>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.

(for the sake of space, I'll SNIP some of your repetitions of my post--OK?)

>Response:
>        I respectfully submit that nowhere will you find that I
>proposed killing
>"all" of any group, much less children.

Of course not. My question was intended to point out the fact that
revenge is "the gift that keeps on giving", in that it  creates the
need for counter-revenge in later generations.  Look at the kids in
the Palestinian sectors today who attack Israeli tanks and soldiers
with stones because of the hate they have learned from the experience
of their people, for one example.

Quote SNIPPED

>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.
>
I hope that is part of our thinking, as it is  reality.
And the Taliban have murdered the resistance leader, too. I have read
that they have even buried some Afghan women alive--of course they
have no love for American children !

Quote SNIPPED
>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.

Thanks for pointing out my error, which I've already corrected.

Quote SNIPPED

>
>        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.

No problem, Don--just wanted to be clear, for those not so
well-informed as you..

Quote SNIPPED
>
>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.

Just a reminder--wasn't it the non-violent resistance of Gandhi and
his followers that liberated India from the British empire?

>        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?

We have no right to tell other governments what to do--that is up to
their citizens. But in a democracy the citizens have a right and a
responsibility to speak when they believe their representatives are
wrong. We do it all the time ---even about funding for  PD research !

>  Do you think that the actions of 11
>September might be considered a "cause of war"?

No

>  Why doesn't the Religious
>Society of Friends go to Afghanistan and attempt to persuade Osama bin
>Laden and his followers to change?

I believe we would be delighted to have a chance to do that....but we
are not the government, (you breathe a sigh of relief !) and I doubt
he would listen to any unofficial offers we might make.  One member
of PIEN recently posted a suggestion that taking relief and help to
the Afghan people might be a way to impact this--and he wasn't even a
Quaker.  "Winning hearts and minds" can be more powerful in the long
run than bombs, I believe.

>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?

No, because the Taliban are  in charge--but why should we want to copy them?

Quote SNIPPED
>
>Response:
>        I am probably more aware of the good works of the Religious Society of
>Friends than a goodly number of people.

This is interesting--did you approve of any of them?

>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.

I realize that the Old Testament is a record of the history of the
Jewish people.  Perhaps , since one can prove just about anything
with the Bible, I should also have referred to Jesus' teaching--to
love our enemies and do good to them that persecute us--returning
good for evil can shock the heck out of the opposition.  But, I must
again insist that  "doing nothing" is not what pacifists suggest. We
want our government and our allies to figure out other things we CAN
do, especially in view of the extremely difficult conditions in
Afghanistan ( the Russians are warning us of that)  and the very
risky situation Pakistan and other friendly Arab countries face in
trying to support us.

Quote SNIPPED
>
>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?

It's true that some countries jail  pacifists who refuse military
service--but not all do. The USA has moved over the years to
respecting the conscience  of its citizens, and that is good, I
believe.  It is impossible to know  what would be the result if we
were in the majority and could determine national policy--that's not
the fact (another sigh of relief...) --but the list is short now, for
sure.

>        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.

I believe that was a very small number, compared to those Nisei--and
I knew many of them--who were
willing to fight for their country, even with their families
imprisoned. I believe in the right of conscience, even for those who
*conscientiously* take a position contrary to mine, BTW.

>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.

My Japanese American friends (in college and later) did not feel
"protected " by the internment.
This is the sort of thing that people worry about now for Arab
Americans...when we are reminded how easy it was for the terrorists
to live and study piloting here, it may create an atmosphere where
all people who look Middle Eastern are suspect. According to news
reports, one man (from Bangladesh?) has already been shot, many
others have been threatened and harassed.
>
>  QuoteSNIPPED
>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.

Oh dear--there's "do nothing" again---to be pacifist is not to be
passivist, as has often been said. It is always easier to make war
than to find ways to make peace---does that mean we shouldn't search
for them?
I agree that the Taliban would not welcome Quakers or other
pacifists--they don't even respect the Muslims  who are believers  in
the  true version of Islam. They would be even more diligent, I
expect, in eliminating us than were the Pilgrims in America who did
their best to get rid us Quakers, by hanging and other unpleasant
means.
>
>        I hope that you have read this far, Camilla.

Of course I have-- I owe you that courtesy, as you have been
courteous in your replies to me.

>  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.

I fear you are right.  But please remember that at the time of the
Vietnam war, it was not generally seen as unpopular and useless, but
was presented to the American people as in the vital interest of our
country. Eventually, the country was much more willing to hear the
alternate views and get beyond the body-count mentality, probably in
part because we learned how we had been fooled and lied to ....read
then Sec'y of Defense Robert MacNamara's book for the details.

You and I are obviously not going to agree on much, Don. And there
are others who concur with you as well as with me.  I  am willing to
continue this dialog if you are--and if the list doesn't  lower the
boom on us.  In some way, I feel I am speaking for Peter, who can no
longer speak for himself.  I will in any case continue to share
information I come across, as others do, in the hope that the
discourse can reflect a variety of American views , and hope you will
do the same.
Take care-- Camilla

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