Anyone Advocating Military Strikes/War Should be Sympathized and Helped

While reading many negative comments on an online article, it occurred to me something that we may have overlooked. The following is a slightly expanded version of my posted reply to the article that called for a Syrian military strike:

When what one has is only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The brains of these people who advocate military strikes work the same way and only have violence as the solution, the only solution. The ability to think of non-violent alternatives is impaired. The lack of empathy is only masked by their pretense of caring for the weak (hence "Humanitarian" reasoning is usually executed). There is no apparent concern for unintended casualties resulted by such a strike nor consideration of retaliation and proliferation of more violence and counter violence....instead, all seemingly equated to no more than a walk in the park.

We should sympathize with their mental illness. Cursing/vilifying them in public will not alter their 'mono-solution' mind; it only reflects our own undesirable traits. I do hope anyone who personally knows those befitting the description will help them seek professional counselling or healing to acquire some sense of reality and empathy. If that doesn't help, send them packing to the front line of any ongoing war and witness the atrocity first hand.

Ok, that last option maybe a little extreme. I would love to hear other suggestions for alternative cures of losing the Self but gaining the Soul.

Sympathized and helped? Well, it seems extreme, but yeah you are probably right. It is better than disregarding them entirely.

I think people who push for war don't know what war is like first-hand, in that sense, enveloping our entire world in a war that does not discriminate based on class, race or nationality would probably teach everyone a good lesson that would be passed down for centuries.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to experience what war is like before they have to experience it first-hand, I would (reluctantly) recommend YouTube.

Regular people just like you and me with internet access, a cell phone and no combat affiliation are uploading videos. One of them featured on the BBC was investigating a school-yard in Syria that was bombed with napalm.

Originally posted by darkbake
Sympathized and helped? Well, it seems extreme, but yeah you are probably right. It is better than disregarding them entirely.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to experience what war is like before they have to experience it first-hand, I would (reluctantly) recommend YouTube.

Yes, I admit it sounds extreme....In a world where big pharma companies keep inventing new diseases, I think this is one area they have actually missed. Empathy and Emotion Deficit Disorder (EEDD).

Honestly, growing up I have not been too fond of watching war scenes in Hollywood movies, but I believe they have created a generation that tend to have less emotional reactions to the sight of violence. The first time silent movie was invented in the late 19th century, the emotional responses to the movies were probably as exciting to watch as the moving images themselves Now, however I don't know how the brains of EEDD patients would truly react watching a real scene on Yuotube.

Violence is actually an extremely effective and logical tactic for affecting social change and/or securing resources. There's isn't anything crazy about it from a purely rational perspective.

It's that whole morality thing that gives us pause where violence is concerned; which, given the subjective nature of morality, disqualifies it as a basis for an objective measure of sanity.

In any case, I'm not too concerned with "helping" the warmongering chattel, as bad as that may sound to some. Their philosophies will naturally drive them to extinction, and that's a good thing. We just have to try not to get caught up in all of it.

reply to post by NthOther


That is an interesting perspective and I would quite agree, observing animal behavior. It's perhaps primordial instinct that might relate well to Darwinian theory of natural selection/survival of the fittest. So the question this leads us to: Morality aside, are the rest of us who are averse to conscious violent acts in fact, delineating from what was supposed to be natural?

I am not sure if their current state of EEDD will drive them to extinction however, as it would have happened long ago if that's the case. I'm afraid the rest of us will be affected one way or another....whether we like it or not.