"Well, I'm very pro-peace and I'm also very much in favor of attacking the terrorists. Nothing in this world is black and white."
Not true. Many things are, in fact "black and white" while some things aren't. We could together come up with an agreeable list of the things that are indeed "black and white." But to say that nothing is "black-and white" is simply a reflexive embrace of all forms of moral relativism.
I hope you meant to say it how I did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, because I do believe your intentions are sincere.
"On the one hand we have fools that say we should make no attempt to seek retribution against the terrorists. I don't agree with their position."
Then you do agree with the vast majority of those here, and likely, most agruments lie in semantics.
Peace is not a course of action. It is the desirable result of many processes. One can be "pro-peace," as almost everone is, but as a doctrine, or even a statement of preference, it is meaningless when war has been declared. Because it offers no course of action to achieve it.
"On the other hand we have fools that say that if someone doesn't want to inflict harm on another person, no matter how horrible their crimes, they are pro-terrorist. I don't agree with their position either."
You need to keep in mind the last line of my post, #39. A conservative might label you "pro-terrorist" if your course of action, not necessarily the intent of that action, results in furthering the terrorists' goals. I doubt that the "peace protestors" are "pro-terrorist" in the sense that they would have themselves committed the same horrible crimes that the terrorsits did. And I doubt you'd find anyone on Free Republic who would make the case that they would.
This "you're either with us or against us" stuff is just shallow one dimensional crap being served to the idiot masses..."President Bush used that phrase specifically to address those nations who were harboring terrorsists, and correctly so. Individuals in the United States who use it against other citizens do engage in a bit of exaggeration.
More accurately, one could say, "You're either for retalliation, or you make the terrorists' task easier." That is undeniable.
"...to make sure everybody walks in step with whatever the Industrial Military Complex and its Corporate Media lap dogs decide to do. "
I wish you hadn't said this, as I found your posts truly honest, and wanting to be as reasonable of possible. When I read statements like this, peppered with trite liberal shibboleths, it reminds me of what I used to believe in myself, and how I was terribly mistaken, and used.
I'll respond to you the best I can. Unfortunately the written word is not my forte and I'm often misunderstood by many which leads to their placing words in my mouth. For this I am partially to blame, but I will not condone the personal attacks that come in responses to my posts where requests for clarification would be much more appropriate. You didn't stoop to that level and I thank you.
Not true. Many things are, in fact "black and white" while some things aren't. We could together come up with an agreeable list of the things that are indeed "black and white." But to say that nothing is "black-and white" is simply a reflexive embrace of all forms of moral relativism.
I stand by my position that nature essentially ambiguous. Let's take something as horrible as the Holocaust or someone regarded as pure Evil as Adolf Hitler as examples. While the Holocaust is a terrible stain on the history of humanity in which millions of people that didn't deserve to have their lives ended so early and by such brutal means (18 members of my own family were placed in a church that was then locked shut and burned to the ground), there would be no Israel without it.
Adolf Hitler is often held up as an example of a purely Evil person, but one of Hitler's primary goals was the restoration of Germany's restoration and prosperity and self-respect. I believe these are noble goals of any person or nation.
Then you do agree with the vast majority of those here, and likely, most agruments lie in semantics.
I do agree that the bastards that are responsible for the horrible crimes of 9/11 should be diligently tracked down and forced to suffer and very slow and painful death. I'd even like to be personally in on the giving end of that justice and have the oportunity to look them directly in the eye as they suck in their last breath of air on Earth. But the focus of this thread isn't about my personal beliefs on how the terrorists should be punished. It's about calling those that rally for a "turn the other cheek" or even pacifist position "Pro-terrorist". This I took exception to, and will continue to do so.
Peace is not a course of action. It is the desirable result of many processes. One can be "pro-peace," as almost everone is, but as a doctrine, or even a statement of preference, it is meaningless when war has been declared. Because it offers no course of action to achieve it.
Peace should be the goal of all of us. You're right, it's not a course of action, however, I will not stand for people that consider the best solution to reaching peace being called "pro-terrorist". A very good argument can be made that America is the world's largest exporter of terrorism since WW2. The criminal and terror bombing of Yugoslavia I hold up as just one example. To call a pacifist "pro-terrorist" is just as irresponsible as calling all patriotic Americans "pro-terrorist" for supporting a country that is responsible for so much pain and suffering around the world.
President Bush used that phrase specifically to address those nations who were harboring terrorsists, and correctly so. Individuals in the United States who use it against other citizens do engage in a bit of exaggeration.
I only disagree with your perception of the numbers and degree in which some individuals in the United States are using it against other citizens. It seems to be becoming a mantra that many are using towards their fellow Americans simply because they may not fully agree with just what they believe should be our next course of action. I bet we would be hard pressed to find 10 threads since Bush's speech that aren't littered with people bastardizing his words. I consider such statements to be very irresponsible.
More accurately, one could say, "You're either for retalliation, or you make the terrorists' task easier." That is undeniable.
I believe that it's the nature of the "retaliation" that many are concerned with. I know it is my primary concern. I believe America's foreign policy since WW2 has far too often been beyond the short-sighted to the point of corrupt. I get a very uneasy feeling whenever the wheels of our State Department begin to grind into action. I reserve to the right to be able to call them on the carpet when I see them making yet another mis-step in what I consider to be long series. If I point out what I see as either a flagrant error or prepartations to make a flagrant error by our State Department, I hope to be able to do so without being labeled as "pro-terrorist".
I wish you hadn't said this, as I found your posts truly honest, and wanting to be as reasonable of possible. When I read statements like this, peppered with trite liberal shibboleths, it reminds me of what I used to believe in myself, and how I was terribly mistaken, and used.
I wish I hadn't said that too. I stooped the same shallow level of those who label the pacifists as "pro-terrorist". Trite liberal shibboleths are no better than trite conservative shibboleths. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Thanks again for the very thoughtful post. You have no idea how much I appreciate it.
(btw... you get my vote for Best Home Page :-)