|Brief von Präsident
Illinois House Joint Resolution
Bericht über den Irak
SN vom 4.2.2006
Das Rechtssystem des Kampfes gegen den Terror
Civilsation and group violence
(DU = Depleted Uranium)
Palästina und Israel
Links zu Palästina und Israel
UN-Resolutionen gegen Israel
Middle Eastern and Western Civilisation
No agreement upon social limitation to violence. Cities or nations were wiped out for minor offences. Bible, Homer Ilias. "Teach 'em a lesson" was the principle.
until 1750 BC (Hamurabi) A social agreement for the limitation of violence was agreed upon. Violence was only permitted in direct and balanced retaliation for proved offences: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Thus the rage of the party offended was excluded as a measure for the appropriate punishment. Leviticus 24:18 says, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast." The eye-for-an-eye principle placed rational limits on retribution and punishment -- a true step of moral progress.
around 1350 BC (Moses/Akhenaten – according to Bible Moses lived around 4000 BC) "Thou shalt not kill" is very simple. No killing, of human beings in this context. From that moment on, premeditated killing, be it crime, punishment or war actually should have stopped. Humans, it seems did not yet grow up to the commandments. This should not prevent us from giving them a try, instead of planning aggressive, pre-emptive wars.
30 Jesus: “Forgive those who have offended you, love your enemy”. Looking around this seems very difficult for us even to understand, let alone to practice. Yet, some very great people did unbelievable deeds following this principle. The most prominent of recent times may be Mahatma Gandhi. Probably those presently trying to defend themselves with the help of weapons, e.g. the Palestinians, the Iraqis, would do a great deal better, applying this incredibly simple rule.
Many people have been attracted by this rule and tried to understand it or to reinterpret it to make it more easily understandable by others. One very commonly cited interpretation is that by German philosopher Emmanuel Kant: "Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This most prominently means: examine whether you would like to be subjected to the same by others.
2001 George Bush: “We’ll burn them out, we’ll hunt them down”, and even more important, the so-called doctrine: "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." Connecting the two gives you the following verdict: we kill the terrorist of course, but we also kill their mothers, who feeds them, their family, who support them and we kill a whole country’s population if they harbour them. This is clearly back before 4000 BC.
2005 It is only a short step obviously from there to the recent statement by a US general. Even though this is only a single man’s opinion, it is still important by his position and it seems symptomatic for quite a part of the US Army. At a panel discussion in San Diego Tuesday 1 February 2005, Lt. Gen. James Mattis tells the audience: "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot…You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil,... So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
Tao Te Ching
31. MAINTAINING PEACE
of war are instruments of fear,
38. THE CONCERNS OF THE GREAT
74. USURPING THE TAO
If the people are not afraid
75. INJURING THROUGH GREED
When people go hungry,