2
   

Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 07:31 am
Why doesn't a2k have an ignore function so that members who only post moronic repsonses can be totally ignored?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 07:34 am
I can't answer. I'm ignoring you.

(I keeed! I keeed!!)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 11:10 am
InfraBlue wrote:
A bunch of stuff that does not address my post


Read the whole article instead of the single paragraph I posted. You might learn something.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 11:43 am
Pacifism is an ideal...

Maybe some day the world will live in peace to such a degree that people can be pacifists and not be considered cowards.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 11:56 am
RexRed wrote:
Pacifism is an ideal...

Maybe some day the world will live in peace to such a degree that people can be pacifists and not be considered cowards.


keep dreaming....
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 11:56 am
RexRed wrote:
Pacifism is an ideal...

Maybe some day the world will live in peace to such a degree that people can be pacifists and not be considered cowards.


A sadly uneducated notion.

Pacifism is merely a preference for avoiding war and slaughter. It is no more an "ideal" (by which you apparently intend to mean something quite unattainable) than other desired values such as "democracy" or "equality" or "proper treatment of American soldiers in captivity".

To equate preference for avoiding war with cowardice makes is no more rational than to equate wimpiness with a refusal to torture American soldiers held captive.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 11:59 am
blatham wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Pacifism is an ideal...

Maybe some day the world will live in peace to such a degree that people can be pacifists and not be considered cowards.


A sadly uneducated notion.

Pacifism is merely a preference for avoiding war and slaughter. It is no more an "ideal" (by which you apparently intend to mean something quite unattainable) than other desired values such as "democracy" or "equality" or "proper treatment of American soldiers in captivity".

To equate preference for avoiding war with cowardice makes is no more rational than to equate wimpiness with a refusal to torture American soldiers held captive.


It is either kill or be killed. I don't totally agree with you on this.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 12:07 pm
Consider the matter this way.

Were Japanese who argued against war with America cowards? Or German citizens who refused to join Hitler's armies - were they cowards? Muslims who refuse to join jihaad (by far the majority of Muslims) because they would prefer to avoid the carnage of war...are they cowards?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 03:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
A bunch of stuff that does not address my post


Read the whole article instead of the single paragraph I posted. You might learn something.


InfraBlue wrote:
a bunch of stuff specifically dealing with the UN Special Emergency Sessions that you specifically referred to in your post.


As to the rest of the article which was written by Morris B. Abram, chairman of United Nations Watch, and a board member of the World Jewish Congress, it's also full of emotional responses and contradictions concerning the UN and some of the Arab member nations. Abram bitches about Israel being condemned for violating the fourth Geneva Convention, which he implies doesn't apply to Israel because it "grew out of the Nazi occupation of Europe." "Thus," he rationalizes, " that Convention will now be employed against the people who were Hitler's victims." He believes that because the Ashkenazim were victims of the Holocaust, Israel should be exempt from a treaty that attempts to ensure the humane treatment of civilians during war. Abram is a raving hypocrite.

Abram writes, "though Israel has been the subject of aggressive wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and the victim of countless terrorist attacks, the Security Council and the General Assembly have never once censured its assailants." To make his claim, he conveniently ignores the fact that Israel, or more precisely, the Zionists were themselves assailants in the 1948 war which was the ultimate extension of the violence and strife that had been building up between them and the Arabs since the Zionists' arrival en masse to Palestine since the early part of the 20th century. In the 1967 war, it was Israel who initiated the violence, striking first at the forces Egypt had amassed at the border with Israel. Of these three wars, the '73 one is the only one in which Israel was truly surprised attacked by Egypt and Syria.

Abram goes on to write about specifically "anti-Semitic reverbations" in the UN, outrageous libels that go unchallenged, and cites as examples the instance during the 1991 session in which Syria's UN ambassador repeated the infamous Damascus Blood Libel. Contradictorily, he himself states that this libel was challenged on record through US pressure. He also cites the instance at a 1997 session of the UN's Human Rights Commission where Nabil Ramlawi, the Palestinian observer delegate to that commission cited a supposed Israeli newspaper claim that the Israeli Government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. What Abram doesn't include in his article is that in the Right of Reply which goes into the minutes of these meetings, the Israel ambassador to this commission, Yosef Lamdan, went on record denying that Israel had injected the HIV/AIDS virus into 300 young Palestinians during the intifadah, and calling Ramlawi a liar. (source) Later, Lamdan submitted a letter to the Commission's president pointing to a full retraction of the HIV story by the Egyptian paper al-Ahram, from which Ramlawi actually got his story, stating that it was completely false. Apparently, no one but Abram paid much mind to Ramlawi's outlandish claims, because, as Lamdan explained to the press soon after that meeting, "The Palestinian observer has never had a reputation for accuracy and integrity, but today he has surpassed himself."(source)

Finally, as another example of anti-Semitism at the UN Abram writes, "since the Oslo accords, 259 Israelis have been killed and 5000 injured by Palestinian terror attacks. During the same period, 34 resolutions deploring Israel were passed at the UN, but not one against the terror attacks." What the UN concerns itself with is its member nations and their actions in regard to UN resolutions. Terrorist groups are not members of the UN.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 05:17 pm
blatham wrote:
Consider the matter this way.
Were Japanese who argued against war with America cowards? Or German citizens who refused to join Hitler's armies - were they cowards? Muslims who refuse to join jihaad (by far the majority of Muslims) because they would prefer to avoid the carnage of war...are they cowards?


Were Jews and Germans who did not resist Hitler cowards? Were Americans who did not help try to prevent the Japanese invasion cowards? Are Muslims cowards, whose own "sacred" religion they do not try to cleanse of radical murdering terrorists?

Well maybe they were/are not exactly "cowards" but they are also not directly part of the solution that leads to "liberation". Were they to resist inequality, injustice and terror within their own people in an organized way, the "war" may end "sooner" rather than later...
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 05:54 pm
The funny thing about pacifism is when some body is cornered and being threatened with bodily harm suddenly pacifism becomes the greatest ideology on the planet. They suddenly see the great virtues of pacifism.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 08:23 pm
Pacifists mooch off of the freedom that others sacrifice themselves for. Pacifism is an oxymoron. It negates itself in morality. The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jul, 2006 08:31 pm
RexRed wrote:
Pacifists mooch off of the freedom that others sacrifice themselves for. Pacifism is an oxymoron. It negates itself in morality. The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.


As opposed to murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions. I call that real value for life.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 12:36 am
edgarblythe wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Pacifists mooch off of the freedom that others sacrifice themselves for. Pacifism is an oxymoron. It negates itself in morality. The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.


As opposed to murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions. I call that real value for life.


And WHO would these "murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions" be? Suicide bombers?

When your neighbor tries to kill you you have to either retaliate or keep facing attack until they kill you. Even DUMB wild animals understand this. It is called SURVIVAL... Or, you can be a pussy wimp and let terrorists behead you in the name of countless virgins they will receive in paradise for killing the infidel! What idiots.

How can one respond humanely when other humans desire to "wipe you off the face of the earth"?. If humans are going to behave in a wild and uncivilized manner than we have to respond in a like manner in order to survive. Anyone who cannot see the danger in allowing the "enemy" to infiltrate your home base is a FOOL...

It would be nice if we could get all Buddha and Gandhi on people but as long as there is murder and evil in the world and people who desire to do harm to innocent people there will be the need for self defence.

Humans can be much more cunning and treacherous than lions. Anyone who cannot understand the concept of self defence needs to spend a few minutes in a cage with some lions at the zoo.

Pacifism is like swimming and drownding at the same time. Why bother to even exert the effort to stay afloat? Why bother to swim to shore? Why be born at all?

Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:59 am
Quote:
Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...

What are you citing here in these two quotes?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:58 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
slkshock7 wrote:
Author may have gone a bit too far, but I agree that your typical peace movement, despite good intentions, is almost always exploited by our enemies. In fact, I'd argue that our enemies see the peace movement as strong surrogates who can take their cause and fight their battles on our own soil...

I suppose this is in contrast to America's war movement, whose good intentions for Iraq haven't been exploited by AlQuaeda, who turned that country into a recruiting pool and terrorist battleground?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:10 am
RexRed wrote:
The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.


When I look at the pacists around here - all Christians, Catholic and Evangelical ... You might be right.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:30 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...

What are you citing here in these two quotes?


Col 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:34 am
RexRed wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...

What are you citing here in these two quotes?


Col 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


That doesn't quite do the trick.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
RexRed wrote:
The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.


When I look at the pacists around here - all Christians, Catholic and Evangelical ... You might be right.


It is an illusion, pacifism seems to be the holy road to respecting life but it has no provision to preserve life.. I would love to be a pacifist but I cannot ideally sit by as others die for "freedom".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/20/2024 at 11:46:18