Truth on a Global Scale

Truth is an interesting concept in today's society.  It is now subject to philosophical challenges that would have been unheard of in the past.  People claim there is no truth, or that they can create their own truth, and all sorts of other ridiculous things.  It is interesting to see what happens when those ideas are tested against the cold hard reality that obviously does truly exist.

Wednesday marked the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, and there is much debate over what actually happened, let alone who is responsible.  It also marks one year since the attack in Libya, and the truth of the events that unfolded there are even more hotly debated, and less clear.  The lack of trust in our society is clearly evident in how those events are received by the public.  In the past, the facts of current events were debated less than the meaning of those events.  We never even get that far now days, and have trouble finding any agreement on what actually happened in a situation.  Versions of the truth” have degenerated into a complete lack of truth in so many cases.  Those particular events are both past-tense issues, compared to the situation in Syria.

The world is confronted with a very interesting conflict, in determining the truth of what actually happened there.  How does anyone go about proving anything in the modern world, when technology allows so many things to be so intricately fabricated, if deception is the deliberate objective?  And if it can be determined what actually happened, the next question is: who is responsible for what happened?  And in the unlikely event that the answer to that can be agreed upon, that leads to an even more interesting question: how should the world respond to that action?

Justice between individuals, in its practical form, could be seen as revenge executed by the state.  But whose responsibility is it to execute justice against or between states.  Whose responsibility is it to protect the lives of innocent civilians, who are normally supposed to be protected by their government?  And if they have already failed to have been protected, (and are dead) how should that affect the response of outside parties?  You can’t protect people who are dead, only avenge them.  And while there certainly are still other people there who do need protection, dropping more bombs on their country may not be the best way to protect them.  Although if some powerful leader disappeared under mysterious circumstances, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.  But I don’t know if fighting obscured truth with more obscured truth is necessarily the best approach either.

I don't actually have a strong principle based opinion on the matter of what the exact reaction should be, since I see the strength of the case on either side.  But I see certain conflicts in the Middle East as leading towards fulfillment of Biblical prophesies that I am not looking forward to experiencing in my lifetime.  So, from a strictly selfish perspective, I would prefer that we not increase the level of violent conflict in the region, even though I can see the logical and moral case for doing so.  I also don't trust most of the players involved to have anything close to resembling the right motives for what they want to do.  Anyhow, the truth of all of that will someday be fully revealed.  In the meantime, there is not much else we can do now besides pray about it.  God knows the truth.