Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 12:24:29 AM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>People who attack pacifists are the scum. The moronic dregs of society attack Sikhs because they look kinda brown and have a nappy on their head. Give me a pacifist any day in preference to that sort of thug. If they are so tough, they should be in the front line. Freedom includes the freedom to be a pacifist. If a state conscripts somebody, then freedom no longer exists. And that is why I ignore the (entertaining) insults and stick around...<g> George@ultrapacifistbutifutouchmygoatIwillhavetokillyou.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 12:28:12 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree, of course, about the necessary right to be a pacifist. But was thinking today about how archaic, in a way, the the underlying assumptions of the pacifist movement have become. They are really rooted in a notion of hand to hand combat, of individuals appealing one to the other's conscience, etc etc.... This is at the bottom of a communication I just today from a pacifist organization. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Former member, The Fellowship of Reconciliation Unfortunately, one had better not rely on love, either.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 12:43:06 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Some pacifists are pacifists out of genuine conviction. Some are pacifists out of convenience. Some are pacifists out of ego. Some, out of ignorance, or laziness, or inability to discern reality from daydreaming. Some even out of sheer wetting-their-pants fear. And, again, some out of genuine conviction. There are all flavors. They are not all equal in motive. There are pacifists I would "attack" in the sense of feeling no respect or empathy with them at all. There are equally pacifists I would hold in absolute respect. I don't think blanket statements either way are appropriate. I'm not scum.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 2:56:12 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There are plenty of jobs for pacifists...KP and latrine duty on the front lines are a couple....

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 1:29:15 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

People who attack pacifists are the scum. Of course they are, and I agree with everything you say about the right to be pacifist, and have at one time or another supported three pacifist groups, CCCO, WRL, and FOR, and have personally known some heroic pacifists, and went to two Quaker schools myself, but today on C-Span there are all these pacifist groups coming on, one after another, and saying or implying that September 11 is our fault, it was only "fighting back against the terrorism that emanates from our country," with not a word of criticism, even, except the moreinsorrowthaninanger references to the acts of September 11. And it makes me want to join the pacifist-attacking scum with a hefty stick. But I won't. E@polarized.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 5:24:02 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 281500

Your fathers cousin had good and just reasons for his pacifism. I question your statement; "People who attack pacifists are scum." I was listening to Michael Medved the other day. His guest was an avowed pacifist named Vera Sloan. During their conversation Vera made the statement that Americans did not fight Germans during WWll. A ridiculous statement that was immediately challenged as being false. Before he proceeded to prove her wrong, he called her scum. He admitted that he had never called anyone that had appeared on his show "scum" but was making an exception in Veras case. He then went on to explained to Vera that his uncle died in France fighting the Nazis at the age of 19. Vera is leading a group of anti-war protesters in WDC today. I hope that protest remains peaceful. I don't believe that there are many Americans who would deny them their protest. Was Michael Medved wrong in calling Vera Sloan scum? I don't think so. M

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1758)	9/29/2001 11:16:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (9) \| Respond to of 281500

Freedom includes the freedom to be a pacifist. It also includes the freedom to be an avenger, if sanctioned by the duly elected representatives of this nation. Then, as now, the United States has been threatened and attacked. For the FIRST TIME IN 130 some odd years (minus a few Japanese balloon bombs), an enemy has been able to directly attack the US mainland, in this case using our own civilian aircraft. Now I don't know about you, but I really don't want to have to live in this kind of fear for the rest of my life. I don't want to have go to sleep, as I did the night of the Pentagon attack (a few miles away), wondering if overnight a biological or chemical agent was released insider the DC beltway. This isn't over Maurice.. That was just the opening shot... and more people WILL die, and possibly in even larger quantities, if we don't identify and defeat these people who are willing to kill innocents, in their suicide attacks. I love peace just like the next guy... and most people who have served in the military have a special "interest" in seeing the nation remain at peace, because they are the ones ask to sacrifice their lives to protect it. And I can appreciate those who have convictions about not taking a human life. They can be examples for how, someday, we hope every human being will be. But I also know that being a pacifist isn't going to stop someone from plunging aircraft into my civilian buildings, nor will it stop them from using biological, and/or nuclear weapons against us in an act of mass terrorism. So people like you Uncle should have just kept their pacifist thoughts to themselves, and assisted those who went off to protect his ability to have a dissenting opinion. He had a right to think them, but trying to voice them during a time of crisis, after the nation had been attacked amounted to sedition towards those in the majority who had to do the fighting and dying. There's something to be said for an education Maurice. But there's also something known as being educated beyond your intelligence. Common sense, and a sense of principle, can be found in the most uneducated of people, but be utterly devoid of existences in the most educated scholar. And there's also something to be said for talking when discussion is warranted, and reacting appropriately AND DECISIVELY, when action was taken against you and your people. There exists an entire nation of Americans who are angry that we've been attacked and 6,000 innocents are dead at the hands of some suicide bombers. And for folks, similar to your uncle after Pearl Harbor, to claim we're NOT justified in feeling that anger and demanding action, are just truly in a different reality of your academic making. An education is supposed to help you understand how the world works and how to operate within it (human interaction and psychology). You can hardly claim to have been educated if you insist on spewing a view of reality that bears no resemblance to the world you're living in, or the motivations of the people who surround you. Hawk