Self-Defence.
What does self-defence mean to you? Recent traumatic and absolutely shocking events have made lots of people question what those two words signify.
I have just seen a clip of a group of unarmed civilians carrying a white flag and displaying open hands up and subsequently one of their number, is without warning, shot dead. There has been much speculation about why and if it was a consequence of an interview having been a few minutes previously conducted with that same individual. Tactics of an execution or another in an unthinkable, widely scoping mass scale attack has yet again caused harm, grief and murder.
Politically self-defence has been used to explain or justify action taken in economically important areas in certain shipping waters. Self-defence has been the term to suggest the objective for military retaliation, further extensive destruction of formerly habitable locations and an exacerbation of brutal, harmful degradation of thousands and thousands of lives.
How can people treat each other in such an inhuman way? Is the answer to remove the fact that all humanity is human. It becomes easier to describe the object of aim as not being a human at all but just a moving target and something that deserves to be killed.
Crimes committed during any conflict are internationally known as war crimes. Indiscriminately and repeatedly legitimising atrocities as fallout from any specific mission is not deemed as acceptable according to multiple codes of conduct and the most basic of human rights standards.
A right to self-defence is logically measured and should be monitored, otherwise there could be a scenario in which one side determines an automatic autonomy type determination of the future for a population. A seemingly justifiable state if thought to have been attacked could then turn aggressor and vigilante in their desire to take revenge. If this is not curtailed, confusion and error could take hold, innocent civilians harmed and any sense of justice diminished.
Any conflict but particularly one fueled by charged emotions and historic upheaval, should be kept within guidelines otherwise people caught up in the conflict could be warned to leave that place, only to be killed in a supposed safe area.
People have to be careful, I feel, to apply self-defence in a proportionate and productive way. Any gross violation of human standards is a stain on justice. My criticism is not limited to the one incident that I have described but to all acts of inhumanity no matter who the perpetrators are.
Announcing to any population that they should be ready for fighting, specifically at this time of financial hardship for many, financing bombing raids and preparation for war does not seem the best course of action. I believe without talking or a willingness to find a just common solution to conflict, no decent progress to peace can be made. A start to a positive resolution would be not to enter into further aims and claims of self-defence but to promote negotiation, democracy in wise division and safely devised independence.
I have just seen a clip of a group of unarmed civilians carrying a white flag and displaying open hands up and subsequently one of their number, is without warning, shot dead. There has been much speculation about why and if it was a consequence of an interview having been a few minutes previously conducted with that same individual. Tactics of an execution or another in an unthinkable, widely scoping mass scale attack has yet again caused harm, grief and murder.
Politically self-defence has been used to explain or justify action taken in economically important areas in certain shipping waters. Self-defence has been the term to suggest the objective for military retaliation, further extensive destruction of formerly habitable locations and an exacerbation of brutal, harmful degradation of thousands and thousands of lives.
How can people treat each other in such an inhuman way? Is the answer to remove the fact that all humanity is human. It becomes easier to describe the object of aim as not being a human at all but just a moving target and something that deserves to be killed.
Crimes committed during any conflict are internationally known as war crimes. Indiscriminately and repeatedly legitimising atrocities as fallout from any specific mission is not deemed as acceptable according to multiple codes of conduct and the most basic of human rights standards.
A right to self-defence is logically measured and should be monitored, otherwise there could be a scenario in which one side determines an automatic autonomy type determination of the future for a population. A seemingly justifiable state if thought to have been attacked could then turn aggressor and vigilante in their desire to take revenge. If this is not curtailed, confusion and error could take hold, innocent civilians harmed and any sense of justice diminished.
Any conflict but particularly one fueled by charged emotions and historic upheaval, should be kept within guidelines otherwise people caught up in the conflict could be warned to leave that place, only to be killed in a supposed safe area.
People have to be careful, I feel, to apply self-defence in a proportionate and productive way. Any gross violation of human standards is a stain on justice. My criticism is not limited to the one incident that I have described but to all acts of inhumanity no matter who the perpetrators are.
Announcing to any population that they should be ready for fighting, specifically at this time of financial hardship for many, financing bombing raids and preparation for war does not seem the best course of action. I believe without talking or a willingness to find a just common solution to conflict, no decent progress to peace can be made. A start to a positive resolution would be not to enter into further aims and claims of self-defence but to promote negotiation, democracy in wise division and safely devised independence.
No comments have been added yet.
