bare boobies and burning monks

So I heard a preacher saying matter of factly that "the war on terrorism was a war on Islam". 

He stated this as a fact, and went on with his talk. 

Oblivious to the rest, I got stuck at this part.

I don't endorse the harming of non combatants. 

No context, 

No disclaimers.

No justifications.

I am pretty sure that most people of all religions and persuasions accept this as a universal truth.

It's just wrong to kill an innocent.

When your own innocent people are killed, one might feel the urge to give your aggressor a taste of their own medicine. If one acted on this it would turn us into the monsters we were fighting against. 

This makes me think of South Africa.

When students protest at university by burning down a library. Or when women protest against gender based  violence by taking their cloths off at rallies  and taking to the streets bare assed, they are making a specific point. 

The underlying statement is that they tried in vain to get the attention of the world's media. They accept that the only path to change, is  international pressure on the institutions, and this pressure can only be created by a "woke" media. 

If their suffering had gone unseen and their cries for help unheard, they can be excused if they feel that the only way to get the attention of the world is by some kind of shock. 

To shock the world into paying attention.

When the Buddhist monk pours petrol over himself and lights up. 

It's a cry for help. 

It's the ultimate cry for help.

The civilised world can only react in one of two ways.

The first would be to try and understand what horror might be worse than a fiery death, and perhaps grasp the magnitude of the injustice. Then maybe we could get invested and  assert pressure to bring about change.

The second reaction is to ignore the burning monk out of fear that our bowing to that kind of pressure, will only serve encourage more people to pour gasoline over their bodies. 

We will then have to deal with every crazy who crawls out of the woodwork with box of matches in his pocket.

Both approaches, I feel totally miss the point.

We all want to live.

We all want to end suffering and pain.

Why is it so hard to imagine that some people's lives are so difficult  that death comes as a release.

Should we not as a civilised race take the time to try and understand the underlying pain. That even if the issues are complex and ancient, we should try and take the time to understand the nuances of both sides. Not in an attempt to solve these unsolvable flash points but to understand the pain and injustice.

My take away from all of this is that the monk who lights up to make a point is the purist form of expression. His statement is clear.

The burning monk has paid with his life to make a point. He has not used the blood of the innocent to write his obituary. 

If you want to get attention of the world's media perhaps you can shock the world into focus without writing with the blood of others.

I write this in a  general, non specific way but I can't deny the timing. 

The fact that Hammas and Isreal are right now  locked in a death spiral must influence my thoughts, is something that I can't deny.

Property rights.

If I own property and spend my life paying for the property that I own I need to be sure that I really do own it. I need to be assured that I can leave it to my kids, church or even to my pet canary if I so wished. 

The thought that somebody can come along and take it from me by force is unthinkable.

The problem with this argument is that all the lands of the world were at some time or other snatched from somebody by force. Every piece of land in every country.

If somebody steals your land, I am duty bound to assist you get your land back, with force if necessary.

If the land you lost was actually snatched by your dad and then inherited by you, do you still have the same right to protect your property?

What if you sold your land and the innocent buyer now has to deal with the rightful original owner? Should he give it back and lose his investment? How far back in history do we need to go to establish who the original owner was?

In the case of Israel, Jews would have us go back to biblical times to confirm their  claim to the land.

The Zulu monarchy claim that they owned all of Natal. 

The title deeds that we hold are an "abstract concept" that was imposed on the Zulus. They did not introduce the personal property laws to the area and they did not get paid for their land. Should the land be returned to the "rightful owners" or should they continue to exist as squatters, tending the gardens on land that they once owned.

As a final frame of reference. 

If you buy a car and it turns out that the car had been stolen and didn't belong to the person who sold it to you, the original owner will claim it and it will be returned to him. The buyer will be out of pocket and have to sue the seller in a civil case. 

What if we applied the same principal to land.

Just saying. 

M Parak 

Mar 2021.