Believe it or not, but this article came from that Liberal Newspaper the "Washington Post".

. . . Pacifist Claptrap

By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, September 26, 2001; Page A25

Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.

It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea becomes. Second, it is worth it because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here:  What happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede. Third, it is worth it because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?

Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more violence.

There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position. But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked -- a situation such as we are now in -- pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.

In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain's pacifists:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "

England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: A war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans -- perhaps a great many more -- to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

I agree with the general point of the article, since I think that pacifists are naive at best and idiots and cowards at worst.

However, you go a bit too far in saying that pacifism is aka treason.  It isn't.  Treason is an active participation in helping your country's enemies.  Pacifism may be cowardice, but it is not treason.

Article III of the Constitution:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Per the Constitutional defintion which you provided, treason includes giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

When someone attacks us on our OWN soil, and then these pacifists argue against us fighting back, I would say that is giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

They are "aided" by the pacifists unwillingness to fight in self-defense.

They are "comforted" in knowing that like bleating sheep, the pacifists offer them little resistance.

This was the whole point of the article.

it is high time to choose sides. If the pacifist ain't with us, they are a'gin us.

It REALLY is that simple.

Garandman,

In the Afghanistan of the Taliban, it would really be that simple.

This is still America, and it isn't that simple.  People have a right to say what they want.

I thought you were a Libertarian...

I address the "aid and comfort" clause of the Constitution, giving my interpretation of why I believe they are Constitutionally treasonous, and all you can come up with is some sort of back handed insinuation that I am something akin to the Taliban???

If you can't argue agianst my specific arguments (i.e. Constitutional interpretation) , than I'll ignore your posts.

Oh, and re: free speech -

You and I are free to say whatever we want. We are NOT free from getting a nice punch in the face from those offended. There IS a difference.

Just thought I'd highlight that again for those who didn't read the whole thing.

Now can we bomb Berkeley?

Fuck me.  Maybe we should emulate how the Danes reacted to getting their asses invaded in the 40's.  

It really is as simple as "You're with us or against us".  You implicitly sympathize with the terrorists' grievances, motives, and objectives if you do not favor their being wiped off the face of the earth.

These bastards need to be exterminated.  Anyone who lends them material support should be exterminated.  Anyone who sympathizes with or apologizes for their unbelievably evil acts needs to be seriously beaten.  They simply don't understand the scope of what is at risk here.  Western Civilization had been decaying enough from leftist academics and politicians and media.  This militiant muslim stuff scares the shit out of me, because they are smart, financed, fanatical, and have a HUGE BASE OF SUPPORT: 1 BILLION MOSLEMS.

Just to throw in my two cents:

First, that wasn't an article, that was an editorial. The author stated what he thought, with a very clear and open bias. Second, I agree with ckapsl, being a pacifist in no way makes you treasonous.  You may call them whatever you like, but I think it's off base to call what they believe treason.  They did not give the terrorists food and shelter when they first came to America, they did not fly an airplane into the WTC.  I fail to see how not wanting to take military action against an enemy is the same thing as committing war against America with that same enemy.  The pacifists don't say they don't want to punish the people responsible for this attack, they just say they don't want to go to war with them.  (I'm playing the devil's advocate here, not necessarily my opinions on the matter)

-FPC_anon

You obviously don't know the Jesus of the Bible. The one who made a whip and drove the blaspemous out of the temple.

The one who will return to earth with a in vengeance, with a sword of flame in his hand.

The jesus (intentionall lower case "j" ) you are talking about IS the one I often hear of from certain religious fatheads, who change the truth of God into a lie.

[^]

not disagreeing with your post, but since Jesus is part of a Triune G-D, he is not a pacifist. G-D has destroyed cities, flooded an entire army, and washed nearly every living thing on the face of the earth once for 40 days. to say the Christ is a liberal is off key. i have never heard of Jesus supporting wealth redistribution as revenge for the productive. in fact the Bible denounces slothfullness. nor has Jesus ever pittied one "class" of people against another for personal gain.

i fully support the first amendment. if someone does not wish to fight for their own freedom. i'll go and die for them so they can proclaim their self-rightoues justification for a free democracy and their right to complain about it.
sarcastic i know, but true.

Agnostic lib

Well said.




I MIGHT go along with that, but ONLY if I live, WHEN I get back, I get to kick those peoples asses down Main Street. With a steel toed boot.

Ok, Garandman, I'll bite.  Here is your "interpretation" of the "aid and comfort" clause:



Your interpretation is so broad that it renders the clause meaningless.  If your interpretation were the law, anyone could be treated as treasonous for saying anything about this topic.

I am on your side here.   I think that the pacifists are fools, and if we heed their advice, we will be even bigger fools.  But they are not traitors.  There might be a shade of grey in "aid and comfort", but it is not very wide.

I'll agree there is "gray" in the "aid and comfort" clause. And perhaps I am too much of a "black and white" kinda guy for some people.

But these pacifists disgust me. And while perhaps not Constitutionally treaonous, I will never regard them as anything other than traitors.

To me, anyone who abuses  Democracy WHILE a soldier is in the field dying in  their place is a traitor.

Like I say, I see ALMOST only in black and white.

Haven't the Leftists always said we are supposed to be "color blind?" [}:D]

Just an idea: isn't it possible to say that the things being said could be considered indirectly harmfull to people (like yelling fire in a theatre) since they are trying to rationalize murder of fellow citizens? It's a stretch, but another thought.
I guess the best way to think about it is that this is similar to having to allow skin heads and neo-nazis hold rallies. It sucks to listen to, but since we also have the same rights, we can bitch right back at them.[-!-!-]

I don't know that Jesus was a pacifist.  He said something about "bringing a sword."

Anyway it's "Hanoi Jane Fonda's fault."  (Whatever is wrong is Hanoi Janes's fault - bitch !!)

This means (by Constitutional definition)that Angela Jolie, by her donation of $1,000,000 (Not to the red cross or other org.) directly to  Afghanistan IS a traitor punishable by DEATH (as we are at war). I say this because she is not an unintelligent person, so must know that this money will go directly to the Tallywhackers

Agreed, I always wonder if any of these WWJD peacenics have even read the Bible. Jesus in the bible was only one incarnation, the Lamb of God. Later, He will return as the Lion of God, with very different results (and attitudes). Sure peace and love are great! But there is a time to "beat plowshares into swords", and this is one of them. This is not a time to "take military action", this is a time for America to go to war, with all of our resources, like we did in WWII.

Garandman, usually I agree with you, but this time, I think you're going a little overboard. I think it's because we're (ok, so I'm speaking for the other posters now) arguing about two different things.  The definition of pacifist from one of my dictionaries:



According to that definition, I'm a pacifist, and I've actually shot at Koreans and Chinese, and I still believe it was the right thing to do!  Look at the definition above.  Nowhere does it say that a pacifist is a person who will not fight to defend themselves or others.  It just states that they're opposed to it.  I think everyone should be opposed to war, but of course, there are times when it is the only solution.

Is there a word to describe someone who will not fight for any reason, even in defense of self or others?  That is the word that needs to be used in the article.  Then, I would agree with you.z

yellow, chicken and coward come to mind.

coward being the only legitimate word.

what is a person who is neither a pacifist or a war-monger?

Wealth redistribution and charity are two different things.

Jesus never sought the power of government to force others to give money to others. in order for charity to be charity one has to give willingly and from the heart. giving money willingly is not wealth redistribution from a "liberal" or leftist standpoint. simply put Jesus never intiated the use of force against others to make them do what he wanted them to do. if someone gives money to others through the threat of force, then that person is not charitable.

According to the gospel one can not enter the kingdom of Heaven through "good works". only accepting their lord Jesus Christ can one do so. it would never matter wether one was rich or poor, nice or mean. when studing Catholism i noticed that the catholic church invented Purgatory so that they could buy salvation from the temporary hell. i am not anti-catholic, i have friends who choose to worship as so. Purgatory was invented by the church for the church. it is not supported by scripture.

I have tried to accept Christ, but he does not "help" everybody. i went to church for years only to feel even more empty. i've come to regard predestination over "free will". apparently there is more to being "religious" then saying yeah.

not predestined lib

I don't consider you a "religious" person. As I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER, I HATE RELIGION.

AS such, my comments were NOT directed at you.

So power down, DK.

[rolleyes]