I am not a Pacifist

[DragonMage]

Originally posted by mistral4543: Sorry if I appear to be intruding, but this topic is very engrossing and I just wanted to ask if it is really so wrong to kill in self-defence. Each time I watch a movie that has aggressors stalking their prey, I keep wondering if I would have my wits about to survive such an encounter. Under any survival-of-the-fittest situation, I would have thought it perfectly natural to fight for one's life (or the life of a beloved).

Well, being mostly non-violent myself, I feel that I would definitely have no qualms defending myself or anyone else that was in trouble. I was married to an abusive man for several years and it got so bad at one point that he pointed a loaded .22 rifle at my head from 5 feet away. That turned me from a completely non-violent person into someone who, at times, could visualize killing him. It scared the crap out of me to think I could have such violent thoughts. It has also made me less tolerant to abusiveness, whether that be name-calling, harrassment or physical threat.

I would never seek to hurt or kill an agressor, but if it happened as a result of a struggle for self-preservation or to save someone else, I don't think I'd feel too guilty about it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I wouldn't berate myself for it either.

------------------

The day we stop learning is the day we start dying!(c)

Owner/operator of the Evil Petting Zoo and devout member of the HADB clan.
Commander of the Dragon Fleet, IW Peacekeeping Force
Honored to be a member of the Illuminati - may the Light shine forever!
Mage extraordinair.
Occasional minion to Gwhanos the Fluffy

Hopeless Romantic *sigh*

"Allright! We'll call it a draw."

[Yorick]

Originally posted by mistral4543: Sorry if I appear to be intruding, but this topic is very engrossing and I just wanted to ask if it is really so wrong to kill in self-defence. Each time I watch a movie that has aggressors stalking their prey, I keep wondering if I would have my wits about to survive such an encounter. Under any survival-of-the-fittest situation, I would have thought it perfectly natural to fight for one's life (or the life of a beloved).

Fighting for ones life is not the same as fighting to end anothers.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[ScottR]

I must say Dio I have difficulty in weighing up the logic of your arguments.

The principle of not taking innocent life is, of course a noble one and we can say with some degree out conviction that our respective governments share it.

I do not, however, believe that it is unavoidable. The idea of using a small group of special forces to track and assassinate Bin Laden is a little fanciful. Despite the best efforts in the world such groups would rely on intelligence reports in a detail we could not hope to gain. The gulf war and experiences of the SAS members who were captured highlight this admirably (e.g. Bravo Two Zero).

I have just finished reading the "Memoirs of a Geisha", a Japanese woman who was alive during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The book was in no way focused on these events but it was interesting to read the tale of a culture who we considered to be a mortal enemy.

In the decades since the war much debate has been made on whether or not to use the A bomb was justified. which ever side you might think 2 things were true.

1. The loss of US life in an invasion would have been tremendous.
2. No realistic settlement could have been made diplomatically.

I am in no way making a direct comparison but the decision was made, hundreds of thousands of civilian casulties ensued and American lives were saved. I was devastated at the attack on the World Trade Centre. In Bin Laden I see a man who does not discriminate between military and civilian targets and who would cheerfully deploy any weapon that was available to him. At some point a decision will be made relating to the scale of attack made against him and I for one believe the consequences of failure to be high. We can't fight with one arm tied behind our back. The situation in Afghanistan is vastly different to the one faced during WW2 but I hope the decision that is made concerns itself first and foremost with the protection of the lives of the US & Allies troops.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Just thought I would make that clear, since there seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about that from some of the recent debates here on what actions should be taken in response to the WTC destruction. Liliara even implied that I and some others arguing against the War approach in this case, at this time, would sit by and watch our own children be slaughtered before our eyes by bloodthirsty criminals, even if we could stop it by the use of force. Well, to make it clear, Liliara and others who have mistakenly concluded that is my position . . . I am not against violence at all as a means of protecting innocent life. I believe in the right of self-defense, and to own a gun if one desires for that purpose. I believe in the death penalty. I believe a person has every right to absolutely beat the livin' hell out of an aggressor, and to kill him if necessary, to defend the his own life, or the life of his family, or the life of a complete stranger. This IS our law in this land. I believe it is effective and just. I support the principles behind it in every way. Liliara, to satisfy your apparent belief that to be a Real American Man one has to be ready and able to use macho killing for the Cause, let me just say that to save the life of my children, or other innocents, I would be vicious and ruthless and unmerciful. Though I have never had too, I can and would kill someone who would dare threaten innocent children like that. I can and would kill to protect the life of an innocent stranger, of whatever nationality, race, creed, or religion. In my opinon, the people that would deserve killing in such situations have forfeited their right to life. By their own actions they have renounced allegiance to the mutual understanding in society with other people that such things are not to be done. You misunderstand what I am saying totally if you think that my opposition to treating this like a War with Afghanistan or a large part of Afghanistan comes from Pacifistic views or feelings. Just wanted to clear that up

At last something we can agree upon! I agree with your statement above 100%!

BTW who's going to beat SC this weekend?


------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: At last something we can agree upon! I agree with your statement above 100%! BTW who's going to beat SC this weekend?

Dio have you been yanking my chain all this time?
Sir T. BAMA



------------------

Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

[Memnoch]

Just some quick thoughts as I'm still on holidays here in Australia's Top End and so have not kept up with the threads but I just thought I would make a couple of comments. People seem to be confusing a reluctance to indulge in immediate military action with pacifism? I didn't think they were the same thing. Use whatever tools are required to deliver to justice (dead or alive) those proven to be responsible for those slain in the attacks on WTC - surgical strikes, commando raids, diplomatic pressure, bombing raids, etc. if they are deemed to add value to the ultimate goal and will minimize collateral damage - but let's be smart about what we do, and who we do it to.

Speaking of collateral damage -don't you love that term? So dehumanizing, like talking about sprites on a computer screen. Let's pretend that we have a relative working in Kabul who might be at risk of being "collaterally damaged" (like I did in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War) and see if we are still able to throw that term around in such a cavalier fashion.

I think some of the issues we need to look at are:

- the SHORT-TERM solution - bringing the perpetrators to justice and destroying/emasculating the network of organizations/nations which train/supply/fund these terrorists). This is easier because we have a clear moral purpose, which is to deliver justice to those who lost their lives on September 11 and to eradicate terrorism - NOT to assuage the injured pride of a superpower (the HOW DARE THEY! syndrome).

- as well as a LONG-TERM solution - looking at the causal factors which have facilitated such inflamed passions, beliefs and hatreds (misguided though they may be) which can cause fellow human beings to overcome the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and sacrifice themselves for a cause that they BELIEVE is right. We need to be careful that we don't get caught up in an unwinnable tit-for-tat conflict like the Israelis and Palestinians - they blow up a couple of buildings, we kill a major terrorist leader, they retaliate by blowing up a US Embassy, we retaliate by bombing Kabul, and so on.

More importantly, we all need to think of what ways can America and the rest of the civilized world influence some of the factors that are driving these feelings of hatred towards Americans/Westerners and ask ourselves if a) we want to do anything about it; and b) if so, what can/will we do about it. Some of these factors, such as the way groups like the Taliban use the hopeless situation for many Muslims in the middle east as fuel for their extremist, militant, destructive view of Islam, may unfortunately prove beyond the scope of the West to influence. Is it in the collective best interests of Western nations to try and leverage some of the more moderate Islamic nations to mediate, or do we just say stuff it! and nuke all the bastards?

Nobody said that finding a solution to the long-term problem would be easy.

Sorry, but my time at this internet cafe is just about up, I hope I've given you guys some food for thought. Sweet water and light laughter till next, I'll be back soon for soft songs and bright wine.

------------------




[This message has been edited by Memnoch (edited 09-28-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

A lucid summary of the situation, Memnoch. Good post.

[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 09-28-2001).]

[Nachtrafe]

BTW...Just for the record, since Dio brought it up. I'm one of those gun toting rednecks. I have a conceal and carry permit, I practice regularly at the local shooting range(see below) and own several weapons besides guns. I have studied martial arts since I was a young teen and have been in a few scraps, all barehanded, and none fatal.

Heck...given the chance, I'd love to take the shot at that sonofabitch(Bin Laden) myself. Course, I'm fat and slow. But, someone at my gun club came up with an ingenious idea. He found a picture, blew it up, ptinted it out and made a bunch of copies. Then he took it down to the club and started blowing holes in it. Some of us joined in. The club got a copy, made a few thousand and started selling them five bucks a pop. They've made several thousand dollars so far. Its all going straight to the 9-11 fund. So John D...if you need some target practice for that sniper rifle, just let me know. I still have a dozen of so. Love the sig.

Memnoch...Awesome post!!!

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Just some quick thoughts as I'm still on holidays here in Australia's Top End and so have not kept up with the threads but I just thought I would make a couple of comments. People seem to be confusing a reluctance to indulge in immediate military action with pacifism? I didn't think they were the same thing. Use whatever tools are required to deliver to justice (dead or alive) those proven to be responsible for those slain in the attacks on WTC - surgical strikes, commando raids, diplomatic pressure, bombing raids, etc. if they are deemed to add value to the ultimate goal and will minimize collateral damage - but let's be smart about what we do, and who we do it to. Speaking of collateral damage -don't you love that term? So dehumanizing, like talking about sprites on a computer screen. Let's pretend that we have a relative working in Kabul who might be at risk of being "collaterally damaged" (like I did in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War) and see if we are still able to throw that term around in such a cavalier fashion. I think some of the issues we need to look at are: - the SHORT-TERM solution - bringing the perpetrators to justice and destroying/emasculating the network of organizations/nations which train/supply/fund these terrorists). This is easier because we have a clear moral purpose, which is to deliver justice to those who lost their lives on September 11 and to eradicate terrorism - NOT to assuage the injured pride of a superpower (the HOW DARE THEY! syndrome). - as well as a LONG-TERM solution - looking at the causal factors which have facilitated such inflamed passions, beliefs and hatreds (misguided though they may be) which can cause fellow human beings to overcome the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and sacrifice themselves for a cause that they BELIEVE is right. We need to be careful that we don't get caught up in an unwinnable tit-for-tat conflict like the Israelis and Palestinians - they blow up a couple of buildings, we kill a major terrorist leader, they retaliate by blowing up a US Embassy, we retaliate by bombing Kabul, and so on. More importantly, we all need to think of what ways can America and the rest of the civilized world influence some of the factors that are driving these feelings of hatred towards Americans/Westerners and ask ourselves if a) we want to do anything about it; and b) if so, what can/will we do about it. Some of these factors, such as the way groups like the Taliban use the hopeless situation for many Muslims in the middle east as fuel for their extremist, militant, destructive view of Islam, may unfortunately prove beyond the scope of the West to influence. Is it in the collective best interests of Western nations to try and leverage some of the more moderate Islamic nations to mediate, or do we just say stuff it! and nuke all the bastards? Nobody said that finding a solution to the long-term problem would be easy. Sorry, but my time at this internet cafe is just about up, I hope I've given you guys some food for thought. Sweet water and light laughter till next, I'll be back soon for soft songs and bright wine.

Brilliant post, Memnoch. You have summarised the attitude of many of us very well indeed.

An interesting point was mentioned on UK radio this morning: that ONE of the major fears of SOME Islamic countries is that Western values will have a bad effect on the status of their women, and that is one reason they fear and hate our culture.
My comment on this: I think all patriarchal cultures are afraid of women 'breaking free' and claiming equality of rights; it upsets what they consider the 'natural superiority' of the male. Such change would turn their cultures upside down - it is no wonder they don't want it to happen. They are afraid of our equal rights culture and thus it is one factor in their hatred of us - maybe a major factor?

------------------



Dubbed Queen of the Illuminati by Diogenes.

[Reeka]

First, I must state up-front that I am not nor will I attempt to be objective about this. Though, I am not a violent person, and abhor violence as the answer or solution in any given situation, violence is a part of our lives. I would dare to go so far as to say that if we look, we, ourselves personally, or someone we know has had violence intrude upon their lives.

I think pacifism is an admirable philosophy but basically unworkable. I, myself, have experienced violence in a personal sense. (Victim of two violent crimes.) First, I wish I had had the ability and means to protect myself. Secondly, I admit to wanting the perpetrators of these crimes to suffer in the same way I have. I just want it clear that I am not nor will attempt to be objective on this subject.

As terrible as it may be, I believe that sometimes you have to take lives to save lives. I know that this appears to be a contradiction in terms; however, I think one has to consider the overall picture. I believe that to know to "do good" and not do it, is as bad as committing a bad act to begin with. I remember (vaguely so if anyone knows the details please help me here)a case where a woman was raped and murdered in front of many witnesses. No one intervened on her behalf. I believe these people have her blood on their hands as much as the man who committed the crime.

I believe that violence, even justifiable violence, is always the path of last resort for right-thinking people. But to do nothing to stop evil and destruction, is to become a passive collaborator.

I do agree that those who should be vilified are those who bring about the circumstances that require people to take such action. The responsibility I believe rests with them and them alone.

There is no easy answer or ideal solution. I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone, but I truly believe that having been in violent situations does color one's point of view, essentially making it very difficult to continue to hold to a completely pacifistic point of view.



------------------
Order of the Holy Flame
Member of Clan HADB
Laughing Hyena
Clan Illuminati