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.

[imperator2]

Yes there are terrorists and Terrorphils (lovers of terrorists)

[getoffmylawn]

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.

[Diogenesis]

Deimophils (first heard right here on FR).

after Deimos (terror)

[Bahbah]

Sorry to be a pest but does anyone have a connection to Medcins sans Frontiers?

[DainBramage]

Sure it does. These are the same people who would never call you pro-life but favored the negative Anti-abortion.

Pro-terrorism vs. Pro-war against terrorism.

[Critter]

Any word from the DC freepers yet?

[Diogenesis]

Label: Deimos (Mars' smaller moon, taken 9/2/01)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010902.html

[general_re]

Pacifism is objectively pro-terrorist.

[Mark17]

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 all the sense in the world. Some may be honestly brainwashed, some may be cowards, who don't want to serve, and others, are downright pro terrorist. They are all idiots, however, all of them.

[Pharmboy]

Great insight...a worthwhile vanity. Every journalist should ask every one of these commies, peaceniks, pacifists or whatever: Why are you supporting terrorism?

[E=MC²]

Those brave souls on Flight 93 who rushed the terrorists aboard their plane make all the pansy peaceniks look pretty pale and irrelevant.

[F.J. Mitchell]

# 10: Well said Mr. seventeen.

[Faraday]

Your are absolutely correct. Some, such as the pacifists, would claim to only want "peace." The liberal students and academics, and the motley crew of anarchist, socialists, and communists will oppose anything the U.S. does on "principle." However, what Bush said to the nations of the world applies with even more force to Americans. "You are either with or us, or with the terrorists." The actual terrorists wouldn't be caught near these idiots, but they are grateful for the support.

[getoffmylawn]

Pacifism is objectively pro-terrorist.

Re-read the post. Nowhere does the author use the word pacifism.

[World'sGoneInsane]

Can we call them the pro-terrorist, groupthink?! If not, how about the pro-terrorist, jerk-circle?!

[getoffmylawn]

It makes all the sense in the world. Some may be honestly brainwashed, some may be cowards, who don't want to serve, and others, are downright pro terrorist. They are all idiots, however, all of them.

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

[FrdmLvr]

Pro-peace equals pro-terrorism?

Yes. In this case it does.

Do you always have trouble discerning between situations?

[Timm]

I don't agree with pacifism, either generally or in the present case. Saying that pacifists are "pro-terrorist" is unfair, however. A pacifist will believe that it is unjust to wage war, despite what he will admit might be bad consequences from not doing so. This makes him welcome these bad consequences no more than a civil libertarian welcomes the possibility of facilitating crime by supporting search and seizure restrictions.

Saying that a pacifist is "objectively pro-terrorist" is an awkward way of pointing out that pacifist policies will, in the judgment of a critic, assist terrorists. This simply reminds the audience that the pacifist view implies that even evil people can act with greater freedom from threat than would be possible under non-pacifist doctrines. This fact is obvious, however. It is a trivial implication of the pacifist doctrine. Calling pacifists "pro-terrorists" implies something further and unfair. It implies that pacifists support terrorism in some unseemly way-- yet the unseemliness of that support will depend entirely on the audience's rejecting pacifism.

Whether pacifism is true or false is precisely the question at issue when a critic charges that pacifism is "pro-terrorist". 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.

Pacifism is a false doctrine, in my view, since I do not believe it is morally required for those who wish to fight for good to permit even terrible evils to occur for fear of killing. It is not incumbent upon the innocent to suffer the evils of violence without recourse in preference to killing their tormentors. The rights which normally protect an evil-doer do not stand against attack in self-defense. In cases where there is much at stake, even innocent people may be killed to prevent still further evil. If, for example, it would have been possible to shoot down one of the airliners aimed at the WTC even if many dozens would have been killed on the ground that would be permissible, in my judgment.

At any rate, there is little to be gained in any discussion of pacifism by hurling charges of being "pro-terrorist".

[FrdmLvr]

Can we call them the pro-terrorist, groupthink?

I like it.