Perhaps it is impossible for the non-combatant to even partially comprehend
the brutalities of war but, there is much wisdom to impart to those who know
only war. Those who do not fight, do so in recognition of the absolute futility;
they do not perpetuate violence but present as a force equal to all others-
they have everything to do with war by virtue of a representation to everything
war is not.
Who are those of whom hold no blame? In times of pervasive
violent conflict does the more fragile individual hold no
accountability? Does one unable to pull a trigger assume the
label of ‘innocent’ by virtue of an inability to be guilty? Does the
absence of direct exposure/participation equate to some form of
Quite likely not- innocence must equate to immunity from injustice in
order to impart any meaning worthy of pursuit. If indeed the
individual is charged with the responsibility for conduct incompatible
to war the notion of innocence is dispatched of significance and/or
Many incorrectly presume the more fragile humans among
us to be the personification of innocence. It is this
individual- who initially would not fight because he/she
could not fight- who eventually becomes the person who
would not fight if he/she suddenly could. The term
‘innocence’ means only a crime was not committed;
exposing ignorance at great peril through failure to heed the teachers of
non-violence all around us.
There exist those who have nothing to do with war.