The OP is pointless, the enemy has assault rifles, you’ve got bows and arrows. Everybody dies, pacifists or not. Problem solved!
You’re not living up to your username. There’s so many schemes and tactical possibilities.
[ul]
[li]Potemkin Village and or faking your numbers, strength, arms ala Sahara et al.[/li][li]Temporarily leaving the city and guerilla fighting, complete with booby trapping the shit out of everything. Punji sticks. Tiger traps. You can improvise caltrops with nails and pliers.[/li][li]Taking any possible terrain advantage to create bottlenecks where just a handful of IEDs could win the day. You don’t even need gunpowder. You could make a fertiliser one.[/li][li]Infiltrating their group. Spycraft. [/li][li]Kidnapping important members and/or prized women. Even children.[/li][li]Putting up a billboard that warns of quarantine. Smallpox, plague, hell - even bedbugs.[/li][li]If all else fails, go scorched/salted earth. If you can’t hold it, deny it out of spite.[/li][/ul]
An obvious Welshman, and thus to be ignored. 
The situation isn’t parallel anyway. Immanuel and his followers ARE at the front, and refusing to contribute to the defense. They are profiting from the blood spilt by others on their behalf, and yet condemning those who fall in their defense as murderers.
Why in the name of Athena daughter of Metis daughter of Tethys daughter of Gaia the never-born are you quoting Watchmen–in particular, the series’ most personally-violent character–in support of (I presume) a pacifist position?
It’s an idiotic sentiment anyway. Civilization is all about compromise. Two groups of persons are refusing to compromise in this scenario: the raiders (who want to murder many of the Citizens and enslave the rest) and the pacifists (who refuse to even assist in their own defense). The Council had been willing to compromise with the pacifists–permitting them to opt out of offensive actions so long as they assisted in defense by engaging in sentry duty and weapons fab–but have been moved to the motions on the table (the latter of which is clearly unethical and foolish) by Immanuel’s lack of compromise.
MrDibble, do you believe Immanuel’s position is moral?
Given those answers, MrDibble, what would YOU do in this situation? Would you be content to stay in a fort that’s being protected by violence, or would you leave the fort so that you’d have nothing to do with the violence? If you stayed, would you engage in actions that indirectly aided the violence (e.g., cooking the food that the defenders would need in order to keep their strength up in order to kill the raiders), or would you refuse to help?
What would you do, as a pacifist?
This is a confusing poll. I voted YES, “for” giving food to the pacifists. But it seems you guys want it to mean NO. Weird.
Morality doesn’t change because the situation changes. The pacifists have done nothing wrong. They just disagree with you. To deprive them of food is to murder them. To exile them is to murder them. Slavery is so wrong I can’t believe you are suggesting it. And, of course, cannibalism requires murder.
Murder is wrong. Full stop. If your society can’t survive without murder, then it has no business existing at all. There are plenty of jobs that these people can perform.
And, anyways, why the fuck aren’t you making an example of the one leader if you think he’s the immoral one? Even if you really think you have to kill to get your point across, why in the world will you kill more than necessary?
Maybe the zombie uprising happened for a reason.
While I don’t agree with Rorschach’s own principles or methods, I do admire his willingness to follow them through to the end.
Way I see it, it’s only ever the disempowered who are called on to “compromise”. It’s only when they realise their own power that they get to stop (e.g. civil rights movement)
You say “lack of compromise”, I say “taking his principles to their end”
Yes
I’d be happy to stay when it’s just zombies being violently repelled - they’re not human. I’d leave when it becomes human-on-human violence.
Man! You sure do like to play ‘what if’, Skald! 
You seem to be operating under the delusion that any preventable death qualifies as murder. This is untrue. For a death to be murder it must be caused without legal authority, and as the tie-breaker our decision carries the weight of law.
I find your argument that failing to feed the pacifists is murder especially astonishing. Do you live in a society in which all are provided free food (and presumably shelter and all other needs) at demand or do you accuse your government of murder? What are you doing posting on a message board when you could be taking the poor into your home and feeding, washing, and clothing them?
This wouldn’t have come to a vote, because I would have had Immanuel and his buddies tossed over the wall the first time they pulled that shit and refused to defend the city.
You don’t SEEM to be new…
I wrote the OP. I did not suggest slavery or cannibalism, and I voted against exile. And while I voted for putting the pacifists on bread & water (which I’ve changed my mind about, incidentally), I did not suggest depriving them of food entirely.
It’s not the pacifists’ refusal to fight that I think might warrant reducing their rations; it’s their refusal to do sentry duty or assist in making weapons. They are benefiting from everyone else’s work to protect the City, yet refusing to participate and simultaneously calling the soldiers & weapons-makers murderers. That makes them, at a minimum, jackasses.
I’m not sure what you mean by murder, incidentally. Is killing members of the beseiging army murder? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way.
Nah. Most horrible things happen for no reason whatsodamnever (by which I mean they’re not in response to human action).
I don’t think you’d have been able to. The Chief is clearly not an absolute ruler. It’s a rotating position on an elected council. Obviously there are laws the Chief has to obey.
It worked for Josephus.