[claptrap]

You mean redeploy and cower in the corner isnt a sound
policy. You mean they wont just go away if we ignore them?

[Dark Skies]

Excellent and timely article! Thx for posting it.

There are certainly situations in which pacifism works, but this war against radical/fundamental islam isn't one of them.

[Reaganesque]

One person felt that war is wrong and that a pacifistic approach would be more successful.

Yeah, it worked so well with Hitler.

[yldstrk]

You can say that again.

[tet68]

Dear Sandra,
Basically you are right, however Hitler didn't round up his victims during the seven years prior to the out break of war. Yes he started the concentration lager but the extermination camps only after war had begun and the vast majority of the killing was done in the later six months of the war.

t.

[combat_boots]

"This person cited Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus as examples of successful pacifists"

But they forfeited their lives in the process.

One thing we can debate is whether the Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill' or 'Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor.'

[P.O.E.]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=xx-elmer&q=%22liberal+iraq+war+plans%22

Your search - "liberal iraq war plans" - did not match any documents. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!

[phs3]

ping

[livius]

I remember years ago there was a bizarre situation with a pacifist group in upstate New York. Some local bunch of what we would now call Neo-Nazi skinheads had decided to attack the peaceniks at their farmhouse commune, tie them up and burn them to death by setting fire to the farm. A police informer had been monitoring this group and informed the peaceniks, as well as the local state police. The state police were on their way, but the peaceniks did not know this. They were in a tizzy. The police arrived in time - although I think a number of the pacifists were already tied up and about to be killed - but there was a lot of debate among the pacifists afterwards.

The gist of it was: To what extent do you have the right to permit evil or to accept evil done to others? You yourself can accept it, if it happens to you in a way that you can't avoid, but don't you also have the duty to protect others if you can? Saying "Peace" is such an easy and false solution.

[Dad yer funny]

bookmark ping-a-ling & THANKS Valin

[IronJack]

This person cited Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus as examples of successful pacifists.

Mohandas Gandhi -- murdered at age 79 by a Hindu extremist; His beloved India then descended into civil war, poverty, and starvation that continues even today with the ever-present friction between India and Pakistan.

Martin Luther King -- murdered at age 39 by a racial extremist; Protested the unequal treatment of black Americans through a series of marches, speeches, and nonviolent demonstrations. His cause was taken up by a group of self-serving whores who perpetuate racial tension in order to maintain their status as "black leaders."

Jesus Christ -- murdered at age 33 by Jewish Establishment types. His followers spread his teachings throughout the known world, and codified a religion that has become the dominant moral authority in the world. Men still steal, murder, rape, and elect Democrats.

In the end, how "successful" were any of them?

While pacifism may be the route to martyrdom, it has known only marginal success as a defensive strategy. And while this flower child may be willing to lay down /hisher life to avoid spilling anyone's blood, he/she has no right to demand that others make the same sacrifice.

Gandhi's pacifism succeeded because he appealed to a moral principle. The same with Martin Luther King. Christ was the AUTHOR of much of that moral principle.

"Moral" does not describe our Muslim enemies. By their very nature, terrorists are not bound by any moral code save that they write themselves as a justification for their barbarity. You can scream platitudes into an empty cave with more effect than an appeal to the conscience of a people who have none.

[Sooner1938]

I don't understand the attitude of pacifists, especially in the case of Islamic fanatics.

The fanatics are like schoolyard bullies, who will continue to bully others until somebody comes along who refuses to knuckle under and kicks the bully's butt. They'll then decide that bullying doesn't pay.

[originalbuckeye]

The reason we have won previous wars is that the people we were fighting didn't really want to themselves die. Radical Islamists believe that death is preferable. You can't negotiate with people who have no regard for their own lives. You just have to kill them. I hope the people soon to be in charge get this. But I'm sure they don't.

[Cacique]

btt

[Dustbunny]

Pacifism won't stop radical Islam

Exactly.

What it will do is embolden the radicals and we will pay a heavy price for our stupidity.

[darkwing104]

The only way Pacifism works is when you pacify your enemy.

[Thumper1960]

You mean, if they gave a war on terror and I didn't attend, I'd still be a casualty?

That's not fair!

I'm callin' the ACLU!!

[longtermmemmory]

radical islam is a meaningless fluff phrase.

NON radical islam has to repudiate the Koran and thus is not islam.

Radical Islam is MAINSTREAM islam.

The movie Obsession pretty much put that one to rest.

[Popman]

...Koran, there are many passages advocating the killing of infidels. The Wahhabis whole-heartedly agree with these passages and interpret them to mean all non-believers

Not only that, there are sub sects within Wahhabis that advocate killing Muslims who believe in freedom, democracy, voting, women rights, basically anybody who doesn't think we shouldn't be living in the 8th century under Sharia law when Islam was primitive and supposedly pure

Those are the people killing other Muslims in Muslims countries like Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chechen and etc. ad nausea

To think these people can be negotiated with is insanity

[tkathy]

Appeasement gets more people killed in the final analysis than strength.