From Byron York:
Following up on Shannen's point, Obama's decision to contest the William
Ayers ad brings a result that's not terribly positive for his campaign: a big story in USA Today. And there's this gem
near the end of the piece:
Tom Hayden, an anti-war activist who met Ayers in the 1960s and later
was elected to the California Legislature, says Ayers' past should be
forgiven."I have met and like John McCain, but he bombed, and presumably killed,
many people in a war I opposed," Hayden says. "If I can set all that aside, I
would hope that Americans will accept" that Ayers has changed, too.
08/26 09:57 AM
5 comments:
So a soldier, fighting in a war authorized by the US Congress and wearing a uniform identifying himself as a combatant is the moral equivalent of a domestic terrorist?
The premise is that there is no justification for war. That ALL killing is murder. That self-defense is murder.
That the ONLY moral response to violence is suicide...or slavery.
If that is what you believe, then you have your leader in Obama.
And you are well on your way to creating a world in which the Hitler's, Lenin's and Stalin's triumph.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." B. Franklin
Geoffrey,
I like the way you put it.
Mahatma Gandhi, the man known for his "Pacifism", told the Jewish people he thought they ought to give in to Hitler, because Hitler would take pity on them.
My question is, if that is Gandhi's opinion on Hitler, then what is the effective difference between Hitler and Gandhi?
Nothing.
The same result will follow from the ideas of both men.
That's absolutist Pacifism for you. It is murder in a bunny uniform. It is, perhaps, in its sly way, the most evil ideology on the face of the earth.
"My question is, if that is Gandhi's opinion on Hitler, then what is the effective difference between Hitler and Gandhi?"
There is a difference but it is the 'difference' of 'the other side of the coin'.
Hitler is an example of a man willing and eager to do whatever he deems necessary to achieve his goals. Just as radical Islamic terrorists do today. In both, there is a fundamental aspect of sadism in their actions.
It reminds me of the man who said, "It is not enough that I win, others must suffer"
Some might say that the opposite of Hitler would be a saint.
While in some ways Ghandi was a saint, a closer examination of his thoughts reveals him to also be an example of the true opposite of Hitler's sadism...the masochist.
Pacifism's answer to evil is masochism.
Masochism explains much of the left's positions vis a vis evil.
Liberal pacifists reject and deny the culpability of personal responsibility and accountability.
That denial results in the premise that it is not the sadist's fault that they are the way they are but 'circumstance' thus pacifists must suffer to atone and therefore redeem the sadist.
Pacifism, because of its masochistic nature is the dysfunctional enabler of sadism.
It is just as sick but characterized by denial.
Just as the addicted are commonly rejected by their dysfunctional partner, when the addicted get 'sober'.
It's a form of a mental disease, individually semi-benign but collectively, it's a form of insanity.
The promulgation of which can only lead a society to national suicide (the loss of nationhood) or slavery; better known within Islam as dhimmitude.
Jesus was a pacifist
"Jesus was a pacifist"
Jesus did advise us to 'turn the other cheek' and to 'render onto Ceaser'...
He also said, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"-"Matthew 10:34
And he violently drove the money changers out of the temple.
Jesus was a 'way-shower'.
Sometimes peace can only be achieved through violence.
That is why the American eagle symbol holds the olive branch of peace in its right talons and the arrows of war in its left.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
Post a Comment