Pro-Terrorists

[FrdmLvr]

Please forgive the vanity, but I just read a brilliant thought someone posted to the anti-war protest thread. When the subject comes up with friends, family, and acquaitances, we need to start refering to anti-war protestors and peace-niks as being Pro-Terrorists, because that's what they are.

[truth_seeker]

If you are genuinely intrsted in this topic, you might study the Quakers, who were historically against war. They have a set of beliefs.

During Vietnam, I served in Personnel Management. We had to process soldiers claims to be "Conscientious Objectors." Very specific and strict criteria had to be met, and that alone didn't get them out of the service.

If you have a chance to talk with an "anti-war" type, it is fun to find out what they believe, where they got the information, and what they would do, to defend themselves or their family.

Many of these people have their beliefs, because the lifetime of propoganda has worked. Leftist programming.

[general_re]

Peace-niks are objectively pro-terrorist.

Logic's the same, argument's the same.

Am I to assume that your splitting of semantic hairs means you have no objection to the logic behind the statement?

[FReethesheeples]

EXACTLY RIGHT ON TARGET!

Mega-Kudos!

[FReethesheeples]

EXACTLY RIGHT ON TARGET!

Mega-Kudos!

[FReethesheeples]

EXACTLY RIGHT ON TARGET!

Mega-Kudos!

[Grampa Dave]

p> In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this 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.'

Replace pro-facist with pro-peace/pro Arab Mass Murderers and you have Orwell updated to describe Clymers like Ramsey Clark/pro peace clymers and their hatred of America/Americans and their love of America's Enemy's, like the Arab Mass Murderers of 9/11!

Ramsey Clark and his pro peace ilk are the real terrorists in America with what he/they have done since Viet Nam and after 9/11!

Get off of my lawn with your defence of the phoney pro peace haters of America. I have put up with these hate America/Americas since the Viet Nam War.

War was declared on innocent Americans by the mass murder of about 7,000 innocent Americans by the Arab Mass Murderers. Now we are finding out that there were at least 8 other planes which had terrorist on board and even in the cockpits! Anyone who does not condemn these terrorist now, is against America. Get used to that statement!

[Enlightiator]

Pro-peace equals pro-terrorism? I really think you need to think this through a bit more. Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

It makes very good sense to me, there was an excellent article on this subject which I can't find at the moment, but consider this - "give peace a chance" basically means do nothing to stop the attacks ON OUR COUNTRY. The terrorists and those who harbor them want us to do nothing, the "give peace a chance" crowed want the same thing. Thus, pro-peace equals pro-terrorists!

To the "peace lovers", I offer this:

AMERICA HAS BEEN ATTACKED. IF YOU WOULD NOT DEFEND AGAINST THIS, YOU WOULD DEFEND NOTHING - THIS ISN'T COURAGE AND LOVE YOU HAVE, ITS COWARDICE, STUPIDITY, AND AN UNDERLYING HATE OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY. PLEASE SEEK HELP.

[voose]

Mabye if the federal government reopens the draft, they should draft the protesters, first.

[getoffmylawn]

Bravo. Great post, however, if I were you I'd try to limit my posts to no more than 3 sentances. Any more than that and you risk being labeled an elitist. Now is not the time for rational objectivity. "You're either with us or against us."

[bulldog905]

Anyone who does not condemn these terrorist now, is against America. Get used to that statement!

Way to go Grandpa! It's interesting to note how the Stormfront and Pravda crowd are such "pacifists" on this issue.

"Peace Activist", in this case, means pro-terrorists, everybit as much as the euphemism "Pro-Choice Activist" means a supporter of killing innocent, unborn babies.

God Bless America

All the traitors and back-stabbers of American can charter the next flight to Kabul along with Jesse Jackson!

[general_re]

So, if one wants to impugn pacifism, one ought simply to say that the view is false and explain why. It is unfair to paint the view with a propagandistic taint without argument.

Consider the following argument, then, written some time ago. Consider how it sounds if you replace "fascism" with "terrorism":

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war-effort of one side you automatically help 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." The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr. Savage remarks that "according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be 'objectively pro-British'." But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious "freedom" station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the PPU. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

I am not interested in pacifism as a "moral phenomenon." If Mr. Savage and others imagine that one can somehow "overcome" the German army by lying on one's back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand "moral force" till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force....

--George Orwell, 1942

[World'sGoneInsane]

Pro-peace equals pro-terrorism? I really think you need to think this through a bit more. Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

That post makes plenty of sense. Unless they were demonstrating for peace among the terrorists that layed this carnage and killed close to 7,000 people, they certainly are pro-terrorist. When they are chanting F the USA and now calling for peace, they are pro-terrorist.

Yes, I want peace, I want peace of mind to know that something like this never happens again. So, as far as I am concerned, these peace demonstrators should be demonstrating among the terrorists--only then will they be pro-peace. Oh, and BTW, I think you need to think it through a little more. If we sit and do nothing, there will be no peace--think about it.

[aristeides]

No doubt it's possible in theory to be pro-peace and not pro-terrorist. But you apparently did not listen to the speakers at the anti-war rally today. Some of them did make brief pro forma condemnations of the Sept. 11 attacks. But I didn't hear any condemnation of the Taliban, or of Islamofascism. I did hear plenty of condemnation of the Bush administration, and American business, and of the U.S. in general, including of American patriotism. I did hear plenty of calls in defense of the Afghan people, and the Palestinian people. The speakers may not have expressly said they were pro-terrorist, but I have little hesitation in saying that most of them in fact were.

[FITZ]

Pro-peace equals pro-terrorism?

When you don't want to fight to defend your own country from acts of terrorism, then you are not pro-peace you are pro-terrorism.

[World'sGoneInsane]

As I was proofreading my post, my husband is quoting George Orwell. No sooner did I post mine, and I saw your post. It's uncanny how many times you can think something, and it is posted here!

[Deb]

You obviously didn't watch the protest.

[getoffmylawn]

Am I to assume that your splitting of semantic hairs means you have no objection to the logic behind the statement?

Peace is truly a wonderful thing. I've often been at complete peace with both my life and the world. I don't consider pointing out that peace does not equal terrorism to be a splitting of semantic hairs. I do consider equating peace with terrorism to be shallow, irresponsible, and in my opinion, just down right stupid.

[babyfreep]

I don't think they are actually "pro-terrorist". IMHO, they are actually just ignorant and misinformed. Stupid, by choice, if you will.
I was watching the protesters on C-SPAN. Most of them were speaking as if the President's plans were to just wipe out all of Afghanistan, etc., which the United States could do in the twinkling of an eye. Evidently, they did not hear his speech stating that this would be a long-drawn out and covert operation to get the guilty.

[Mr. Bungle]

"If you're trying to argue that peace=terrorism, you failed. Please take your time and write a more thoughtful response. ",

Peace, of course, does not equal terrorism, by definition. But pacifism, which can be described as "peaceful behavior despite all costs," provides nourishment to terrorism.

When an enemy wishes you dead because you simply exist, and proves it in action, that enemy has already rejected civilized appeals to any "better nature" they might possess. Therefore, attempts by pacifists to tie the hands of our defenders make the terrorists' task easier. It is axiomatic. The statement "pacifism = pro-terrorist" has, in reality, little to do with what the pacifists "expect" to be the outcome of their actions. Such posturing is its own reward to them, because it flatters their egos and vision of the world, consequences be damned.

Look at it this way. A police sharpshooter atop a tower trains his sights on a crazed gunman below who has already killed people. The pacifist urges the sharpshooter to drop his rifle, citing such inanities as "perpetuating the cycle of violence" and other threadbare mantras. While the outcome of additional innocent deaths is likely not the pacifist's desire, he furthers that end because he is unwilling to make a moral judgement. He confuses physical equivalence with moral equivalence - and cowers in a paralysis that might eventually cost him his own life. And the result of the pacifist's actions, if successful, are not very different than if an accomplice of the crazed gunman were to wrestle the sharpshooter's rifle from his hands.

Conservatives tend to label others by the incentives their actions are perceived to create. Liberals label others by the dispositions they perceive others to possess. This is an important distinction to keep in mind.

[general_re]

I point out that you're playing semantic games, and you reply by doing it again?

Your facile conflation of "peace" and "pacifism" in an attempt to cloud the fact that they are two separate things is disingenuous, at best. Who objects to peace?

Rather, the objection is to pacifism as a moral doctrine, particularly as practiced by those who rely on others to defend their own moral values, while simultaneously doing nothing to defend the freedoms and values of those others. If you fail to defend the freedoms of your neighbor against aggression, what right do you have to expect your neighbor to defend your right to pacifism?

Do you really think pacifism will cause the bin Ladens of the world to see the folly of their ways? Do you think pacifism would have stopped the Nazis? How long do you think Gandhi would have lasted had the Nazis been in charge of the Indian subcontinent?