What if a pacificist was on flight 93?

Subject: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,patriotlady
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 10:24 AM

The Peaceful Times September 11, 2001 All The News That Fits Our Juvenile World View

"Let's Talk!" Today while three airliners crashed into buildings in New York and Washington DC, killing untold numbers of people, one tragedy was averted thanks to an alert pacifist who happened to be on board another hijacked plane. Potentially thousands of lives were saved when a compassionate passenger on Flight 93 opened a dialog with terrorists who moments earlier had hijacked the plane. After the hijackers had gained control of the plane and allegedly killed the pilots and flight attendants, Robb Weamer called his wife on his cell phone.

"I told her I knew something was up because the freedom fighters were moving about the cabin and the pilot had not yet said it was OK to move about the cabin. I then became concerned that other rules might be broken, like somebody might light up a cigarette and endanger our health with secondhand smoke."

Robb Weamer approached what he calls the 'misunderstood immigrants' just as the plane was entering Washington D.C. airspace.

"I climbed over several dead bodies and entered the cockpit. I looked one of the men in the eye and said, "Let's Talk". Wife Becomes Concerned Robb's wife Lisa says she became concerned when the cell-phone broke up after she heard Robb say "Let's Talk" to the ersatz pilots. "This was one of Robb's favorite expressions," she explained, "and it always meant: Watch out! Sensitive discussions to follow! I was just afraid that under pressure Robb might forget that these men were guests in our country and treat them rudely."

Says Robb: "I have had a lot of experience dealing with underprivileged people in America, so I was ready for this. I explained to the gentlemen that we had more to unite us than divide us. Similar to Afghanistan, women in America are paid less than men. We also have a dangerous religious right which tries to de-fund art projects."

As the plane moved into Washington, DC airspace, Weamer, a member of the Sierra Club, quickly pointed out the negative environmental impact of a jet plane full of passengers crashing into a government building. The hijackers seemed receptive and it occurred to Weamer that this might have been the first time an American had tried to communicate from the heart with his brothers from the Middle East.

"What about Israel and Zionism?" Asked the hijacker, as the White House grew larger on the windshield. Robb began to fear the worst.

Robb had to think fast. "Like Zionism, we have Conservatism here in America. But we let the conservatives make their money and they leave us alone. Some of it even trickles down to us when they pay high tuitions for their kids at liberal arts colleges."

"So if we accept Israel, maybe we will get some of the loot? We will be able to feed our children and live in peace and harmony?... But what about the virgins we were promised?" Robb was temporarily stumped. Time was running out. Then he remembered his idol, Bill Clinton. "I can get you into the Democratic party", Robb blurted out," and introduce you to Bill Clinton. He can get you all the virgins you want!"...The hijacker suddenly leaned on the joystick.

Rough Landing

The errant pilot barely managed to land the plane safely on the south lawn of the White House as passengers and the other hijackers embraced. They were still arm in arm as they deplaned singing "We Are the World".

Robb later reflected on his adventure. "I'm just glad nobody on the plane had a gun. There were a lot of uptight businessmen on the plane, a lot of tension; somebody might have become an innocent victim of gun crime."

Did Robb have any final words for the hijackers?

"Sure do!" says Robb, "Next time you take flight training, pay a little more attention to the unit on landing the plane. That landing, quite frankly, stunk!"

Hijackers and passengers, many still hugging, shared a final laugh together before heading off to the cars waiting to take them home.

Copyright © 2001 Rick Derer. All Rights Reserved.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: The_one_and_only_Dai
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 10:28 AM

is this an erroneous cross-posting from soc.history.what-if? Oh no, I see they debark the plane singing. That obviously makes this a musical thread.

Thanks, patriotlady.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 10:29 AM

Hilarious.....

A

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 10:32 AM

Ah hahahahaha!!! I love it!!!

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 11:10 AM

Ho! Ho! Ho!

I think the word "pacifist" might be getting a wrong interpretation here. I have known pacifists, and most of them are quite capable of defending themselves in an emergency situation or a personal altercation with someone (physical, I mean).

Generally speaking, a pacifist is someone who avoids deliberately planning future organized violence as a normal matter of public policy...who seeks peaceful solutions first in disputes, and if at all possible...who avoids vengeance and retaliation for the sake of vengeance alone, just so he can feel better about "getting even".

But definitely NOT someone who refuses to act when action is required...or who is incapable of self-defence.

Read Joan Baez's autobiography for further info on that. She's a pacifist, but she's not helpless, nor incapable of tough-mindedness and determined action.

Then, in the ultimate sense of pacifism, there is the viewpoint that this physical life is just one brief passage in the eternal life of a soul that cannot die, so why fear death at all? But that's a viewpoint known only to a tiny minority of people...a few saints...so I don't think it's liable to be given a moment's consideration by most people. Sheer nonsense, right? :-)

Even given that view, however, it would still be seen as more appropriate to use force to resist the actions of a few hijackers in order to save the lives of many innocent people...rather than just passively observing the whole thing play itself out.

Nevertheless, very funny story you posted there.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 11:35 AM

Clever.

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Grab
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 01:44 PM

Someone on here is bound to object to it. But it gets my vote - excellent work Mr. Derer!

Graham.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 01:48 PM

Hehehehehehehehehehe!

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 01:49 PM

there were too many celphones and not enough plastic knives on that aircraft in my opinion ;-)

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 02:40 PM

I don't understand the "coincidental" similiarity of the two names. We all know that 'Todd Beamer' was the hero who was heard to say "Let's roll". Is Derer making a point here? Seems fairly tasteless.

On the other hand, I am somewhat literal so I'm willing to consider the similarities to be part of the fun.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 02:48 PM

Bodd Reamer would have been even more tasteless. Offended liberals everywhere should bombard this thread with emotional blackmail, demanding apologies from Mr. Derer, until it exceeds 150 posts and we are all utterly sick of hearing about it...

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 02:52 PM

Mr. Popular Politician

Mr. Popular Politician has been leadin the war on terrorism for three years now. tHe new ASBN America Strikes Back Network has the highest ratings. Afgahanistan is a shifting pile of rubble but Bin Laden is still at large.

He is slipping in the pols and does not want the Democrats to win the election. "Electing those bleeding hearts will surely bring this country to ruin" He says to his advisors.

"Sir, If we are going to win this one it will take some more civilian causalties. We don't see how collateral damage can be avoided. Will you authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons?"

The presidents victory was assured when 20 megaton bombs hit the following enemy cities, New York, Boston, Hartford and Miami.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Larry124
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 02:54 PM

Maybe there WAS a pacifist on the plane. And, perhaps an American who sympathizes with the Palestinians and opposes Israeli policy. A Liberal. A conservative. A child. Holders of all kinds of opinions. All gone now. They had no right to live according to the terrorists and those who support them. The folks on that aircraft were not entitled to life and liberty. That's why there's nothing to negotiate. The positions are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive. Sometimes, as with the Nazi's, life and history are like that.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 03:13 PM

Yes, indeed, this is all because of Pacificists! The Hijackers hate us because of the Amish Missonaries wreaking havok on their faith, Quaker oil magnets despoling the lands, Menonite armies in Saudi Arbia.., Yup... thank God there weren't pacifisists on those flights or we'd all be fucked!
(sounds of snoring...)
Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 03:17 PM

Agreed, Larry. There is nothing more dangerous to the general status quo....or the status quo of generals...than a pacifist. Dangerous buggers. Gotta find a way to exterminate the lot of 'em...

yadda, yadda, yadda...

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 03:37 PM

I took the story to be some sort of weird, senseless humour, with no point of view and no basis in reality. So I added some of my own. Was I wrong on either count? Both?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Pacifist
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 03:55 PM

Larry we Brits beat the Nazis and the Fascists. The world would a better place if your electoral system enabled you to elect a leader. Last time round Bushes brother decided it, and for several times before it was decided by where the big money was. The snag is that the rest of the world has to put up with the results of your system. How many coutntries can you name that the USA hasn't screwed up or worse for the benefit of your big money boy's or rich families. Forget the twin towers - thank God that someone had the good sense to kill Kennedy.

I use this site to look at threads about music. Get your heads out of your butts and find somewhere else to talk about the war. America didn't worry about terrorism when they sponsored it in Ireland and were only interested in Lockerbie, where Half a town was devastated not just a couple of almost empty offices, because it gave them an excuse to attack the bad guy they hated at the time.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 03:55 PM

You pretty much nailed it, IMO, JacktS, except I don't think there was any humour in it, senseless or otherwise.

Let's go to the other extreme, for the fundementalists in this country and pose the question, "What if Jesus, the Pacifist had been on board?" Don't answer that, it is rhetorical sarcasm. Same goes for "What if Dubya had been on that plane." "What if" is a pointless exercise, IMO.

Doncha just love it when you live in a country which denigrates its citizens who would truly like to live in peace and who love the planet and hug the trees? IMO, those who ridicule such are frightened to look within their own souls to see what is missing.

kat

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 04:18 PM

Guest,Pacifist - You are suffering under two delusions - first - that the British defeated the Nazis { you must admit that the Yanks helped just a little } and that you have any right to call yourself a "Pacifist" and then say " Thank God someone had the good sense to kill Kennedy".

Your response please ?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Pacifist
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 04:46 PM

OK Wesley your lads helped a bit - towards the end and your country needed a bit of help from the British Commonwealth in other areas of the war - it may have been a good payoff in the longer term.

As I recall, when I was a young man, there was a thing called the Cuban missile crisis which nearly got us all killed when Kennedy felt that it alright to have missile bases on the Russian border but just a tad rich if the Ruskies had them anywhere near as close to you. With that attitude to world affairs it probably saved more lives. He went - other people lived to have full and satisfying lives (including his widow - why mourn when you can get your rocks off with a dodgy Greek shipping millionaire).

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 05:14 PM

I'll repeat my question. Why do you call yourself a "Pacifist" and then say "Thank God someone had the good sense to kill Kennedy"

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Pacifist
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 05:38 PM

He was a self seeking murderer - and to bring a musical theme to our discussion I recall in the sixties, listening to country Joe McDonald singing a song that began "Come on all of you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again." I believe that it refered to a jam Uncle Sam had got himself involved in in a little known tourist spot known as Vietnam.

How many people did that kill? I will ask you to reply to what I had written in my earlier post.

At some point their are people who have to die for the greatr good of the many.

Your country at the moment is killing many innocent people in the hope of killing the one whom they hold responsible for a horrendous crime.

It that so much different from my view.

I am a pacifist because I believe that Winston Churchill was right when said that "Jaw jaw is better than war war". Given your inability to advance an arguement coupled with your country's self centred foreign policies I should perhaps explains that it means the it better to reach a settlement to a problem by discussion, reasoning, and argument than kill people.

Live in peace

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 05:56 PM

You don't seem to understand my point. I'm trying to understand your definition of the word "Pacifist". One of us - perhaps me - doesn't understand what a pacifist is - or what they stand for. I wish I could continue this but I post at work and it's time to go home. Please give me your definition of pacifist and explain to me why a pacifist would enjoy the death of another human. I don't have my dictionary handy. Thanks and have a great weekend.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 06:11 PM

Pacifist

The road from Stalingrad to Berlin was 1600 mile long.

20 million Russians died along that road. Transported by General Motors trucks.

The Sea route from the Clyde to Murmansk was 3000 Miles.My grandfather died somewhere off the North Cape.

4 Members of my British Trade Union (MSF) died in the twin Towers.

A period of anti americanism and little england chauvenistics - we can do without.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Pacifist
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 06:24 PM

Shame

I post at home and pay for it myself. It surprises me that you can't reply from home.

I thought I had tried to explain my attitude. There will be other pacifists who will not agree with my view. It may be based on experience of life.

I still believe that there are individuals who have to die to save the rest. If it Helps I'm not comfortable with it - but on the other hand I don't think that I would have been comfortable had I been Victor Jara having his hands smashed by the butt of a rifle bought by the USA and then being killed along with many of his countrymen who supported a democratically elected govenment which your country did not like. Again I would ask you to defend your view that the good ol' US of A can go around treating the rest of the world as their backyard and tell it what to do. Lokk at the Tokyo treaty and your views on global warming.

Many people see your country as greedy and self absorbed. You don't seem to be able, not personally, but as a country to address that. We're all entitled to the resources and the wealth and to govern our courties without Uncle Sam coming in and Screwing things up.

I'll sign out this because your no longer at work, bored, nothing to do but wind me up and I,m at home it's bedtime, and I think I would be better off hugging my wife than arguing.

All the best,

enjoy being in your office Monday.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 07:15 PM

Now I am flumoxed... How our British "Pacisifist" friend believes that I am a chear leader for the US is beyond me. Is there another Larry here???? Also, I agree the US did a lot to encourage the war in Ireland... in aiding and abeting the BRITISH in continuing a war solely to keep NATO forces in a non alined nation. Well, I hope you have a good sleep and wake up with a refeshed mind, and ask yourself, my dear pacifist if the British soldier who blew Carol Ann Kelly's brains all over that Belfast street at point blank range, may have had some small part in the war in Ireland, or perhaps the Queen who gave a meddle to the British soldier who opened fire on a civil rights demostration on Bloody Sunday might have had some role in all this. If you truely wish to stand on the moral high ground and point a finger at this evil empire, maybe you might move to Scandinavia, or Tristam de Cuna (and not pay taxes to the Empire which owns it).
As far as music posts, folks here know I have contributed both traditional as well as contempory folk to the board, and speaking of board... never mind, I should not go their , have a nice pint for me, and perhaps thee may think on pacificism a while as well as history. Kennidy was likely murdered by the state for his intentions to get out of Viet Nam.
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 07:22 PM

My uncle was clubbed by a cop who stopped him on the turnpike after he tried to HUG the trooper. He was charged with 'driving under the influence of Leo Buscaglia'.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 07:45 PM

Funny Art.

You know, I don't mean to disrupt the fascinating flow here, and I'm not trying to trivialize this (I love satire whether it skews my views OR the other guys') but I have a question:

Are there REALLY any independent pacifists kickin' around these days? I don't mean members of religious groups who COLLECTIVELY practice non violence. I doubt if I know one person who could not be provoked to physical action if the provoker knew what they were doing and pushed the right buttons.

In my youth I read of folks like Sgt. York, Ghandi, and certainly experienced Martin Luther King's effect on the world, but I still didn't have a clear definition of what "pacifism" really is. Is it simply someone who will die rather than raise their hand against someone else? It seems in many cases to be a carefully worked out (and effective) strategy, no more, no less.

During the Vietnam War I met several "conchies" who said they could not take another life, but as we talked more it always struck me that they'd have happily taken a poke at Nixon.

Just seems that pacifism may be more 'selective' than all-encompassing. Personally, I could never take a life because a politician told me I had to (under the guise of patriotism), but could easily end another's life if I saw them commiting an act that I personally saw as indefenceable (say raping someone).

Anyway, it just got me thinking.

Rick

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 07:52 PM

It takes a lot more courage to stand up for what one believes in without the use of force or violence than the other way around, GUEST who first posted to this thread, and anyone else who thinks that bit of cartoonish satire is funny. Ask anyone who marched with Martin Luther King, or any member of his family.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 10:10 PM

Well said, Carol, thanks!

Interesting points, Rick, perhaps it is selective more than most might want to admit?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Nov 01 - 10:16 PM

I think GUEST original poster was making a valid point and took a bit of courage him/herself in sending it. It is a common and correct observance that Gandhi was successful in winning independence through primarilly non-violent means in an English colonial empire. Had that empire been German (or Belgian) things would not have gone any better than with the hijacked planes of 911.

As to the American baiter signed in as 'guest', he/she displays vituperation without accuracy or humor. Picking on our most recently assassinated President is merely attention-seeking bad taste. Check out 'Thirteen Days' if you're willing to go for a Yankee movie. I would be in the same logical fold as you if I used the Spice Girls as my example of English high culture.

Give War a Chance

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,faswilli2
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:47 AM

yep, pacifist, let bash the yanks tonight. Terrorists might crash into your backyard tomorrow. You should pray the Americans don't become agoraphobic, build, a wall around the country, and say to hell with the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 02:02 AM

There are many people who have used pacifist means to accomplish some pretty incredible things in the world. It's possible that those means might not work in every scenario. I don't know.

However, it doesn't make any more sense to me for someone to ridicule all pacifists the way the opening post does than for someone to ridicule all people who fight in wars.

There are heroes on both sides of this equation. It's no less small to ridicule pacifist heroes than it is to ridicule heroes who fight in wars. Many pacifists have paid the ultimate price and given their lives to make the world a better place. They deserve our respect as much as the people who lose their lives with a gun in their hand.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: John P
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 09:24 AM

Why all this confusion about the meaning of the word pacifist? Do you all really not know any pacifists? Get a clue, folks. Little Hawk cleared up the issue early on in this thread when he said:


"I think the word "pacifist" might be getting a wrong interpretation here. I have known pacifists, and most of them are quite capable of defending themselves in an emergency situation or a personal altercation with someone (physical, I mean).

Generally speaking, a pacifist is someone who avoids deliberately planning future organized violence as a normal matter of public policy...who seeks peaceful solutions first in disputes, and if at all possible...who avoids vengeance and retaliation for the sake of vengeance alone, just so he can feel better about "getting even".

But definitely NOT someone who refuses to act when action is required...or who is incapable of self-defence."

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Pacifist
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:46 PM

Faswilli2,

From the look of things America at the moment seems to be about to "build a wall round itself and ignore the rest of the world". Look at the reports of the meetings held by Blair both in the middle eastern countries bordering the area where the bombing is going on and the lack of support from their governments. Look at Europe and the way the political leaders there want more say in what happens before they will send in troops to die for no perceivable benefit to their country or the world. Public opinion in the UK is not as gung ho as our prime Minister makes out and there appear to be divisions developing between Blair, who has buzzed around the world looking for suport, and Bush who tends not to.

Apologies to those who are offended by the strength of my language but I strongly believe that the action taken over the Twin Towers attack will only breed further terrorists.

Inobu,

In what way do the killings you mention justify the deaths of innocent civilians by anyone's hands?

Gareth,

Not "little England chauvanistics" - more "Is what is happening doing any good" and point me to one time in the last 50 years where American intervention - usually with B52s has helped the civil population of the country attacked?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:52 PM

I think you brought up some interesting points, Rick. Personally, I feel no ill will toward anyone who considers him/herself a pacifist. I would not want to have one serve as president of our country, however.

I guess it is not clear to me, thought, how a pacifist could feel justified in defending himself with violence against another person, when threatened, but refuses to defend his/her country and his/her fellow citizens when it is threatened by terrorists. DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 02:38 PM

Not all are meant to fill that role, Doug, no matter whether they are a pacifist or not. Besides all of the support crew in the actual military, there are many more positions of support in civilian life, without which the military could not function.

It is also a matter of direct threat in a one on one whereas in a war even soldiers have wondered why they are trying to kill each other, which is told through many a story and folksong.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 02:55 PM

I think it strange that one minute we are beimg told that the US is against terrorists and it allows Gerry Adams to fund raise,
Oh sorry I forgot the terrorissts that tried to blow up the club area of Birmingham last week were the "real IRA".

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,BuggR
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 06:19 PM

DougR,

How close have you been to the action, how many men have you killed, when the moment comes could you do it? your attitudes are what makes many people fear America and hope you buld the wall. (Berlin took one down and foud that their neighbours were fun after all.)

I feel that CarolC gives hope to the internalionals who post that there is sentient life in the US.

Pray for peace

It is rememberance day tomorrow,

Remember those who have died - and try to question those who see the only solution to problems as more killing.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 06:32 PM

Guest BuggR: I was in the U. S. Army and the Reserve, but not during wartime. Therefore, I have not been faced with that challenge. I would like to think that if I were, I could do so. I doubt most people know how they would react to combat until they are in it.

Obviously we do not share the same view on this subject. You have a right to your's, I to mine. I sincerely doubt that my "attitude" is responsible for anyone feeling one way or the other about America. I doubt that anybody cares what my "attitude" is about anything.

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 09:12 PM

There is a misconception about the term "Pacifist" I think. It's a very pro-active position and in the way that it was practiced by Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi, it was a highly organized and disciplined way to handle violence. Ghandi referred to it as "soul force" or "Satyagraha". It involves non-violent "resistance". There are many ways to practice this. Some of them quite creative. It's an interesting historical note that most of the time it's been applied, it's been successful. It involves the same sacrifice of lives in the same way that conventional war does but creates a "post-war" environment that's more healthy. There are different ways to "fight" for one's country. Non-violent ways have not been employed on a US national level toward external aggressor yet.

India was successful in it's limited use when the British quit India under Ghandi's leadership. It certainly had a tremendous historical effect in the US under Dr. King.

If a pacifist would have been on that fatal flight and there were those enlightened enough to follow that path, who really knows what would have happened? If nothing else, under a pacifist position, the hi-jackers would not necessarilly have made it to the White House.

As to America, we live in a country that permits conscientious objection and that attests to our principles of freedom. Every country in the world has had it's share of insensitivity for other nations but the US has not exceeded that of Britain, China,Congo, Somalia, the former USSR or contemporary Russia, and certainly many of the Mid-east countries as well as in South America. No country is exempt in it's responsibility toward human rights and in this all have erred. Still, I'd rather live in America where human rights are valued, talked about and many Americans support groups like Amnesty International and the United Nations.

Frank

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 11:16 PM

Hi Pacificist... I was not using those inocents to justify any killing, rather, countering your accertion that the US is responcible for the war against Britain in Ireland, in point of fact the US backed the British program of keeping a war going in Ireland for the benifit of NATO. You should read a bit more carefully, and so should I, I notice there ARE to Larry's, one of whom is a bit more of a US appologist than I... still, I don't agree with you about Kennedy, I don't think we will ever know the man he was becoming, other than in the evidence that his brother Bobby became and for which he was murdered - perhaps by the same folks.
Cheers
One of the dangerous pacificist bastards, Larry (The InOBU one)

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 11:17 PM

Its late, I'm nackered, it should read TWO Larrys... off to snooze land... Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 12:10 AM

Hi Doug. I'll try and answer your question.

I learned a LONG time ago that an articulate writer or speaker can use "facts" to support EITHER side of an issue. If they write or speak with passion as well, they can convince thousands (or millions I guess) of the absolute righteousness of their point of view. It makes for absolutely fascinating reading (has for three years on Mudcat for me) but is totally worthless (IMO) for divining 'truth'. If you feel a need to have an opinion on an issue, you can do it in two ways: Embrace the views of the most convincing speaker or writer OR do one hell of a lot of homework, collect as much pro and con information that SEEMS UNBIASED to you, and then fit yourself personally into the equation by asking yourself hard questions.

So MY truth about pacifism/war/patriotism/self-defence etc. is probably similar to how I'd deal with much less drastic issues.

If my repair guy tells me I gotta spend a thousand bucks to fix my car's defibrulated flunkenhammer, I'll probably do it, 'cause my own experience tells me he's done a good job in the past, and I believe he knows cars (much) better than I. If a football coach told me to block number 79, I'd do it for the same reason.....BUT if the baseball manager wanted me to bunt in a certain situation, I might question it, 'cause I've had a lot of experience with the game, and feel I might just understand strategies as well as him. Makes me a LOUSY team player, but I've known that for years.

If a politician said "We've gotta bomb those bastards back into their caves, to save our way of life", I wouldn't automatically see that as true. If I felt that my understanding of world events, or even simple logic was superior to his, you bet I'd question it. If I felt that he was trapped into a no-win position that neccessitated 'face saving', I'd sure sympathize, but would feel I had to make my decision on strictly personal evidence. By the way I'm not takin' a shot at Bush, I feel that Gore or Clinton or whoever would be just as powerless in the current situation. It just wouldn't mean that I had to be.

Back in thirty nine, Britain declared war on Germany, and my dad (at the ripe old age OF 39) enlisted the next day. I know he was an independant thinker 'cause that's what he taught me, and he obviously felt that Hitler's armies had to be stopped. Think I'd have done the same thing...but not because I was TOLD to by someone who's only REALLY defined qualification was ambition.

So for me it comes down to individual situations, and almost never, what OTHERS tell me the 'truth' is. Would I kill under certain circumstances? I imagine so. By the way, I'm also glad that the current Pres. is not a pacifist, but I'd also prefer if he didn't consult a Clergy written "holy" book for reality or logic. Seems to me that's what the other side is doing as well.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 01:12 AM

Thanks, Rick. Good food for thought.

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Sledge
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 02:26 AM

Rick, good reasoned stuff there.

BuggR, read the history. Men with little red stars built the wall along with its attedent automatic guns and minefields to stop their own people from find out what fun The Americans, Brits, West Germans etc. were.

Sledge

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 09:15 AM

And now for the cynical viewpoint: President Bush's canididacy was strongly financially supported by people who sell cruise missiles and bombs to the US government. When we are at war they make a LOT more money than when we are not at war. Tomahawk cruise missles cost about $600,000.00 each.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 01:24 PM

There's probably some truth in virtually everyone's argument. That's what makes life so complicated.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 02:24 PM

John: You think they didn't cover their bases by donating to Al's campaign too, John? They sure would have been stupid not to.

Rick: We may be poles apart, politically, but on this one thing I am sure we are much alike: neither of us are comfortable with authority figures. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 04:39 PM

Doug, I even busted my GI Joe down to buck private!

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 09:18 PM

That's funny, Rick. Of course I didn't have a GI Joe. I had a Joe McCarthy doll (just kiddin')

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 10:47 PM

So did I...we used to stick pins in it! (just kidding also) :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist had been on flight 93?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 11:25 PM

I think of myself as a pacifist. I believe somebody has to stand up for peace, even when it's impractical. Still, I don't know what I'd do if I had been called to military service in response to Hitler's Blitzkrieg, or to the World Trade Center attacks. If I had been on Flight 93, I'd do anything I could to stop those people from using an airplane as a weapon of mass destruction.

If America didn't have a history of using military force in Muslim lands, would the terrorists have attacked the World Trade Center?

There are times when we can wage peace, when we can break the cycle of violence. I don't think the World Trade Center attack is one of those situations. Maybe, though, we could have prevented the World Trade Center attacks by not waging the Gulf War.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 07:17 AM

The sad fact is that every time one of our bombs kills an innocent civilian in Afghanistan, or even a Taliban soldier who was forced into service, we are making ourselves into the same sort of people who attacked the World Trade Center. How many civilian deaths are are we allowed to accumulate before we become monsters? Where do we draw the line between "acceptable collateral damage" and terrorism? Do we really want people who would invent and use a phrase like that when they are talking about killing innocent people flying around with airplanes full of bombs?

I've heard way too many people equating pacifism with treason in the last few weeks, as if being a war monger -- a killer of other people -- was a good, patriotic, and Christian thing to be.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 08:44 AM

as I mentioned in another thread (are you still afraid of airplanes) My brother Dave is a Flight Attendent Supervisor. He knew, well, the entire crew of flight 93. He was their supervisor. He is based in San Francisco. I'm not sure I understand the silliness of patriot lady..I don't understand any of this. A pacifist WASN'T on flight 93. The concept of that "piece" is stupid beyond belief. There were victims and murderers on flight 93. There were heroes, there were cowards, there wewre people tryin go do their jobs, there were fathers and mothers and children and... What kind of jerk writes s--- like that?? I'm late for work and I just can't deal with this....sorry!

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 10:39 AM

For Larry the InOBU

"I agree the US did a lot to encourage the war in Ireland... in aiding and abeting the BRITISH in continuing a war solely to keep NATO forces in a non alined nation."

I never realised the debt of gratitude we all owe. I'd love to hear the explanation, apart from allowing terrorists, unhindered, to raise funds and buy arms to assist in the murder of over three and a half thousand innocent civilians both in Ulster and on the mainland of the British Isles. Also in what non-aligned nation were NATO troops maintained? If you mean Northern Ireland - that Larry is part of the United Kingdom (You might not like that fact but it is a fact and will remain so until such time as the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise). If you consider Northern Ireland to be under occupation, then more so are the former Confederate States of America. Northern Ireland came into being as part of an agreed settlement when the Republic of Ireland was formed, the Southern States were quite within their constitutional rights when they elected to cecede from the Union, they were subsequently defeated and have remained occupied ever since, under what appears to your terms of reference. It always amuses me to hear people talking (historically) about Ireland as a nation, prior to the arrival of the Normans (1066), when was Ireland ever a united nation?

"....ask yourself, my dear pacifist if the British soldier who blew Carol Ann Kelly's brains all over that Belfast street at point blank range, may have had some small part in the war in Ireland, or perhaps the Queen who gave a meddle (medal) to the British soldier who opened fire on a civil rights demostration on Bloody Sunday might have had some role in all this."

The only reason those soldiers were there was to assist the civil power in maintaining law and order - the major threat to life and limb during the period of the two incidents you quote was from Republican gunmen and bombers. In any confrontation accidents do happen - that that is so, is almost as unavoidable as it is regretable - but they are accidents, not deliberate, intentional attacks on a civilian population. I can think of a number of instances where members of the security forces in Northern Ireland have sacrificed their lives to save members of the public - I cannot recall any instance where a member of the para-militaries (Republican or Loyalist) has done the same ( I discount those occasions where bomb-makers have managed to blow themselves up in the process of making a bomb as quite patently their intention was to take life). As to the medal, every soldier who serves in Northern Ireland is awarded a General Service Medal.

Post 1798, a movement specifically formed to promote armed struggle in Ireland was founded in America and it has always provided heavy financial support. In 1866 Irish-Americans actually tried to invade Canada - didn't get very far though.

As to the comments previously made by "Pacifist" regarding the Kennedy family. If there ever was a candidate for someone who should have drowned at birth, my vote would have been for Joseph. Remember him, Ambassador to the Court of St.James in 1939, left to his advice there would have been no American intervention in Europe during WWII. Thankfully, for the whole of Europe and democracy throughout the world, FDR relied on other advice.

To JohnP above:

The US led coallition is in a war - GWB declared it in response to the attacks levelled against enlightened, democratic civilisation on 11th September. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has to go, so that Bin Laden no longer has a safe refuge from which he can train his followers and launch future attacks. I believe that the Taliban regime will crumble, and in a fairly short time frame, that is when coallition governments and international agencies will have to win the "Hearts and Minds" of the Afghan people. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Powell have all hammered home the message that this is going to be a long haul - one thing they do give any indication of is how long a long haul might be (example: War of the Running Dogs - Malaysia 1947 to 1960 - for Afghanistan I believe that that time scale will be exceeded). I have just heard that there has been another plane crash in New York - as yet it is unconfirmed as to whether or not this is a terrorist attack - How many innocent civilians you ask? As few as possible, but get the job done or the answer to your question becomes an open number.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 10:53 AM

THere is some likelyhood that birds brought down the jet, just now at JFK... I hope you all don't go about declaring war on birds everywhere, inocent or terrorist birds...
To our annonimous guest... Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, at the time we speak of, in the Irish constitution is both nuetral and a 32 county entity. I don't have space here to educate you on the war in Ireland, now that most of the censorship restrictions have been lifted, I suggest you may wish to read a book called "too long a sacrifice", many of the concultions of which I don't agree with, but the history of it is pretty uncotroversable. It was written by a journalsit, who I knew, whoes name I am blanking on, as I am listing to the news reports on today's crash... so I am not giving this my full attention. I would ask how it is an accedient or unintended consiquence of war when a British soldier puts the barrle of his gun against the head of a ten year old girl's head, on a quiet street and says, this is for my mates who were killed you whore, and blows her brains all over the street. It does not seem to me to be anything but terrorism. But than again, I have the disadvantage of living in a nation without censorship laws, at least for the time being.
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Cletus Purcel
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 02:34 PM

John,

It is inaccurate to equate U.S. bombings in Afghanistan to the WTC bombing/terrorism. First of all, the U.S. is not targeting civilians and in fact seems to be bending over backwards to avoid this. Lest you forget, the terrorists specifically targeted civilians.

If the potential for civilian war casualties was a valid excuse for the U.S. to NOT pursue hostilities against a fanatical regime, then I guess that most folks in Europe would be speaking German now.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 03:25 PM

I couldn't resist this Larry...

I am sorry to report that the bird that brought down the plane was a Canada goose. The US is planning an immediate response. Patriotic Americans are being deployed to hunting blinds as we speak. Bush has been quoted as saying. "This is not a war against the people of Canada, or even against other Canadain birds. The Canadian goverment must surrender all members of this terrorist bird organization within one month or face the consequences."

Luckily, since it is November, we will be able to comply.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 03:54 PM

It will be necessary to find a particular evil bird leader to focus people's hatred upon, otherwise it is doubtful that the American public will support a massive military response against terrorist birds. Howard the Duck is one possibility, but I'm sure the State Department can come up with a better one...probably some warbird formerly on their payroll. Stay tuned.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 04:14 PM

I think in this case being able to blame it on one large, foreign, especially delicious species may work to the government's advantage. Especially before Thanksgiving.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 05:49 PM

Dear Jack: Not to make fun in the face of so many lives lost, a matter for which I feel true and real sorrow...
But... in the face of other irony, YES! Shooting is too good for those Geese. They should be stuffed with granola, apple and orange, cream sherry, fresh garlic some other nice spices, dill I should think... and as a lesson to other such criminals, eaten.
Happy Thanksgiving in spite of the terrible times. Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 05:59 PM

Joe, the war in Afghanistan is a continuation of the Gulf War. First, Saddam, second, bin Laden.

How do you spell relief? "O-I-L"

Why has Bush not declared war on Saudi Arabia? (Not that I would want him to but he said he would declare war on all countries that supported terrorism.)

Frank

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 06:05 PM

Of course I feel bad for those lost as well. I'm also tired of the constant state of panic over this issue. I hope I can make light of it without disrespect.

I think what America needs is a tasty adversary against which we can take up arms, (and forks and knives) and defeat soundly either individually of in small family groups.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 06:16 PM

Larry, your reply at 5:49PM caused me to wonder: do pacifists kill animals for food? Or does pacifist beliefs only appy to killing people?

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 07:15 PM

Doug, there are many varieties of pacifist, just as there are many varieties of conservative. Communist conservatives, for example, would like to bring back the glorious days of Brezhnev or maybe even Stalin, while conservative Scots favour the kilt and bagpipes over the leisure suit and the saxophone.

The kind of pacifist who does not favour eating animals is called a vegetarian pacifist. I'm sure you know this, but you did ask, so.... :-) Very few North Americans favor "killing animals for food", which is why they get the local slaughterhouse to do it for them...out of sight, out of mind...

I have heard that the Janes (a religious group in India) try strenuously to avoid killing any form of sentient life, including tiny insects. That is what you could call a very thorough form of pacifism.

Then there are people whose idea of pacifism is just giving the finger to other drivers in rush hour traffic, instead of shooting them.

Takes all kinds...

Be that as it may, I have never heard of a pacifist exactly like the one in the satirical story that led off this thread, and I frankly doubt that such a being exists, except in the minds of people who have watched WAY too many John Wayne movies while growing up.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 06:21 AM

InOBU,

What clause 2 of the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland states does not make The Republic of Ireland a 32 county entity - It declares an aspiration towards a united Ireland. The existance of that clause has become an embarassment to the Irish Government and is illegal under the terms of the Treaty of Rome and the Charter of the United Nations (neither of which were in existance when the Republic of Ireland was created in 1921/2). If you doubt or disagree with this and believe that the republic of Ireland has a just claim to Ulster, you must then acknowledge that Iraq's (Saddam Hussein's) claim to Kuwait is equally justified.

You recommend that I read a book entitled "too long a sacrifice". I could recommend quite a number of books on the same suject that might give you broader based, and more objective, perspective on the subject.

Out of interest I intend examining the specific case you mention. If what you state is correct it was no act of terrorism - it was murder. In general, unlike the US forces in Vietnam, British troops in Northern Ireland operate under civil control, their remit is that of aid to the civil power. In my time there, all patrols were accompanied by members of the RUC and they were in charge. For each member of a foot patrol every round had to be accounted for and there were strict rules of engagement. For any soldier who discharged his weapon, whilst on duty, there existed, and probably still exists, an equally strict investigation procedure. Time of incident called in and logged, on return to barracks RUC CID would interview the RUC members accompanying the patrol, members of the patrol and the soldier who fired. A report would then be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions / Crown Prosecution Service. CID would also attempt to interview civilian witnesses, I say attempt because in certain areas (Republican and Loyalist) there existed a high degree of witness intimidation and a culture of "heard nothing", "saw nothing", "say nothing". To ignore this, individuals risked being attached to the floors of their houses with nails through their kneecaps. Now you may ask why witnesses would not come forward in such an instance? What purpose would be best served? The answer is equally obvious given that all criminal prosecutions are based on a case being proved beyond reasonable doubt. The soldier involved would, in all probability, be acquitted and the propaganda value of the incident would be enhanced one hundred-fold.

To Jack the Sailor 03:25 offering Very, very funny - enjoyed reading it. Just the thing to ease tensions under the current circumstances.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 06:51 AM

Dear Guest: In point of fact the Irish acceptance of soverinty over 32 counties was based in the treaty which concluded the Anglo Irish war, said treaty which provided for Britain to leave the remaining six counties in Ulster two years after the signing of the treaty. As such, more than an aspiration, citizens of the Northern counties have always had the right and have held Irish passports. I mention Carol Ann Kelly, there have been numerous child murders in retailation by crown forces. Rather than trading vague allusions, do recomend books, I read alot. I would also point out that throughout the war, the United States and Britain have sought to prove in US courts, nuetral environments free of censorship, that the IRA was involved in terrorism rather than insurection. They failed in every instance. I would direct your attention to the Doherty case, the decision of which I posted a few years ago here in responce to a solicitor friends, Richard Bridge's contention that the IRA was a terrorist group.
I think that our conversation proves, that in order for there to be real peace in Ireland, we need a process of truth and reconcilliation, as has been going on in South Africa.
Doug, yes some paciifists eat meat, and hunt. I am one of them. In fact, Quakers in Nantucket where some of the fiercest whalermen in the profession and many Nantucket Quaker girls would not become enguaged to a Quaker boy who had not killed a whale. There are a few Quaker vegitarians, but, that is a separate conviction from our Peace Testimony, which is not based on diet, but conviction that killing people is not something we wish to do.
Cheers all, Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Lepuss Rex
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 02:17 PM

Frank,

The U.S. has not declared war on Saudi Arabia because the Saudi government has not been supporting terrorists. the Saudis who have been involved in terrorism were doing so largely outside of Saudi Arabia and without the knowledge/support of the Saudi government. That is fundamentally different than what occurred with Afghanistan as well as with other nations like Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 06:30 PM

Thanks for the reply, Larry. I'm sure glad I didn't haver to slay a whale before my wife would marry me. I have no idea where I would have found one!

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 10:17 AM

DougR

just so we can be clear about it... here is the text of the Quaker Peace testimony:

"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fighting with outward weapons for any end or under any pretense whatsoever; this is our testimony to the whole world. The Spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move us unto it; and we certainly know and testify to the world that the Spirit of Christ by which we are guided will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the Kingdom of Christ nor for the kingdoms of this world."

and no, it doesn't seem to mention geese :)

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 11:50 AM

Thanks, WM.

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 12:31 PM

Some more dumb questions:

What if an adult blue whale was on flight 93?

The plane would not have been able to leave the ground, and everyone would have been saved!

What if Rick Derer was on flight 93?

We would all have been spared reading this silly thread.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 02:19 PM

conservative Scots favour the kilt and bagpipes over the leisure suit and the saxophone

What a hard call! Can't I select the kilt and the saxophone?

Alex

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 03:52 PM

LOL! You're what would be referred to as a "soft" Scottish conservative.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 04:13 PM

Hi Lepuss Rex,

You might think that the Saudi Arabian government doesn't support "terrorists" but how do you know? The Saudi's, many of the sultans and sheiks practice a conservative idelogical form of Islam called Wahabism which is the motivation for such extreme reactions in the Taliban.

At this point, there is no factual basis to assume that the Saudi Arabian govenment is acting in good faith. One red flag is that they refused inquiry into the background of some of the Arab based terrorists on the Sept. 11 incident. There are many historical instances of a country saying one thing and doing another including the US.

The Bush administration doesn't dare ruffle the feathers of Saudi Arabia as long as the oil contracts are there.

Many Muslims today are mute on the actual role of Zionism. Bush's vision for a Palestinian state is different than Hamas. Many Muslims feel that Israel doesn't belong there.

In short, we can't believe everything that we read about what Saudi Arabia says officially because there is the issue of Zionism to which they are categorically opposed and have been at least since the Israel was accepted by the UN. This carries over to the position of the US to accept Zionism.

Guiliani had it right when he refused the $10,000 for by the rich Arab benefactor. It was a politically motivated gesture.

We are dealing with concepts of theocratic states whether Muslim or Jewish. This is somewhat foreign to the notion of separation of church and state.

Frank

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 06:25 PM

Given the fact that in North America the prevailing and clearly dominant religion is the worship of money, what does that say about the separation of church and state? It appears to me that they are as inextricably entwined here as they are anywhere else...it's just a different religion, that's all. What is more ignoble...to worship a universal divine spirit or a humanly created paper currency? And ultimately, which is more dangerous to both man and Nature? I leave it to each one of you to decide.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 08:03 PM

Dear Wandering Minstral:
I might add, however, that in the advices of the Nantucket meeting, there is a wonderful recipie for Duck and Whalemeat pie. And, if there was a Paciticist on the airplane with a Duck and Whalemeat pie, than ... between all the hijackers loving the pie, and all the Green party folks yelling at them not to eat it, well... Hell! they'd just not have time for nothin! I agree, what a stupid hypothitical, I have a better one, what if Superman was on the plane, and Lex Luthor was the head of the hijackers, would it make a difference if Lex Luthor had kriptonite, or would Superman still figure out a way of winning. What if Superman was a Quaker, would he like... well... save folks without hurting the highjackers, and would he pass on the Duck and Whalemeat pie?
Ask Spaw.
Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:03 AM

Larry,

hell of a job to stuff a duck with a whale! :D

So you are saying that if there had been a Nantucket duck-stuffer on the flight then they woodent have been able to open the cockpit door because the treehuggers pet tree would have been in the way......???

I still go with the testimony though

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 11:03 AM

My dear Friend:
As with everything in life, making a Duck and Whalemeat pie is a matter of balance. Back in the days when our Bretherin sailed the world for oil and blood, well, there where a lot more Whales and a lot more Ducks. Now, I don't think the idea was to get the ratio of Duck to Whale right by using enough Ducks to equal one Whale, rather, I think one made Whale meat hamburgers, sausage, hotdogs, shoes and with a little of what was left one made a pie with a Duck or two.
And, further, in balance, I don't think in the days we hunted the leviathan, there were as many tree huggers. So, we would have to emaine that these Duck and Whale eating Quakers, as well as the strongly objecting Environmentalist Veegans, and hungery High Jackers all where on the airoplane in, say, 1856.
Now, in that year, there would have been a great deal of trouble to find a place to take off and land, and should they have gotten the plane up off the ground, which no doubt they could have, as there was a lot of kerosine to fly with, or Whale oil for that matter, well, the next challenge for the Highjakcers, after finishing their pie, is to stay airbourne, at least into the 1970's, when the WTC was completed and up long enough to become part of the New York patrimony and worth attacking. Further, no doubt, other things would have been actively being discussed, such as Slavery and other controversies of the day. One would have to ask, what if there were runaway slaves on the flight, wouldn't one? Then, if a runaway slave was safely at 35,000 feet up, does the Dred Scott decision apply, is the fellow no longer a slave, and would he object to Duck and Whalemeat pie, or concider it a real treat after the horrors of slavery?
I think thee speaks my mind, I will stick with the Peace Testimony and leave the creation of nonsensical hypotheticals to the draftboard, who wanted to know if I would fight is the US was to be attacked by Martians. To which I answered, No, I would just get in my time machine and keep jumping back to the day before they arrived.
Peace and responcible culinary delights,
Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:47 PM

L. H., I sincerely hope some day you win a lottery that makes you a multi-millionaire. Then perhaps we would hear no more ranting and raving about rich folks, and the thing that made them rich ...money. With all that new found wealth, you might even be able to save Cuba! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:32 PM

Doug, I would love to have a lot of money. In this system one seriously needs money. I dream about it daily. :-) Let's hope your wish comes true!

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:30 PM

Hey LH If you win the lotery, maybe we can institute a program to put a pacifist on every flight to ballance the sky marshall, kinda like Duck and Whale. Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:39 PM

So Larry, if you put Duck and Whale on the plane, which one will be the pacifist, and which one the sky marshall?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:56 PM

Good Question. My first instinct is that it would be the Duck. I was called a duck as a kid, as I was the only Friend in school, so it went from being called a Quacker to a Duck. However, when I think of the sort of achitiypal ducks, Daffy and Donald, Donald seems to be an ex-navy man and Daffy is often embroiled in violent conflict with Bugs. Generally, unless really pressed (as with the Whale which sank the Nantucket - and yes Quaker owned and comanded, whaling ship Essex...) Whales are a rather gentle bunch.
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 08:42 PM

Whales tend to be pacifists, it's true, but even a staunch pacifist can take only so much, as demonstrated in the Nantucket incident. Therefore, be warned, ye slavering, blustering, testosterone-drunk Rambo imitators, and don't think ye can walk all over us any time ye please! Grrrrr!

As for ducks, I've observed them quite a bit. They tend to be quarrelsome at times, but are not known for extreme violence, only violent emotions and the occasional spat.

I should think that either ducks or whales would make good pacifists aboard airplanes, but whales are too heavy.

Therefore for purely practical reasons I cast my vote for the ducks, as both pacifists and sky marshalls.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 08:47 PM

But not geese, right, LH?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 09:13 AM

Up to a point LH but wouldn't a duck travelling by aeroplane be a bit of a giveaway....?

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 10:38 AM

Ah yes, a duck in plain dress, or feathers whould indeed be a give away, but, than again, a fake beard, dark glasses and a big coat may do the trick, but how hard would it be to disguise a whale? Though an air breathing mamal, they are rather bulky, and I believe one has to keep a whale somewhat damp. I remember smelling whales at sea, a dead give away. Then again, Quakers sometimes are easy to spot as well, I seldom wear collars, and often go about the town in a broad brimmed Elias Hickslike hat. However, that may be a good thing, a sort of deterant, like an armed marshall. An obvious pacifist on the plane may be a deterant, as they are unpredicable and often don't go along with the crowd, like, you may ask everyone to do this and that, and it is often the Quaker that askes why. Then again, ducks seem to be rather unpredictable as well. Whales, well, I have not spent lots of time with them, other than a chance meeting or two, and they did what I expected they would... broke surface, exhaled, smelt strongly, then sounded. What were we talking about anyway, OH yes... pacitism... I'm for it... is the tea on? Well, it should be. Duck and whalemeat pie with that? No, not for me, thanks, not enough whales to go around.
Cheers,
Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: GUEST,Declan
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:57 AM

Whether you are a terrorist, pacifist, war-monger, freedom saviour or freedom fighter depends largely on your point of view.

You may well think whales are pacificists, but you mightn't think so if you were a piece of plankton.

Terrorism is not a political philosophy, but a tactic used by those who are (in their minds) waging war against an enemy, the tactic is to induce fear into the people you are attacking. The people who did the dreadful deeds of September 11th succeeded in doing this. The American bombs reigning in on Kabul have no doubt had a similar affect on the people there. Since September 11 it seems to me that CNN, Sky News and other blanket coverage of this war has been doing a great job of keeping up the fear in this part of the world, so much so that when a terrible thing like last Monday's air crash happens, everyone assumes this is another attack and is terrorised by accident. This by the way (appears to have been) an unfortunate accident. 'Collateral damage' is not an unfortunate accident - it is a direct consequence of the bombing. If thirty people get killed by a car bomb in Omagh this is a terrible outrage - if it happens in a red cross centre in Afghanistan it's an unfortunate side effect of war ! Don't get me wrong, neither event should ever happen, but what it is called and how the news is presented and received will greatly colour your perception of it.

There has been a serious amount of rubbish been talked in this thread about the situation in Northern Ireland. It is true that some Americans funded the campaign of the IRA, while the US Government supported the British 'side' in the conflict. At other times the US Government helped significantly with the current Peace process which I and other Irish people voted overwhelmingly in favour of in the referendum on the subject. The IRA has waged a savage campaign during the last 30 odd years, but thankfully their guns are now silent. Not all 3,500 deaths were at the hands of the IRA, some were at the hands of fanatics on the other side as well, many were at the hands of the 'security forces', members of which acted in collusion with terrorists to defeat the 'terrorist' enemy and in this way became terrorists themselves. By the way the referendum I spoke about substantially altered the territorial claim on the 6 counties of Northern Ireland (Ulster is a province consisting of 9 counties, 3 of which are in the Republic). This did not however affect the rights of the people of the 6 counties to call themselves Irish if they choose to do so.

While I'm at it, there's no such thing as the UK Mainland. That's another smallish island off the coast of Europe.

If we could stop pinning labels on each other, try to understand each others point of view, discuss our diferences and try to get along a lot of this stuff might never happen.

If that point of view makes me a pacifist I'm glad to be called one.

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Raptor
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:17 PM

I used to think Little Hawk was a pacifist untill I read his posts and realized that he hates birds.
Raptor

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: InOBU
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:42 PM

There seems to be some confustion between pacifist and vegitarian. Pacifists don't believe in violence towards people. Some are also vegitarians and will not eat cows and such. This does not mean that cows and such are people.
Now, the degree to which where one exists in the cosmos does affect definitions one applies to things. One finds in the Northern counties varring views on certain definitions depending on the place one grew up and the events of one's life. This is why instead of argueing about the definitions of the past, I think a truth and reconciliation process is some thing that we pacifists should endorce as a road to real and lasting peace. I say this with special attention to folks who I have different view with, peace between those of us who agree is not much a peace is it?
So, in hopes of peace, Declan, keep talking and listening.
Peace here and there,
Larry

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Raptor
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:45 PM

Birds are people too.
Raptor

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:52 PM

Why on earth would a duck that has perfectly good wings of it's own want to fly in a crowded airplane?

DougR

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 01:12 PM

Its own, Doug. (snicker!) Not only do I hate birds, Raptor, but I love being petty, mean, and pedantic! :-) Just ask GUEST, if you don't believe me. I've been observing your posts, and you have not yet mispelled the word parallelohedron, but, given time, I'm sure you will...

I think your main problem is that your tongue keeps getting stuck in the disk drive. There are local computer stores who can help you with that. Check it out, and let me know how it goes.

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Raptor
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 01:17 PM

Little Hawk
Where has your tongue been?
Raptor

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 02:04 PM

None of your business!

- LH

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:59 PM

Talk about a tongue lashing...Been down in the mouth over this thread...sometimes it speaks to me...it started out pretty cheeky... I thought the poster had gum-tion...but recently it's just become a lot of lip...(I had originally 'uvula lotta lip' but it stretched my sense of a denture)...I have no more palate for this thread...My respect for tooth has been challenged...See jaw-all later...

Just grateful to be saliva

Subject: RE: What if a pacificist was on flight 93?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 02:51 PM

Why on earth would a duck that has perfectly good wings of it's own want to fly in a crowded airplane?

DougR... same reason a person with perfectly good legs would ride in a car/train/bus/plane/ox cart/etc? (Plus, there's those little bags of peanuts they give out on the planes.)