[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Has anyone figured out exactly why it is that "peace activists" consistently end up on the wrong side of history? They wanted to accommodate Hitler; they sided with Stalin; they sided with Castro and Che; they supported the North Vietnamese and Vietcong; they urged "sanctions" against Saddam; they opposed going after the Taliban; now they coddle Arafat.

This is a great question... I would like to take a stab at it. The first step among the totalitarians and those who side with them, is to call things what they are not. Many examples abound, "Workers Paradise", "Jewish Question", "Ministry of information", "People's Republic", and the list goes on and on. If you side with the communists, or the nazis, or the islamists (as Reuters and these leftist fringe organizations obviously do) you adopt their tactics, and this is one of the best. Orwell had it right, with his "Ministry of Truth".

If you really analyze the words, a PEACE ACTIVIST to me would be a soldier who fought with the good guys in WWII, or in the current war in Afghanistan, or with the IDF. Certainly they are activists, of that there is no doubt, and certainly the overall goal is peace, a just and lasting peace.

If you look at these examples of human debris they are neither for peace, nor are they activists in the sense cited above. They are peace activists in the same way that the Soviet Union was for equality, or Hitler's Germany were victims, or the islamic religion is a religion of peace.

This is all about calling a thing by words that are at variance with its true nature.

My $.02

[My2Cents]

Good point: the "activists" are the ones who are duped by the leftist/totalitarian propoganda -- they actually BELIEVE the twisted words that come out of the mouths of people like Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and Arafat. No matter that guys like Arafat are up to their eyeballs in weapons...they still want "peace."

One word you forgot in the totalitarians' lexicon: "re-education."