Pacifism is evil, by this logic.
The people should be supporting the people who are ensuring their freedoms!
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"
As we see the organized efforts of the so called peace or Antiwar.com side, these simple words of Orwell should be a standard response to all of their treason attempts. This is how they stopped us in the Viet Nam war, which resulted in the slaughter of millions after we left Nam!
bite me.
Well said. It is perhaps fortuitous that, if this attack had to come, that it came now and woke us up to the true danger of terrorism before they had weapons of mass destruction to use against us.
Yes, not only EVIL but COWARDLY too. Not necesarrily because those who expouse it are physical cowards--some may be, but others are not: but because it is MORAL COWARDICE that provides a convenient absolute that allows pacifists not only to avoid facing responsibility for their actions (or inaction), but to feel MORALLY SUPERIOR while doing so.
Where a thoroughgoing pacifism really breaks down, in my opinion, is that it devalues human life. If the lives of one's own family, one's own neighbors and one's own countrymen are not worth fighting for, then what is. John Lennon was wrong, there are things worth living and dying for.
Of course, coming from the same liberal left that argues that a fetus is not a human, the pacifist's effort to further devalue human life is no big surprise.
Just a note here, because to be fair, I personally believe that a 'My country right or wrong' attitude is just as demeaning to human life because it places ideology over human life. Sometimes our country is flat wrong and that is why from time to time we must stand up and say so. But in this case, the wrong position, yes the immoral postion, for our country to take would be for us to do nothing. We must respond and we must respond with all the force that is necessary to take a stand for the 7,000 souls who died as victims of this terrible evil.
A failure to respond would be to say that those 7,000 people were really of no value. When the God of the universe died on a cross for those 7,000 people He made the ultimate statement regarding the value of human life. If we fail to act it may well be that we are denying Him.
"The Field of Time is root in conflict: all life is based on warfare."
I've noted before how remarkable it is that "pacifist" sounds so much like "pansyfist".
Now that the lines have been drawn there is only to set the parameters of combat and take the ground that has always been coveted, the high ground. In this war our high ground has been personal freedom and liberty; we will need to retreat ever so slightly. Theirs has been theological aloofness; it will need to be humbled.
The symbol of our liberty, manifested in the statue that stands in New York harbor, may have been, for all we know, a target—one that would have struck us dumbfound, surely as the destruction of the White House, public building or any of our peaceful surroundings.
We need now, to respond in kind, not only as in a Doolittle type raid of vindication, but also in a demonstration of resolve as to our intentions. We need to strike at a symbol that occupies an area of their high ground—Mohamed’s grave. In this grave there lies the said remains of the being that has hijacked liberty, freedom, Americanism, and Muslim faith. He is the antithesis of all of that, which is common between Muslim and Judean-Christian teachings. His name, memory and teachings need to be obliterated for all time.
Our grand children need never learn of his name. So to, those who would conjure up his name for the sake of personal justification and vengeance need to be removed from the scene. Any and all organizations, which are said to owe allegiance to this anti-Christ, must be expunged for all time.
We must carry the weight of it on our souls in order that no future generation will. We must pay the price in order that our liberties will not.
He was a proud 'pacifist' when first elected.
My bet: his desire to stay in the Senate is stronger than his ideology. He is no longer a pacifist.
Thanks! Your posting of this article is why I contribute to FreeRepublic on an automatic monthly basis and come to FreeRepublic for most of my news! Kudos! Rush may have picked it up from your post!
Thanks for this from Kelley's article:
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'!"
Substitute Pro Arab Terrorist for Pro-Fascist, and Orwell's statement is up todate after 9/11!
Check it out at --- http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010926-16894360.htm
Perhaps they hadn't heard that the IMF/World Bank conference was cancelled. That would explain why a group of about 90 anti-something individuals showed up Monday at Farragut Square to protest globalization, er, free trade, er, the anticipated U.S. response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – and why thousands of others plan to join them this weekend."I just came down from Boston to be a part of whatever protest I could find," said one participant, who presumably carried additional posterboard, or possibly even interchangeable placards. ...
But more than anything else, participation in the protest circuit provides the smug, self-righteous satisfaction that comes with knowing that parading around parks named after deceased admirals and shouting slogans at high volume is all that is necessary to solve all the world's problems, including racism, sexism and yes, terrorism. Surely, even Osama bin Laden would have come around if only he had seen the "Restraint is not retaliation" sign featured at Monday's rally....
The IAC is predicting that "thousands" of its clueless brethren will show up for a rally in Washington this Saturday, which, shockingly, is scheduled to start at noon. It should certainly be easy to pick them out: Each of them will be brimming with indignation . . . and carrying an interchangeable placard.