Why pacifists are selfish, and why violence is not inherently a good or bad thing

     This weeks post is going to be on a touchy subject, and it's going to be kind of different, because it's not about a single event in the news. It's coming from a position that is usually described as barbaric at worst, and unrefined at best. So I'm going to be very careful in my wording, because I want my opinion to be seen as exactly the opposite as those adjectives.
      If it can be related to a single event, it would be about Malala Yousafzai being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, her book coming out this week, etc. For the record, I believe 99% of what she has said. She is very brave and we should all support her because she is going to need all the support she can get, because she's going against a very sick and twisted organization, the Taliban. She is a good role model for young people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, girl or boy. However, just because I support her doesn't mean I'm going to look over the things that we are in disagreement with. That 1% that I didn't agree with really disturbed me, which compelled me to write about this topic.

     Pacifism, in liberal societies, is often seen as having the moral high ground, or being ideological superior to any other thought process that thinks violence is acceptable in at least one situation. I cannot disagree with that opinion more. I believe that violence in pure self-defense against aggressive combatants, and violence in defense of others against aggressive combatants, is the superior thought process. This opinion on violence does not support:

•  violence against non-combatants, (i.e. women, children, the elderly), 
• violence against combatants who did not start any fight, 
• violence where non-violence could've be used to achieve the same result,   
• violence against someone who just so happens to be in the social group as an aggressive person, (either religious, racial, political, etc). 

     Pacifists see all violence as abhorrent. I do not believe that fighting to protect civilians, or fighting against a tyrannical, murderous government, or fighting to protect yourself against a criminal who wants to murder you, is barbaric or vile in any way. On the contrary, pacifists are selfish because they refuse to put their life or health on the line to protect innocents. A person who has the same opinion on violence that I do, would gladly fight, and possibly die, if that meant saving his/her family from home invaders, for example. But a pacifist would just sit there and not fight back all, making it the easiest thing in the world for home invaders to kill everyone in the house. How is that morally superior?

   
     Let's think about the above picture. If a murderer invades a pacifist's house and proceeds to attack the pacifist, what's the first thing the pacifist, having absolutely no weapons in his house, does? That's right, he calls 911. He calls for a person, with a weapon, to come and help him. This police officer believes that a person is allowed to use violence in defense of others in the face of an aggressor. A person who believes in a "barbaric way of thinking" is the only thing standing between the pacifist and death. The pacifist is selfish. He won't put his life or health on the line to even protect himself, but he'll gladly let someone else do it.  
     The pacifist is like the dodo bird. Even in the face of aggressors killing pacifists on a mass scale, they would still just sit there, refusing to budge on their "moral high ground principles."

    Okay, enough bashing pacifists. Let's move onto the second part of the post. The media, and much of any liberal society, views violence as "100% always bad," without a doubt. It is never acceptable. Well, let's look at some of history's most evil villians:

• Hilter
• Osama Bin Laden
• Talat Pasha (responsible for the Armenian genocide)
• Reinhard Heydrich (2nd in command of SS, architect of the "Final Solution)
• Maximilien Robespierre
• Ivan the Terrible
• Vlad the Impaler

     Guess how they all died? I'll tell you, it wasn't peaceful protests that did them in. Right, it was violence. Good guys killing the bad guys. In Hitler's case, he killed himself, but only because loads of good guys, the Allies, were beating the crap out of his totalitarian state by, guess what, killing Nazis by the thousands.
      The point I'm making here is that sometimes, peaceful means will not get rid of a bad guy, or solve a problem. Sometimes, the only option left is violence. It should be used as a last resort. In some cases, it can be a good thing, because nothing short of killing Vlad the Impaler was going to stop Vlad the Impaler from killing innocent people. By killing him, the people who did so saved countless innocent lives that would've been taken away, had Vlad the Impaler continued to reign.
     Sometimes, there is nothing that will stop a bully from beating the shit out of you, except beating the shit outta him. When I was a freshman in high school, I got picked on and beat up relentlessly because I was short and small, because of my race, because I wasn't one of the cool kids, etc. I tried every method of non-violence to solve this problem.

1. Talked to the bullies themselves, told them to stop. That didn't work. 
2. Went to the school administrators. They didn't do anything; they didn't care.
3. Told my parents. They didn't care.
4. Went to the police officer at school. He didn't care.

     At this point I was out of options. Over the months, I started working out a lot. I grew half a foot. Throughout all my fights with the bullies, I learned how to fight well. I took some cheap shots, but due to my size, it was the only way I could win, so I did so. So by the end of the year, I was the one that was winning the fights, not the bullies. Sophomore year I got into a few fights but not nearly as much as freshman year. Junior and Senior year I didn't get into any fights at all. People learned not to mess with me, and that was that.
     I'm not saying to love violence. I'm not saying to go out into the street and start beating up random people for the fun of it. Violence can just as easily be used for evil means as it can be used for good means. I'm only saying to admit that violence can be used for good means. Don't label it as 100% evil, all of them time.

     Malala was asked what she would do if another Taliban goon approached her to kill her. She replied:
 "I started thinking about that, and I used to think that the Talib would come, and he would just kill me. But then I said, 'If he comes, what would you do Malala?' then I would reply to myself, 'Malala, just take a shoe and hit him.' But then I said, 'If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib."

     Absolutely incorrect. Malala could not be more wrong on this. Killing a girl because she wants to go to school is absolutely nothing like a girl defending herself from a religious extremist. The two actions could not be farther apart on the moral scale. Malala is right on many things, but she has some growing up to do.    

Condemn Terrorist Attacks, No Matter Who the Perpetrator Is

         I’m going to talk about the one thing that no one is talking about when it comes to the story of Malala Yousufazi, the 14 year old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban. 

          Before I get into that, I am glad that so many governments, so many news channels, and so many people from all over the globe are united in their condemnation and utmost disgust of this attack. With it being hard for people of different faiths or races to agree on anything now in days, it is heartening to see such a diverse group of unified people on such an important issue. But, once you look closer at this, with historical context, you notice that there is something very wrong about this.

          No, I’m not saying we should not condemn this act of terrorism, that’s not my point at all. We should condemn it. My problem with it is: Why is that when a Muslim injures or kills someone in a terrorist attack, Westerners are quick to condemn that attack, but when a Westerner does the exact same fucking thing to a Muslim victim, the number of Westerners condemning the attack sharply decreases to very few people?

          Every single major U.S. news station has reported on Malala’s story, (CNN, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, etc). So why haven’t they expressed the same amount of outrage or given the same amount of coverage say when, American soldiers have shot unarmed Iraqi civilians on purpose? (Sometimes they’ve shot children in the head, the exact same thing that happened to Malala.) Why aren’t they disgusted when American soldiers bomb unarmed Afghani civilians? Why aren’t they repulsed when American drones bomb a funeral procession in Somali, or a wedding in Pakistan, or students in Yemen? Why why why why? No American has ever been able to answer me this question. No one. 

 

An Afghani child that was shot in the head by American soldiers

          This is very disturbing. The majority of Westerners, particularly the majority of Americans, have no problem with one of their fellow citizens, (Read: someone who “looks like them,”) murdering an innocent civilian that is not American, especially if that innocent civilian is Muslim, (Read: the mysterious, foreign, dangerous “Other,”). Our current culture hypes up people’s egos so much, turning them into megalomaniacs, that they honestly believe that Americans are genetically superior to every other nation in the world, so, we can do things that everyone else can’t. The rules that apply to everyone else in the world, don’t apply to us. We’re just that fucking special. 

          Now, not everyone who gives Americans a pass on terrorist attack is a self-absorbed prick. I’ve met some good, honest, nice people who do the same thing. Now why is that? Simply, it makes them feel too awkward, or too uncomfortable, to admit that their soldiers do such things. They don’t want to face the facts of all of the millions of civilians American soldiers have murdered over the decades, (centuries actually, if you want to go back to colonial times, but let’s not overwhelm ourselves here). So, they simply never talk about it. They never admit it. If someone brings it up in a debate or an argument, they physically cannot say anything else; they just sit there.

          An American being the villain and a Muslim being the victim simply cannot compute for many Americans. That is not the official narrative of the government and their media lackeys. That is not what they hear when they are growing up. So, if anyone says otherwise, (like me), I’m simply an American hating terrorist. They completely disregard all my facts, charts, graphs, testimonies, history books, etc, etc, etc, i.e. all the overwhelming evidence that I have, with name calling. How immature.      

                                            An Iraqi civilian killed by American forces       

          If we can’t condemn our own terrorists, then why do we expect every other nation in the world to condemn their own terrorists? You can’t tell someone to do something that you are not willing to do yourself. The answer goes back to the megalomaniac point earlier: “We’re Americans, we don’t have to condemn Americans for anything, because we don’t commit any terrorist acts. We are only hard workers and heroes. However, you Islamic countries, you guys are all terrorists, so you have to condemn each and every terrorist attack a Muslim commits.”

          Don’t think other nations get a pass on this either. It’s not just Americans that do this. Every single other nation has the exact same sick problem. They condemn terrorist attacks right and left, but as soon as someone of their own nation commits a terrorist attack, they fall deathly silent. Israel, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Nigeria, Mexico, Burma, etc, etc, all of them do the exact same thing.

          We, as Americans, need to get over the awkwardness and the stigma that comes with condemning our own soldiers. I have no fear of walking up to an American soldier and saying “American soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose.” Because it’s true. Look at history, YouTube, the news, etc. The facts are on my side. No one should be afraid of saying the truth. There is nothing un-American about calling a blatant terrorist attack, a blatant terrorist attack ,even if that terrorist is an American soldier. If you are a truly principled person, then race/nationality should have no role in whether you condemn a terrorist attack or not. If it does, then that means you are truly not against terrorist attacks. You’re only against terrorist attacks, as long as the terrorist is not an American. That’s right. You support terrorism. What does that say about your morals, your character, your values? 

                                 The site of a Pakistani wedding bombed by a U.S. drone

          Think on it, and you’ll see why so many people around the world hate America. And, you’ll see that hate is not stemmed in ignorance, or jealously, no, it’s because they want us to stop killing them! Wow, who would’ve thought that killing unarmed civilians would piss people off?!