing other than the frenzy of fear now being created

by the media. 

Television is an energy drain and a large source of fear and negativity for many. Watching violence, diminishes the harshness and reality of these acts, by gradually numbing us. Along with Social media it is one of the fastest ways to disconnect yourself from the world.

Most people just want to live their lives in peace.

however this is completely undermined by modern day, which would make you think that most people are violent and destructive.

Violence on television is however part of our societal experience.

The number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000. The number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000

 Most of us will never engage in an act of extreme brutality.

We will never shoot, stab, or beat someone to death. We will never rape another human being or set them on fire. We will never strap a bomb to our chests and detonate ourselves in a crowded café.

And so, when faced with these seemingly senseless acts, we find ourselves at a loss.

At the same time for most of us in the world we have become so use to killing it means little or nothing to us unless it directly affects us.

If you stop and ask yourself why are we so prone to kill this is a subject that has been intensely debated for centuries, probably because it says so much about who we are and whether we can justify war and other collective violence.

If we really want to solve the problem of violence, there is nothing for it but to risk a kind of understanding that threatens our own values, our own way of life. We have to gaze into an abyss.

People are violent because they feel they must be; because they feel that their violence is obligatory.

Usually when someone is murdered, people expect the murderer to feel culpable. This though, is not the case in war. When in war, a soldier is taught that the enemy deserves to die, for no other reason than that they are the nation’s enemy.  They know that they are harming fully human beings. Nonetheless, they believe they should.

Has warfare been handed down to us through millions of years of evolution?

Is it part of who we are as a species?

Is warfare is rooted in evolution?

At the heart of these question is whether humans have a natural capacity to kill other humans. Some social scientists have concluded that evolution has in fact left us with this unfortunate ability.

Luckily there is within most men an intense resistance to killing their fellow-man.

Violence does not stem from a psychopathic lack of morality. Quite the reverse: it comes from the exercise of perceived moral rights and obligations.

Many people assume that soldiers in a firefight instinctively respond to enemy fire by shooting back, and that soldiers in a kill-or-be-killed situation will choose to kill. But informal interviews conducted with thousands of American combat soldiers during World War II by army historian S.L.A. Marshall revealed that as many as 75% of soldiers never fired their weapons during combat.

Very few people would seek out an opportunity to kill others.

At the same time, you may find it hard to believe that it is sometimes impossible for soldiers to kill others even when their own lives are at risk.

Throughout history and around the world people have come up with ways to overcome an aversion to killing, such as dehumanizing the victim, placing distance between the killer and the victim, and using drugs or loud music to induce a trance-like state in a killer. This trait would have been amplified and passed down through the generations until it was eventually inherited by modern humans, who presumably took this predisposition and ran with it, inventing more and more efficient ways to kill each other.

Aftermath of World War II, the U.S. military embarked on a campaign to more effectively prepare soldiers for combat by employing realistic training exercises. New recruits began to practice shooting at pop-up, human-shaped targets rather than the traditional, stationary bull’s-eyes. More and more elaborate and realistic combat simulation exercises and ’war games’ were implemented.

The point of this new training was to make killing an automatic response under combat conditions. And it worked. Combatants in institutional wars do not fight primarily because they are aggressive.  Humans excel at overcoming our biological limitations using technological innovation.

All terrorism and war co-evolved, promoting conflict between groups and greater harmony within them.

There is no morality in war.

The original founders of the religions were the human incarnations of the same God like Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.

Every religion says that their God only created this entire earth or this entire humanity. Unfortunately, there is only one earth and this proves that there is only one God mentioned by all the religions.

Along came those religions about 4000 years ago and endless war! in the name of religion (so they can not be religions or spiritual they can not be So new armies formed called Religion?.

Since God is one and the same, there cannot be contradicting concepts between the religions. But we find some contradictions and people are divided based on these contradictions. This division is leading to quarrels and finally killing each other. These contradictions cannot be from God because there is only one God as said above.

The Q`ran says that you should protect even the follower of other religion and convey the message of Allah to him. It is left to him to follow or not.

The same God exists in different forms in different religions.

Unfortunately we are the only living species that can reason and as a result, we realized that the only way to have things your way is by domination therefore, we divide and conquer. And as we become more powerful, we distort things. We twist the truth to fit our ulterior motive. And to convince the mass to adopt your belief in the name of God.

Unfortunately, it does not follow that every problem comes with its own prepackaged solution.

War is vague and illogical because it forces humans into extreme situations that have no obvious solutions. In a war, you kill someone and even if you win, you lose. The parts that are left out are the tragedies, and the permanent scars the war left.

And yet despite this apparent aversion to killing, we still manage to kill each other with alarming frequency.

Fortuitously this aversion to killing exists, and it reassures us that warfare is not an inescapable part of human life, and gives us hope that one day we might stop fighting wars.

Killing isn’t something that comes naturally to people.

Funny that people decry killing when it is because of their own demands that make it happen.

How can this be?“

Is that we’re simply too smart for our own good with propaganda to brainwash the masses into accepting this bloodshed day after day.

I’m interested how this applies to terrorists.

So would it be social engineering like “dehumanizing America, Israel, the West” or the cult of violence in many of those societies, plus enticements of financial rewards for the family of the suicide bombers in question that would help over come terrorists from their natural inclination not to kill. Most terrorists are paid mercenaries.

It isn’t easy to change a culture of violence.

You have to give people the structural, economic, technological and political means to regulate their relationships peacefully.

Legal sanctions are insufficient on their own.

Critically, the message has to come from respected people within the killer’s own community. Their own ideas about right and wrong matter most;

The ideas of those they care about and respect matter more.

Only when violence in any relationship is seen as a violation of every relationship will war diminish. Once everyone, everywhere, truly believes that violence is wrong, it will end.

The danger for Europe as a result of the horrific loss of life in Paris is not declaring war on terrorism but shutting down its borders.  Open Borders is a declaration of intent that countries share goods and wealth and if they don’t they should. If all countries helped each other I think there would be no need for war.

This would separate out those who wish for war due to some perversion. If dangerous people can be motivated by genuine moral beliefs, we face a troubling dimension to morality.

If Paris is to teach us anything it is that there is a cost to modern-day warfare, that people will kill each other quite deliberately not just with particularly technologically advanced, like drones.

Our ancestors would have carried out deadly attacks only when they severely outnumbered their victims and not with low-cost attacks on unsuspecting neighbors.

When you declare war like Mr Holland and before him Mr Bush with Mr Blair you create fear which leads to killing and loss of the very liberties that so many died for.

France’s military efforts against ISIS have developed gradually over the course of the last 15 months. France began airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq in September of 2014 so Mr Hollands declaration of war is somewhat retrospective.

Prior to the American invasion in 2003, which France pointedly refused to join.  Hollande insisted that France’s involvement would be strictly limited. “We will only intervene in Iraq,” he said.

Now he declaring a war ( rightly so) that France can not win it on its own. Nor will NATO who will have to get its arch-enemy Mr Putin on its side.

Unlike the wars created by 9/11 this time the drum beat is not a war against civilization as you could not describe ISIS as Civilized.

These days we have portable power.

This is a war to protect the West concept of Liberty which we will win by turning every Smart Phone into the eyes and ears of Freedom.

My message to ISIS is.

You may not tell us to kill.  The society that you insist on – Killing is living. This is not a society anyone other than a barbarian would want to live in.

This lesson has being with us from the creation of man. The danger is that we forget it.

Whatever drove the Paris attackers to commit their horrific acts is certainly more complex and varied than the French government’s conduct in the world. It is no secret that the world’s attention can only be split so many ways.

The lessons of Paris today provide our best chance to get to the bottom of the ‘peace versus justice’ debate, expose its fallacies, and move beyond it.

MAY ALL WHO LOST THEIR LIVES RIP.

Below is a x terrorist worth listing to.

And here below is the sort of thing that stats a war,

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements