Appeasement, Force, Al-Qaida and Columbine

By Daniel Donatelli

Throughout history, the use of force has been a theoretical necessary evil. The implication of using force to defend one’s life is understandable, if not essential. If a man punches you, your instinct is to punch back. If an animal attacks, it is natural (and imperative) to defend oneself.

But, in no way can anyone justify the use of force in an attempt to compel one’s beliefs or wishes onto another human.  There is no justification for these actions. It basically comes down to this: Reason is human’s only method of survival — to resort to physical violence is to abandon logic and live under a form of lower evolution. They say war never solves anything. I say that humans do.

There is a link between force, will and intellect.

Sept. 11 was the most horrifying day of my life. I sat there — like the rest of the U.S. population — with a dumbfounded expression and a smoldering anger burning inside, much like the hidden fires under the World Trade Center rubble.  How could any group justify the murder of innocent civilians? How could anybody be that evil? Why do I feel this is somehow linked to the Columbine shootings?

April 20, 1999, two oppressed and hopeless students at Columbine High School entered their school and murdered “innocent” students in a rash action fueled by the outrage of being subjugated.  They were outcasts who had been robbed of all free will by their “equal” peers who had attacked them verbally, physically and emotionally.

The reactions of Osama bin Laden, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold disgusted me. But, under an objective light, I can understand their motives, if only for a moment.

The U.S. government has been using appeasement in the Middle East for the past fifty years. With each problem that arises, the United States threatens to “bring the pain” until the two warring parties peacefully resolve any dilemmas. If not, the reprisal will be swift and ugly.  That, in essence, is the use of force to push our views and wishes on other countries.

Similarly, it does not take any stretch of imagination to understand the oppression and lack of free will Harris and Klebold resisted during their high school experience.

The elimination of free will only leads to one great outbreak of action that usually, if not always, ends in violence. Hence, you get the Columbine shooting, Sept. 11 and pretty much any war ever fought.

In retrospect, if bin Laden or any other middle-eastern faction are passionate enough to kill innocent people and themselves to get the United States out of Saudi Arabia (in addition to any other motive), a mere hunger strike would suffice in its place. Any moral government could not sit back in idle silence and watch a peaceful culture whither away and die for their convictions — Mahatma Gandhi proved that.

Likewise, if Harris and Klebold were passionate enough to commit murder and suicide due to their lack of free will, it seems a more nonviolent alternative would have been more effective, less grotesque and loathsome in the long run. But, when backed into the corner of desperation, it’s (literally) kill or be killed.

I write this because I am disgusted with the notion of any person or nation justifying the use of force (or threat of force) to drive their beliefs, which conversely eliminates another’s free will. Free will is the beauty of being human. We behave out of intellect and choice; force is merely a defensive instinct. It is natural to fight back when attacked, and similarly it is natural to retaliate when one’s free will is abolished.

Until mankind can learn to think with morality, intellect and conscience, clichés will continue running rampant; history will keep repeating itself.

“Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins.” ­ Ayn Rand

 

Any thoughts? Donatelli can be reached at beatpoet5@hotmail.com.