Pacifists are evil

new.

now FIGHT!

I'm a pacifist. I'm going to do them in with a chair.

I don't know if I am for military aggression beyond a limited scale at this point, and I certainly don't think anything should be done without reasonable thought and analysis (which of course is like living in an f'ing fantasy world), nonetheless, I really whole heartedly believe that anyone who is a newspaper columnist, on the right or the left, should be executed in the street. The ridiculous amount of mean-spirited polemical arguments you read before or after WTC are just pathetic. How do you know this shit? (to the columnist) How can you be so fucking self-righteous? I don't know what evil is? How do you? The root problem behind so much shit is people, including myself, pretending to know anything when really no one knows shit. You can use logic in any direction you want...any which way you go, you're still a dick. Anyway, sorry to ramble. I have these same thoughts most mornings while reading the New York Post and yet I continue to read it.

The opening paragraphs are stardard partisan op-ed baiting, the "logic" far from being implacable is flawed (pacifists want the war to stop, they do not want the enemy to win - they tend to believe in diplomacy and negotiation whereas this writer caricatures their position to mean simple surrender). But the key flaw in this piece is here:

Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight.

The fact is that we DO NOT KNOW what "these groups" want the Americans to do. A very reasonable case could be made that these groups want the Americans to retailiate massively and radicalise moderate Muslims - indeed that seems much more reasonable than what this writer is saying. But if he admits that his argument collapses.

I'm not replying as a 'pacifist' incidentally. I'm not sure what I am: in favour of retaliation backed up with a sensible and humane long-term approach to foreign policy, I guess. I doubt there's much room for that position in this writer's worldview.

Americans are insane.

Just wait until George Bush wins the nobel peace prize.

I know this is a shitty thing to say at this time, but I am really beiginning to think (as an american) that I just can't stand americans. So much of what is supposedly great about us is overrated. What is dreadful about us is incredibly dreadful.More than anything else, we can only respond to this tragedy with either some ridiculous argumentative speech or with a bunch of meaningless talk about courage, strength, & freedom. I have no love for the more radical left either who feels that now is the perfect time to justify their own feelings about americna foreign policy (many of their facts are of course spot on but who cares). I feel like there is some parallels between their responses and those of the right over hate crimes legislation. IE - Why are you so f'ing mad at others for holding a totally reasonable view?

Most interesting logical contortion I've heard lately - "Why should I die for the government? After all, I don't even vote."

I grant there are probably people who arrive at pacifism through rigorous thought or unshakeable conviction but a depressingly high number of people use the "I'm not involved in anything, I don't want to know about all this stuff, I just keep myself to myself" excuse. ("If you can't see it, it can't see you" - D Adams) Have these people been entirely self-sufficient since birth? At least people who use fear-of- being-killed as an excuse are a bit more honest with themselves.

I was actually just moved to write a letter to the author pointing that out, Tom. Judging from the actions of both bin Laden and portions of the Taliban over the past week, it seems increasingly clear that their goal is to provoke a full-on sides-taking conflict between the West and fundamentalist Islam, which they seem frighteningly confident that fundamentalist Islam would win.

Nitsuh: yes. I also suspect, though (and hope) that the increasing belligerence of the Taleban's statements is down to their surprise and bafflement at the extent to which this strategy isn't working, i.e. the US HASN'T attacked, everyone has come on-side to the Coalition, and there's even an Israeli-Palestine ceasefire. I am worried - and long-term worried - that there will be more September 11ths: I think that was inevitable before the 11th and is still inevitable. I am not as worried about the immediate prospect of the 'battle of civilisations', though still slightly queasy.

Oh, and:

radical left ... feels that now is the perfect time to justify their own feelings about american foreign policy (many of their facts are of course spot on but who cares)

I think the feeling in this camp is the despite their facts being "of course spot on," nobody gives a fuck about what they have to say during peacetime, because, well, nobody gives a fuck about Afghanistan, sorry to say. Surely recent events constitute some sort of proof that, at the very least, they were right to be concerned about such things. And so the question becomes: when the hell are we going to listen them, assuming their logic is as spot- on as you say?

I get the feeling people in this camp feel alternately like Chicken Little after the sky actually has fallen -- or, better yet, as Cassandra might have after each of her prophecies were confirmed -- but with nobody listening in either case.

Thanks, Nitsuh - thanks a whole bunch. I mean that sincerely, since such a thing often comes off as sarcasm.

I'm feeling a little frightened by all of the recent attacks on "leftism" by those who claim "sympathy" with or agreement with their positions. I guess it's because there's this implicit idea that your politics are something in which you're not deeply invested - one can easily chuck ones views and trash one's allies, when for many, many other people, it's not a matter of fashion, it's a matter of survival.

What I should have added is that for a lot of pundits, apparently, "the Left" = other leftist pundits. Whereas when I go to demonstrations, speak-outs, teach-ins, meetings or whatever, I see people from unions, from churches and charities and various anti-discrimination groups, etc. -- community activists.

And so the question becomes: when the hell are we going to listen them, assuming their logic is as spot- on as you say?
Well, what leftists positions are we taking about that have been validated by 9/11?

Kerry - there's a difference between fashion and flexibility, though. A shift in position isn't neccessarily down to "fashion" though I take your point about leftist pundits too often only thinking about other pundits.

BNW - the leftist position on 'blowback' seems to me partially vindicated, i.e. that it is a bad idea to fund extremist movements in case they turn on you. This isn't specifically leftist, though - it'd also be the isolationist position.

pacifism is anti-life, if you are not against a terrorist then you by logical conclusion support them or at least invite them to attack again by not creating consequences for their actions. i am particularly amused by people who claim there should be a dialogue, exactly what are bin-laden's demands? it isn't like the good old days when terrorists had a manifesto or grand goal, creating an islamic empire is a but fanciful isn't it? klaus is a sophist, i am not sure how one lives their life without having an opinion on anything. i listened to an interview with sara sloane(sp?) who is heading the protests in dc this week and she was a beauty saying stalin was more just than roosevelt because russia had full employment (i suppose murdering 35 million people was just meant to keep unemployment down) she finds cuba a utopia and didn't believe the united states was just in fighting WWII cause our goal was imperialistic. i would love to know who is teaching her this nonsense? i am sure she is with chomsky and believes the khmer rouge did not really murder nearly half the population of cambodia, or that the overthrown afghan govt in power before the soviet invasion and in essence a puppet soviet satellite state did not distribute toys armed with explosives to maim children so that they could not grow up to be resistance fighters but instead was a progressive state with communal farming. alliances are not constant, sometimes it is a case of supporting the less evil of two evils for the greater good.

(probably a good idea you go find out what chomsky ACTUALLY said abt the khmer rouge keith before you chuck stuff around: the person whose name you do not know how to spell may indeed be a stalinist, but many many anti-war activists are not)

For the record, I posted this cos I thought it was the stupidest thing I'd read in ages. Not wanting war does not equal wanting terrorists to blow up every single building in NYC.

I suppose I support retaliation, but not some sort of blind idiotic thing that an awful lot of people seemed to want, ie Sept. 12 we should be bombing Afghanistan. You have to be reasonable about these things and you shouldn't resort to blanket violence unless it's your last option.

Then again, I also think that blanket violence is stupid anyhow. Everyone knows that specific, targeted counter-terrorism is the way to deal with these sort of things. Covert ops, etc. The problem is that wouldn't get support. The funny thing is that if the US goes and bombs the shit out of the Middle East, theoretically giving reason for the people there to truly rise up against the west, I could see a lot of other countries financially (at the least) supporting it.

Tom - As far as getting behind extremists, its painfully obvious that was a bad move now. Whats especially terrible about it is that the U.S. wasn't getting involved with the Afghani's because they cared about their plight, but because they wanted so bad to give Russia it's own Vietnam. Which sounds like the typical liberal line, but I heard a former Secretary of Defense admitting that outright last night.

Hopefully, this "my enemy's enemy is my ally" business will end now.

Hopefully, this "my enemy's enemy is my ally" business will end now.

This seems as eternal a concept as life itself.

I hate Pacifism...what's wrong with the Atlantic!?

Isn't the idea of 'blowback' a product of the 'blame culture'?'Depraved on account of being deprived'?

twisted article. i personally start from the point that creating death and misery is wrong. So killing and injuring people, destroying their homes and their livelyhoods, sundering families, forcing young men toi cause more death and misery are all wrong. therefore I think war and terrorism are wrong.

I want to see Osama bin Laden in the dock of an international court. I thought we in the civilised world world believed in a fair trail (the legal system does not inflict that much collateral damage). So far we, as a cicilised world, have managed to try nazi war criminals, rwandans, arrested Slobodam Milosovic and captured and brought to book war crinials of all sides in the balkan conflicts.

Now I'm not saying that Mr bin Laden will come quietly, but surely teams of crack commandos, that we've been hearing so much about recently could get in and get Mr bin laden and bring him to justice (note to mr bush justice does not equal a bombing campaign).

Mr Shrub and the good ol' boys in the congress need to unconditionally ratify the ICC treaty.

I am a pacifist. I am not evil.

I'm a Pacifist too, I wrote to letters@msnbc.com. Worth doing just to let them know they're opposed.

Given the number of Quakers who died, unarmed, on the front lines in the World Wars running pacifist amubulance services, this despicable man should be... er... talked to very severely.

as an institutionalised pacifist, the authors oughta be shot.

See, what Ed is talking about is sort of like what I am talking about. You don't bomb the hell out of the Middle East, you send in covert operations to do very specified missions to seek out and find those responsible. Taking out entire countries is not the way it should be done in this day and age.

Of course putting them in court isn't going to result in a fair trial, you know.

Actually I just heard hat it sounds less like the US will actually go to war and more like there will be Delta Force Operations

And you see, something is starting to occur to me -- a lot (not all, of course) of what the left has been suggesting here, there and everywhere as a response to all this (don't indiscriminately bomb, get the UN involved, send over lots of food aid to the refugees) *seems* to be true up to this point in time. Bush's speechwriters and handlers have played a number of rhetorical cards poorly but others surprisingly (given who we're talking about) well -- distinguishing between the Taliban and the Afghanis as a whole, repeated calls for tolerance towards Muslims in the wake of the attack, and so forth. Things could change rather quickly, of course, and maybe even tomorrow will make a mockery of my words. But if things continue at the present pace -- and allowing for the fact that there's a lot of crap going on that we don't know about and probably never will -- one might almost argue that for all the belligerence the gov't has temporarily outfoxed both dissenters here and the Taliban over there by its actions...

I still have plenty of foxes.

no you don't. bats live on slasku.

You dobn'trealise I keep pet foxes in boxes