I’m suprised nobody brought this up, but the first thing that came to my mind at the title was the beating of journalist Robert Fisk in Afghanistan in December 2001. Obviously we’ll never know the post-murder thoughts of the woman mentioned in the OP, but it seems utterly ridiculous to me that Fisk could still be a pacifist - in fact, glorify his beaters - after that incident. Then again, I never much liked Fisk to begin with.
Makes me remember one of the least known episode in the history of the Roman Empire: The last gladiators fight. A priest (I don’t remember the name) threw himself in the arena and started preaching to the mob about the santity of human life. The angry people murdered him but were afterwards so shocked that as I said before that was the last fight of the kind recorded. All this happened during the reign of Honorio and Arcadio (Teodosio’s sons).
Every time soemone criticizes a pacifist I remember that priest, one have to admire someone who is willing to give his live for a good cause, that guy surely grasped that the results of his actions could mean the end of his life… and he acted nonetheless (this is assuming, of course that he wasn’t mentally ill in wich case we should pity him the more). To the op… I’ll wait till someone moves this to the pit.
Um, John Brown-the abolitionist? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he and his sons go off on a killing spree, butchering six people?
I try not to notice him now, and certainly deny ever noticing before.
If you can provide a cite which indicate that any of these people walked into a closed hostage situation which was being controlled by dozens of terrorists, ready to die, armed with automatic weapons and explosives – at the very least – all alone and in direct defiance of the orders of the police authority who were themselves planning a strategy meant to end the situation in light of the reality of its severity, then I might reconsider my appelation.
In the meantime, since they all demonstrated - to my knowledge - more prudence and sense in their dealings with the violent, I’ll stick with my original thoughts - this woman was not acting in anyone’s interests but her own.
[quote]
Is that really so difficult to suss out? The terrorists said that no one could enter without their express permission. She didn’t have that permission. These were not rational or calm people, they could’ve well chosen to regard her breech into their perimeter as a reason to kill a few hostages as a “lesson” or in order to scare her. Once again, these were people with automatic weapons and explosives. It was impossible for this woman to know how they would react to her willful decision to walk into the theater – she was risking a lot more than her own life.
All the bases were covered here, just a very twisted OP.
But on another note, I find it rather sad that there is an actual derogatory nickname for people who are interested in peace. Too many people think that peace and pacifism are idealist fantasies and not attainable goals.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Lumpy said:
Well ya know what? I do.
Normally, I’d move this to the Pit. But I feel in kind of a hateful mood. So I’m just closing it. I invite all those who feel the need to go flame Lumpy in a new Pit thread (presuming one hasn’t already been started).
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]