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