Nick wrote something to the effect of "letting someone else try" (I thought I
saved it, but can't find it in spite of wanting to do this for days).
I think much of the dissonance between posts the past few days is because
people are trying to find a single reality. We seem to think there is one
"right" when in fact different people are in different "places". In several
cases I have read posts as "not really a response to each other", yet it is
easy to see how they could be/were linked by emotion of the events of the
week.
For a moment disregarding the politics of the situation-
Early on posters wrote of common public sentiment relating to anger and
revenge, not perhaps the most learned civil thoughts which others would like
to prevail. From a "death and loss" perspective many posters were probably
venting the anger and shock and disbelief of the bombings. I think Nick's
background in disaster has allowed him more perspective about things that
others have never really had to "consider or deal with" in horrible reality.
While some people were reacting, Nick was trying to move to the next level.
You can't always put reality and rational thoughts in the same time period.
After the initial high level emotional responses, I think these excerpts
contain a bit of transiton and realization that there are a wide range of
perspectives here-
Nick wrote
You see, many years ago, I was a paramedic. I also
helped run the Salvation Army's Emergency Disaster Services volunteer
program. I have lost friends fighting fires. I have made triage decisions
(in far, far smaller emergencies, of course). These things still hurt,
nearly 20 years later, especially on Tuesday when I saw others facing
overwhelming casualties and people who could not be rescued, multiplied
incomprehensibly.
Dan wrote-
One part of love is self-love. I think that lecturing a group of people who
have been terribly hurt about their inappropriate response with writings
that appear to be self righteous is inappropriate. I'm sure that you don't
mean to write in a manner that is interpreted that way, but I interpreted
the posts in that manner and I agree with the basic concept of "love your
enemy."
Dee again-
The logic that the US has "done nothing wrong" at its purest is perhaps a bit
innocent in my view, but as another poster so aptly pointed out- that does
not justify or imply "looking for trouble". We have been lucky enough to be
able to live an ideally naive freedom, yet we say we know that "freedom is
not free". After the shock, I think Nick's idea we need to understand "why"
is something worth examining (sorry if I am putting that too simply).
Consider someone who is robbed- while we may initially seek revenge, don't we
look at how/why we were robbed and make sure the locks on the house are
appropriate/put an alarm system in, etc? We don't all go buy a gun. Perhaps
Nick came "out of the gate" a bit more "logical" when most of the public was
still in the "reacting" stage.
Please remember everyone's perspective is not always the same, and try and
see where others are coming from.
Dee- trying not to "go on" too long
