Dear Camilla:
        I am sure it will be no surprise to you that I wish to register a response
to some of your comments that referenced my last posting to the list. I
want to thank also those who chose to register their approval of that
posting directly to my e-mail address.

You wrote:
  "You may be right---but may I ask you to think about the things you
have read--by Middle Eastern scholars and respected journalists like
Tom Friedman's piece in the NYTimes--that urge us to avoid a
knee-jerk reaction and understand the *causes* of their wish to
destroy us? Unless we do that, just wiping out the current batch of
terrorists will accomplish nothing--except to add fuel to the hatred
of the next generation. Or do you propose that we kill all the
children too? Even administration officials and members of Congress
have stated as Rep.Lewis of Califionia (sic) said on the radio tonight,
that we "have no intention of carpet-bombing Afghanistan" , perhaps
because they realize how ineffective and difficult that would be.
Just ask the Russians, who tried with our help to conquer the
Afghans---as no one has succeeded in doing in 500 years ! "

Response:
        I respectfully submit that nowhere will you find that I proposed killing
"all" of any group, much less children. The fact there were many children
on the 4 hijacked airplanes made no difference to the terrorists, however.
        Could it be that "we have no intention of carpet bombing Afghans" because
we realize that a significant portion of the Afghan population does not
recognize the Taliban, are in rebellion and control a significant, though
small, portion of the countryside. These are some of the people that the U.
S. supplied with material to resist the Soviets. I can easily see that they
can be a "wild card" in our military response to the terrorists. Your
statement that we aided the Soviet Union in their attempt to "conquer"
Afghanistan is completely erroneous.

You wrote:
        "that is decent of you--may I explain,BTW, that the proper name of the
Quakers is the Religious Society of Friends, which is where the
"Friends" you quote comes from. We have had a testimony against all
wars since the 1600s, and suffered much as a result."
Response:
        I am and I was aware that Quakers were properly called the "Religious
Society of Friends." Please forgive me for shortening the name to
"Friends", as did the news report to which I referred.

You wrote (referring to my comment re the consequences if your philosophy
had been followed in 1941:
        "This is an argument frequently made--and I can only say that as usual
pacifists are asked "What would you do about this war we are in" when
things have already escalated out of control. We are not listened to
when we try to persuade governments to change the actions that
produce the causes of wars. (as is the task of the Friends Committee
on National Legislation) Just as now, many who in no way consider
themselves pacifists are urging caution, informed actions,and
long-range consideration of consequences."
Response:
        I can say with total belief that the argument is  frequently made because
it is so obviously represents the the truth of the matter.
        As for the attempts to persuade governments to change the actions that
produce the causes of war....Why is it only the actions of our government
that are brought into question? Do you think that the actions of 11
September might be considered a "cause of war"? Why doesn't the Religious
Society of Friends go to Afghanistan and attempt to persuade Osama bin
Laden and his followers to change? Do you think a peaceful demonstration in
Afghanistan such as that now being planned and organized in the shadow of
"ground zero" would be allowed, if not welcomed, as it is in New York?

You wrote:
        "Pacifists in fact believe that they would sacrifice their own lives
rather than take the life of another human being, and for most this
is based on the Biblical command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Please
realize that our government determined what C.Os (like my husband)
would be ALLOWED to do--"work of national importance under civilian
direction"--recognizing the right of conscience, as most civilized
countries do today. Not all could volunteer for medical corps duty,
though many did. Others volunteered as guinea pigs for medical
experiments that would benefit humankind, or served in mental
hospitals, and started a movement to reform the terrible conditions
they found there. Enough of that--but I hope this adds a bit to your
knowledge of the situation".
Response:
        I am probably more aware of the good works of the Religious Society of
Friends than a goodly number of people. I am also aware that there are many
Biblical scholars who now interpret the Commandment in question as properly
translated from Hebrew to Greek to English to read "Thou Shalt Not Murder",
which certainly fits more properly the actions of the Jews who have
defended themselves against the Romans (example: Masada) and other ancient
enemies and their defensive stance today. They understood in Biblical times
that the murderous kingdoms of  that region spared very few when they made
war. They understand what happened to their people under the Nazis, and are
determined to not let that happen again. They know only too well what the
consequences will be if they do not defend their country and population. We
would do well to realize that also as it applies to America.

You wrote:
        "Please, not the "Love it or leave it" bumper stickers again! <G>
Can we possibly agree that there is more than one way to love one's
country or to defend its freedoms? Some of the most restrictive acts
that threaten our freedom have been in wartime....and then we had to
apologize and pay reparations to the Japanese Americans who were
wrongfully interned due to WW2 hysteria ."
Response:
        No, not Love it or Leave it, but DEFEND it. Could it be that the list of
countries that would allow the Religious Society of Friends to follow their
conscience might be a short list, indeed?
        The Japanese-Americans were treated very unfairly. The hysteria you refer
to was intensified by the fact that some naturalized Japanese-American
citizens in Hawaii performed espionage for their homeland prior to the
attack on Pearl Harbor. Internment of Japanese-Americans in the U. S. was
certainly uncalled for and ill-advised, although to some extent, sadly, it
was for their own protection. Thousands of Japanese-American men
volunteered for military service and to prove their full allegiance proudly
served in combat with many casualties and great honor in Italy.

You wrote:
        "I can only say that a "defense" which gives immediate satisfaction
and revenge for this atrocity against to many innocents may, sadly,
increase the risk of more atrocities in the future. Even some
government leaders are aware of this, and advising caution. I
respect your right to feel as you do, even though we will probably
continue to disagree. I also have appreciated the responses off and
on the lists who have thanked me for presenting an alternative
perspective---and asked that I continue to do so.
Response:
        I believe I heard our President say that America's response would be
deliberate, sure, and at a time and place of our own choosing. It is the
opinion of  almost all of the Congress, with only one pacifist dissenting
vote in the House and none in the Senate, demonstrated by their will to
fund the defense of our citizenry and institutions, that to do nothing
would only spur the Islamic terrorists to more and more heinous atrocities,
as they attack weakness and only respect strength. Pacifists of whatever
stripe should realize that the Muslim terrorists are as dedicated to their
core beliefs as are the Religious Society of Friends, and if they had their
way there would be no such Society.

        I hope that you have read this far, Camilla. I write once more that I
respect you as a person, and respect your right to your beliefs as
guaranteed by our Constitution just as much as I completely reject as
disastrous the pacifism that is the foundation of your religion.
        I foresee a tremendous change in the reception that protestors will have
compared to that during the unpopular and useless Vietnam war. This time
the American people have a vital stake in the outcome.
                        Regards.
                                Don A

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn