A man dreaded with wisdom and youth mentioned that the topic of a Florida pastor burning the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 addresses a classroom in the Appalachian highlands of university-age students because of our place in the top 2% of educated persons; that, our knowledges about topics personally-removed from us reflect our education and capacity for handling the situation thoughtfully.
Several tangents seeded onward from our discussion:
Regarding General Petraeus' and his regards for Mr. Jones' plans for Saturday, I wonder who Jones intends to target with this act. Our reasons for being in Iraq and Afghanistan are muddled, but support for armed forces has been rather clear cut--at the very least, support embodies value for human life (an odd paradox of military thought is a basic value for human life--i.e. armored vehicles ). I want to consider all parties invested in this act, who may be responsible for the reverberations. The very idea that General Petraeus appointed a comment to represent the armed forces on 'tour' necessarily draws a greater concern for this event than I originally imagined. In the event that an intent receives a wider escalation than planned, and what's more, in ways drawn further from the control deck of the idea then preventative measures must be considered. Clearly, this idea is hitched on an inability to withdrawal, on public persecution one way (for following through) or another (for backing down). While our reasons for war-time engagement may be neither here nor there (but if at all, reasons are mostly 'there'), our military involvement is most fundamentally so that private individuals do not feel the need to avenge a national crisis of insecurity. 9/11 invoked a nation-wide sense of insecurity.
As far as negating the ridiculous nature of this conflict, that is making news of a congregation of 50 in a sinkhole of Florida burning the sacred text of another congregation, how can we reflect the sentiment that this will occur completely out of context with the rest of the educated North American populace for the foreign audience under General Petraeus' authority and thereafter? Several of my colleagues declared a call of duty for all those who do not share Jones' ignorance to show by way of public protest that while this mindset may flow through mainstream media it a showcase of the minority. Others thought that we should let this man stand alone all by his self, enforce restrictions on broadcasting this event; in short, to engage as bystanders innocent by non-association. To this regard, a lady to my left mentioned that negligence of this sort will only increase structural violence: "he will become one of us when 'us' does not exclude him." I remain within the inquisition of earlier reference: Since our serving general is involved, how do we reflect the radical nature of this man without infringing on his right to express his feelings?
We ended of course with a call for transformation. This event may be formative of future events, and therefore we need to draft a way to dissolve our present (potentially) of all forms of violence, no matter how ridiculous.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire