It has some re-hashes from stuff I said from earlier blog posts
And in the new web version of the editorial, they took out a idiotic, hideous line that appeared on the print version. I didn't even write that line, a copy editor added it in. Anyways, that line no longer exists in the web version and a correction will be printed in Ka Leo soon.
Anyways, here's the editorial
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/06/41b3c7837cd0e
Violence against violence OK
By Pablo Wegesend
December 06, 2004
There are times when violence is wrong. It is wrong to attack someone just to people's possessions. It is wrong to use force on others just to get sexual satisfaction. It is wrong to attack someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
But there are also times when violence is necessary.
Statements like that, however, are considered blasphemy by some in our university. Two events, one in Hawai'i, another in Iraq, illustrate the occasional necessity of violence.
First, let's go over the incident in Iraq.
In Fallujah, a U.S. Marine killed a wounded Islamic militant who appeared to be unarmed because there was no gun in his hand. Because of that one fact alone, there has been outrage directed toward that U.S. Marine.
That outrage is misdirected -- for one thing, this incident happened in the Middle East, where Islamic militants don't hesitate to blow themselves up! That Islamic militant probably had an explosive device hiding under his clothing.
How would the U.S. Marine know if that's the case? The Marine would have to go very close to that Islamic militant to find out. Once that happens, chances are very high that the Islamic militant would've blown himself up and killed the U.S. Marine in the process. That could've happened if the U.S. Marine gave first aid or arrested that Islamic militant.
Under those circumstances, most people would've shot and killed that Fallujah terrorist! I would -- it's my life or his! Or at least, his life or me coming home being a medical burden on my family and society.
Some would call that "racist" or "anti-Arab." Those who would say that don't realize that those Islamic militants don't just brutalize Americans. They brutalized Arabs more often than anyone else.
Let's not forget that Islamic militants blew up a Christian church attended by native Iraqis. Let's not forget that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons severely brutalized and killed thousands of Arabs and Kurds.
These Islamic militants aren't nice to their own people.
Closer to home, there's another incident where necessary violence occurred.
On Sept. 6, a Kahuku farmer, Khamxath Baccam, shot and killed an intruder who was stealing crops and equipment. The intruder, Marcelino Pacheco, was a known crystal methamphetamine user. So what would we expect Baccam to do with someone intruding on his property?
He could plead all night long with the intruder, trying to reason with him to leave. But anyone living in reality knows that won't work. And you wouldn't want to get near someone who is intruding on your property. Chances are, as in the case described, the intruder is on crystal meth and is capable of violence.
You might say "Call the police!" However, in a rural community like Kahuku, it'll take forever for the police to arrive.
So chances are, if Baccam didn't shoot the intruder, he would've been slashed to death by the time the police arrive. Criminals know that.
Would you take that chance? Would you know if the intruder is on crystal meth and carrying a hidden weapon? You wouldn't know until the intruder attacks with fast, violent rage.
Some might say, "How dare you stereotype someone who is intruding on your property!" Excuse me, if that person has no moral qualms about intruding on others' property, what makes you think he would have any moral qualms about slashing your face, stabbing your kidneys, or killing you?
Baccam says he feels bad about killing the intruder. But he also understands that in the real world there might be situations where you have to protect yourself with deadly force.
However, too many people have been sheltered from that reality, which is why some of them say, "Just give the robbers what they want and you won't get hurt." Nonsense!
Remember, it's not Vice President Dick Cheney or Massachusets Sen. John Kerry getting robbed on the streets. Criminals know that those people are well protected. It is the average person that has one percent of the money Cheney or Kerry have who is getting robbed on the streets.
That fact alone shows you that it's not about the possessions that common people have, it's about their vulnerability.
I remember a former coworker told me that when he was in middle school, he would threaten other kids for money. He did that even though he had more than enough money in his pockets to buy himself snacks and soda at 7-11. He did that because he thought it was fun.
Money wasn't his motive, bullying others for fun was his motive.
Does any thinking person think that kid would rob rap mogul Marion "Suge" Knight or actor "The Rock," both of whom have way more money than most robbery victims? No way! Knight or "The Rock" would've given that kid a severe beat down!
That former coworker agreed with me when I mentioned that you can't reason with thieves, muggers, rapists, or other criminals. Those violent criminals think that reasoning is for sissies. The only language they understand is fear and violence.
So when a group of violent thugs steps up to you, it's either 1) run and hope they don't catch up, 2) knock them out, or 3) point a pistol in their face.
It doesn't matter if you don't like those options. You can be politically correct all you want. But muggers, rapists, burglars and terrorists never were, aren't and never will be politically correct.
