A military strategic question

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There are two ways to understand pacifism.

The one means to reject using aggressive violence in a first strike to force through one's aggressive interests against another one who so far remained non-violent and did not threaten a first strike. But it reserves the right of self-defence, both passive and offensive, on behalf of oneself or other ones depending on one's own help.

The other means to not act even if that means that innocent ones gets slaughtered or become subject of atrocities, because one claims moral superiority by allowing the attacker to commit such atrocities without "lowering oneself to his levels". That is a shame, an offence, a disgrace. You can only chose that without compromsing your morality if you put only your own life and well-being at risk, and nobody else's.

The first pacifist is somebody like me. The latter is somebody who by arguing that he is a "pacifist" actively helps to create the opportunity for crime and atrocity being carried out, he does so by his passivity, and he arrogantly claims moral superiority nevertheless.

One can chose to stay out of other people's conflicts and wars, for many reasons, yes, there were wars I would or have supported, and other wars I considered to be so stupid that I refused to give them my support. But one should really be careful to not mistake the one form of pacifism with the other one. The first understanding of pacifism is wise. The latter is cynical, and despises the suffering and death of legions.

Thank you for your reply
I would be 1½ absolutely number one and not nearby number 2.

Markus