Phony "Pacifists"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Phony Pacifists

-- (whine@whine.whine), October 03, 2001

Answers

Have you found an article on the Phony "Patriots" yet?

There seems to be even more of those around lately.

-- (kill@kill.kill), October 04, 2001.


Pathetic article attacking fellow Americans.

May not agree with them, but would you all agree you would fight for their right to do their thing? course you would. So what is this Kelly dump? A non-Clinton whining session looking for a scapegoat for believing in an Administration which in 3 weeks has done zippo.

Kelly, like many rightwingers is bored. They are sick of their pandering, coalition building, civil right taking, and gutless Bush, and need to vent. Attacking fellow Americans is very bad form indeed.

-- (move@long.please), October 04, 2001.


I can pick apart this guy's "argument" piece by piece but why bother? His intent is to incite anger and hatred with his prose just as bin Laden intended with his terrorism. Both are forms of violence upon the psyche and serve no positive end no matter the difference in scale. His self-righteous rage has blinded him from seeing that intolerant hearts filled with hatred are the bane of mankind and that he has thusly become part of the proverbial problem rather than the solution. I refuse to lower my dignity by getting sucked into the author's sick game by offering a further response. Sadly, he proves that there will always be fleas, remoras and anal-retentive, chest-thumping Neanderthals posing as journalists to suck the life-blood from any concept of peace.

-- 1 (2@3.com), October 04, 2001.

Regardless of your position regarding how we should be responding to 9/11/01, you MUST keep this in mind:

The terrorist community will NEVER respond to ANY form of pacifist reactions. They WILL NOT negotiate, they WILL NOT REACH OUT for the olive branch, and they COULD CARE LESS about any of your humanitarian concerns. They WILL KILL YOU before you can sit down with them and they WILL KILL YOUR FAMILY when they are done with you.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

These people take all of our options off the table but one: KILL THEM FIRST

For many, this is a hard pill to swallow but it is the reality of the situation. To accept this does not make you a bloodthirsty beast but to ignore these facts does not reflect well on your intelligence.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 04, 2001.


"Gutless" Bush? I guess you would have preferred he would have attacked by now instead of trying to minimize American troop casualties, get on board additional allies, put supply-lines in place, and let the military dictate what gets done when they are ready. The socialists here are really putrid.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 04, 2001.


Read the article idiots...

Phony Pacifists By Michael Kelly Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A31

Last week I argued that those Americans who preached pacifism in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 were (borrowing from George Orwell) objectively pro-terrorist, objectively in favor of letting the masters of this attack escape to live and to commit more mass murders of Americans.

This upset some people. One Pennsylvania man issued what in pacifist circles must constitute a violent threat: "You may expect a series of letters from me and other folks in this regard, until such time as you deem it appropriate to issue a complete retraction of, and unqualified apology for, your comments." Please, not the dread Series of Letters.

Let me see if I may cause further upset. Two propositions: The first is that much of what is passing for pacifism in this instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious manifestation of a well- known pre-existing condition: the largely reactionary, largely incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist, anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these days. The second is that, again in this instance, the antiwar sentiment (to employ a term that encompasses both genuine pacifism and an opposition to war rooted in America-hatred) is intellectually dishonest, elitist and hypocritical.

That the antiwar sentiment is in general only a manifestation of the larger anomie of the reactionary left is clear. The first large antiwar demonstration was held last weekend in Washington, and the most obvious fact about it was that this protest against war was planned before there was ever any thought of war. It had been intended as just another in the series of protests against globalism that have been serving as a sort of kvetch basin for all sorts of unhappy people who like to yell about the awfulness of "Amerika" or international corporations or rich people or people who drive large cars or drug companies that test their products on bunny rabbits or life its own unfair self.

When the terrorists murdered more than 6,000 people and the president said that America was going to do something commensurate about this, the organizers of the Washington protest realized they had found a fresh complaint and a fresh cause. They thought up a few new instantly tired slogans ("Resist Racist War") and printed up a few new posters and -- presto-chango -- thus was born an antiwar movement. Or something.

As to the second proposition. Osama bin Laden has told us by word and action that he sees himself and his cohort as engaged in a total war against the United States and that this war is one not just of nations but of cultures: Holy Islam versus a corrupt, imperialist America. He has promised further attacks like Sept. 11 unless the United States sues for peace under impossible terms, the abandonment of Israel being only one. In short, Osama bin Laden wishes to defeat the United States. So do others; for instance, Saddam Hussein.

Do the pacifists wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? Do they wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by any foreign force? Do they wish to live under an occupying power? Do they wish to live under, say, the laws of the Taliban or the Ba'ath Party of Iraq?

These questions, you may say, rest on an absurd premise: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cannot ever hope to defeat and occupy the United States. Yes, but that is true only because the United States maintains and employs an armed force sufficient to defeat those who would defeat it. If the United States did as the pacifists wish -- if it eschewed war even when attacked -- it would, at some point, be conquered by a foreign regime. What stops this from happening is that the government and generally the people of the United States do not heed the wishes of the pacifists.

The anti-warriors must know that their position is a luxury made affordable only by the sure bet that no one in authority will ever accede to their position. The marchers and shouters and flag-burners in Washington pretended to the argument that war should not be waged. What they really mean is that war should not be waged by them. It should be waged by other mothers' sons and daughters.

How many pacifists would be willing to accept the logical outcome of their creed of nonviolence even in face of attack -- life as a conquered people? Not many, I would think. How many want the (mostly lower-class) men and women of the United States armed forces to continue to fight so that they may enjoy the luxury of preaching against fighting? Nearly all, I would think.

Liars. Frauds. Hypocrites. Strong letters, no doubt, to follow.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 04, 2001.


"Gutless" Bush? I guess you would have preferred he would have attacked by now instead of trying to minimize American troop casualties, get on board additional allies, put supply-lines in place, and let the military dictate what gets done when they are ready. The socialists here are really putrid.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 04, 2001.

Well ya, and so do the majority of Americans think we should have kicked butt longtime ago. Fact is, even YOU think so but are so dishonest you are unwilling to admit as much.

We are told a guy in a CAVE is to blame. Why then do we need what you claim we need? Why all the preparing if the target is ONE GUY? even 1,000 guys, why the wait? Because it is bullshit and YOU know it, so cut the crap you ain't fooling anyone.

casualties you say? How about the 6,000+ innocent Americans who didn't get paid to risk their lives fighting wars? How about their safety? How about the other 200 odd million whose lives are in jepoardy everyday this Bin Laden scam breathes? Why let THEM PREPARE?

If the Military ain't ready to get a homeless dude in Afghanistan, where is our $350 BILLION a year going?

-- (messagefor@clueless.one), October 04, 2001.


They WILL KILL YOU before you can sit down with them and they WILL KILL YOUR FAMILY when they are done with you. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

And can YOU understand that the fundamentalist Muslims are the modern-day Hydra - kill one and two more will spring up in their place. Believe it or not, some of us "pacifists" have no moral or ethical problem with taking out the terrorists via clandestine Special Ops but to declare all-out war with missiles, troops, and civilian casualties will cause the Hydra to spout fifty new enemies for every Muslim killed, ultimately escalating the body count of U.S. citizens on our own soil.

We bomb them, they bomb us. We bomb them, they bomb us. We bomb them, they release biologicals. World population is reduced dramatically. Portions of the globe become uninhabitable for decasdes, if not centuries. Tell me....where does it stop? How many U.S. citizens are you willing to sacrifice to satisfy your blood lust?

I believe there are better ways to reduce the terrorist threat than what we are proposing. Then again, the Bushster hasn't yet engaged a full-scale military operation so perhaps - to his credit - he understands what it is that I'm conveying to you....if only YOU would understand!

-- 1 (2@3.com), October 04, 2001.


You haven’t conveyed shit, asshole. When you’re done messin’ yerself, come back with a solution (your so-called better way) instead of moaning about the big bad terrorists. Do you have any concept what our coalition allies and we are about to bring down on these scumbags? Are you so fucking stupid as to think these Islamic Extremists will stop now, regardless of what we do? Thankfully, you chicken-shit pacifists will not have any part in cleaning up this mess.

-- 1,2 (3@and.out), October 04, 2001.

Libya and Cuba, now hit the road, this isn't Alice in Wonderland.

-- (goget@clue.net), October 04, 2001.


Believe it or not, some of us "pacifists" have no moral or ethical problem with taking out the terrorists via clandestine Special Ops but to declare all-out war with missiles,

This shit don't work, see 9-11-01 for clues.

In fact a major case could be built(and has been by many for many decades) that it is all this secret bs behind the American Publics back which breeds these maniacs.

WE are tired of the games. We are tired of hearing the rhetoric. We are tired of hearing from bankrupt intellectuals like Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger. We are tired of hearing we need to prepare after spending half our taxdollars assuming we are ready. Ready to kill a Bin Laden millions of times over. If we cannot get him, how on earth do we figure we can deal with legitimate rogue nations like a China? Iraq? North Korea? by sending in 007?

-- (goget@clue.net), October 04, 2001.


We are tired of hearing from bankrupt intellectuals like Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger.

LOL! You consider Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger to be "bankrupt" intellectuals? Now I know that you are feral and rabid! LOL!

BTW - You say "WE are this.....WE are that...." but *I* am part of the Collective "WE" of which you speak and you certainly don't represent my sentiments so please don't be so presumptuous to ASSume that you speak on behalf of ALL Americans.

-- 1 (2@3.com), October 04, 2001.


This shit don't work, see 9-11-01 for clues.

After the Cold War we disbanded a large portion of our clandestine person-to-person intelligence gathering in favor of technological advances. It is this failure to infiltrate our enemies' camps that is partially responsible for 9-11. "This shit" as you refer to it hasn't been in heavy use by the U.S. for quite some time but I expect this to be changing as we speak. (Sheesh, don't you read or listen to the news to know that a call has been put out to Arab-speaking U.S. Muslims for exactly this purpose?

-- 1 (2@3.com), October 04, 2001.


In this piece, Michael Kelly uses the word "pacifist" to cover any opinion that disagrees with permitting President Bush to use as much military force as he may, in his wisdom, choose to use, against whatever targets he may choose to use it against. Every American who is voicing misgivings about any of the possible ways to conduct this war is lumped together, as if they all were saying the same thing for the same reasons.

This op-ed piece is an echo of the recent Bush ultimatum that any country who is not with us is against us. Seemingly, Mr. Kelly thinks this ultimatum also applies to the Americans Bush is sworn to serve. Now, it seems, you are to praise Bush's choices or you are to remain silent.

Am I the only one who feels uneasy when the only identifiable enemy in this war so far is Bush's political opposition?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 04, 2001.


No you're not, JBT. I started worrying when Ari Fleischer used the Bill Maher debacle to warn us all to watch what we say.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 04, 2001.


Whoa, you certainly AREN'T JBT, LN. The lack of sleep is getting to me.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 04, 2001.

Am I the only one who feels uneasy when the only identifiable enemy in this war so far is Bush's political opposition?

Heh. No, you're not, LN. I'm, personally, surprised that some who would defend THEIR right to dissent and the press freedoms of which THEY agree don't look at the opposing viewpoints and defend THEIR rights, as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 04, 2001.


Anita you dont even know about the economy. Go to school and keep quiet your stupidity is showing again. *YAWN*

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.

She has a right to show her stupidity and does so on a regular basis.

Just My Opinion

-- Just (my@2.cents), October 04, 2001.


I *do* believe I am in love. A penny for your thoughts.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 04, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ