Posted on 09/27/2001 7:09:10 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Pacifists are not wimps. Nor are they evil, immoral or on the side of terrorism, as syndicated columnist Michael Kelly ignorantly and illogically asserts in "The negative impact of pacifism.” Ignorant, because Kelly clearly doesn’t understand the worldview and long-range efforts of committed pacifists. Illogical, because Kelly equates the horrific attacks of September 11 with Nazi aggression during World War II.
THE DIFFERENCES between these crises and what unfolded in World War II or the cold war are vast and obvious. If we fail to understand this, if we view Kabul as Dresden and bomb the hell out it, expect more awful footage of American skyscrapers crumbling to the ground. Early and often.
MUSCULAR PEACEMAKING
For serious pacifists, peace is a proactive affair and a long-range proposition, not something passive and limp-wristed. That’s why it’s called the Peace Corps. That’s why dozens of non-governmental development and relief organizations, populated by legions of pacifists, toil in obscurity around the globe, digging wells, operating clinics, working generally to combat economic, social and political injustices. It doesn’t matter which particular government had a hand in fostering those injustices. They exist. They need to be addressed in order to create the stability required for peace.
Pacifists don’t need a full-blown war to place themselves in harm’s way or to sacrifice their lives for their country. Kelly should ask Coretta Scott King about that. Or he should talk to the Mennonites and the Quakers, who regularly dispatch platoons of “Christian Peacemaker Teams” to places like Hebron in the West Bank, where they confront head-on the Israeli bulldozers that flatten Palestinian houses during settlement-building. Kelly should amble on down to Columbus, Georgia, one November for the annual protest of the Army-run School of the Americas, a notorious institution noted for training abusive Latin American military officers. Dozens of nuns, priests and assorted pacifists regularly chain themselves to the gates and fences, aware that they’ll be roughed up by authorities.
TOUGH SELL
As for Kelly’s reference to the Nazis, I’ll admit, pacifism in the face of Hitler’s war machine was no doubt a tough sell in 1942, as it would be today. No denying that.
(It’s funny though: rather than highlight the obscure British pacifists of the 1940s, you’d think Kelly would have focused the highest-profile pacifist of all time, Jesus, and his attempts to pitch pacifism to his fellow Jews in 30 A.D., when the Romans were regularly murdering chariot-loads of Jews. But heck, Jesus is a pretty popular guy now, so I can see why Kelly wouldn’t want to call him evil and immoral.)
But Kelly truly misses the mark when he uses his elementary-school logic to compare the actions of the Nazis to those of the Sept. 11 terrorists. The similarities pretty much end with the fact that both groups are murderous thugs. True, as Kelly states, Hitler did not want the British to fight back. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, clearly wants to be hit back hard. He wants America to create as much collateral damage as possible. That stuff makes for great recruitment videos. Bin Laden loves jihad. That’s what al-Qaeda is all about.
And that’s why, as U.S. investigators have pieced together, bin Laden had the charismatic leader of Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Massoud, assassinated just days before Sept. 11. He fully expected the United States to wage war on Afghanistan, and he poked us in the eye by eliminating Massoud, an obvious and helpful American ally.
A POOR TACTIC
Ethical and moral convictions aside, as a practical matter, wide-ranging military action as a response to terrorism is just plain stupid. It will cause young, frustrated men in the Middle East to seethe, thus sowing the seeds of future terrorism. And President Bush will have a devil of a time holding together a coalition of Arabs and Muslims if we begin willy-nilly bombing Afghanistan. Fortunately, our leaders seem to be buying into at least some of this thinking, as they’ve so far proceeded quite cautiously.
Ultimately, pacifists want these heinous crimes properly investigated and the perpetrators arrested, tried and punished. They also want our country to reflect seriously on our foreign policy, to consider both the good and the bad things we do, and to make changes that will ensure long-lasting peace.
Pacifists want this because they’re patriotic, because they mourn for the victims of terrorism, and because it’s the smart thing to do.
Y'know, if you can't even own up to being wrong in the past about something (or if you still think you were right in the face of obvious history to the contrary), your arguments about today aren't worthy of even the least bit of consideration.
Notice how Mr. Kvinta co-opts the Peace Corps (a creation of a President, JFK, who for all of his faults would certainly have responded militarily to an assault such as WTC) and extols the virtues of far-left noisemakers protesting in free countries. How long would these whiners last with the Taliban, or in Beijing?
This pitiful response shows how right Kelly was in his criticism.
Michael Kelly - then a freelancer to the Boston Globe - was the ONLY journalist to see Iraq up close and personal in 1991. He endangered himself repeatedly to report on the atrocities of Saddam and the Iraqui government.
These pacifists do not know the sound of the AK-47 or the B-40 RPG launcher that is well-familiar to significant segments of the world population.
They are thus disqulified from commenting on anything relating to the real, savage, deadly world of they are so supremely ignorant.
As a great student of history, Edmund Burke, once said, "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win the world is for enough good men do nothing."
One thing's for sure, it's not going to be that hard this time to see who the people are who are against the country, is it?
George Orwell noted in 1941: "In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." Elsewhere he wrote of the "unadmitted motive" of pacifism as being "hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism".
This maggot wouldn't know Jesus if he ran over Him on the way to a G-8 summit.
Jesus never said a word about armed conflict when defending nations. He said His mission was not of this world, and would not allow anyone (including Peter) to interfere with His mission.
Pulling the "Jesus argument" is a cheap trick, used by cowards when they've run out of rational arguments.
This guy changes the subject, makes stupid assumptions (such as: we're going to level all of Afghanistan, and you can reason with all enemies and come to some sort of compromise) arrives at flawed conclusions (e.g. Latin American soldiers train in the US, Latin American solders commit war crimes, therefore the US trains them to commit war crimes), morally equates the US, and I'm sure the rich nations in general, with everyone else, and has no clue about the realities of international relations, or has any respect for the restraint of the Bush Administration.
How many of these people and groups he mentioned have really changed the course of world politics? Not many. Of course, they help out in small ways to make some people's lives better, and they are to be commended for it, but do the despots learn, or do they have to be put in their place from time to time?
The despots get put in their place, and new ones arise and try their luck. They have proven that they can learn from the mistakes of their predecessors to try and extend their survival time.
Pacifists, however, stick to the same old line, and make the same mistakes.
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist."
OK, back to me. Philosophically, I see no difference between Bin Laden, Hitler or any other despot.
- Bin Laden uses the Crusades as an example how the west has denied the Arabs rightful greatness.
- Hitler used the Treaty of Versailles to rally the Germans.
- Bin Laden wants to return lost lands to his people & conquer even more for "Islam".
- Hitler wanted to return lost lands to his people, & add some "Liberstaum" in the east for good measure.
- Bin Laudin has intrigued to pervert Islam as a vehicle for despotic control.
- Hitler used the National Socialist German Workers Party as a vehicle for despotic control.
- And they both blame everything on the Western Democracies & the Jews.
In my opinion, Bin Laudin passes the Fascism "Duck Test."
The President wasn't just being rhetorical about Bin Laudin & the perurveyors of tyranny. Bin Laudin is no different than Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, or any other despot in history. I just thank the good Lord that Bin Laudin doesn't have access to an industrail base the way Hitler did in Germany.
And if he gets ahold of one, you can bet your sweet bippy that Bin Laudin won't think twice about dropping the "the big one" on Michael Kelly's neighborhood. Mr. Kelly can risk his life for his principles & trust in Bin Laudin's mercy. But when it comes to my wife & three kids, he has no business putting them at any futher risk. Irrational pacificsm (& a bit of liberal stupidtiy) like Kelly's, in my opinion, encouraged the 911 attacks. He may claim to be a pacifist, but blood is on his hands for having supported policies that crippled our Nation's ability to defend itself.
Jesus a pacifist? I seem to recall that Jesus used a whip (a weapon!) to drive the money-changers from the temple. Jesus also warned that he had come "not to send peace on the earth, but a sword." And Jesus said to his disciples, "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." That doesn't sound very pacifistic.
Yes, Jesus also taught that when someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other. A slap on the cheek is an insult, not a threat to your life.
And, after they're done patting themselves on the back for being pacifists, they can take a few days off...and then mourn for some more victims of terrorism...and defend pacifism again...because it's the "smart" thing to do.
These people like wars. Without a war, there's no chance to parade their "moral superiority". Accordingly, they look forward to the start of a war...and they aren't about to help bring them to an end.
I can respect the Quakers and their belief. But this guy is just a useless parasite.
Sigh... You'd think I'd know better, especially since I saved a copy of Kelly's original article.
Let's keep the players straight here.
The author of this particular piece is Paul Kvin, a pacifist.
He was responding to a scathing article, The Negative Impact of Pacifism, by Michael Kelly.
I.e., Kelly agrees with you. It is Kvin that is the parasite.
The only time that the armed terrorists will allow a pacifist to live is when he's in a camp that the terrorist targets. Then the pacifist is an unknowing pawn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.