>Hi folks,
>
>In light of the recent discussions here about how best to respond to the recent attack on the WTC and what the best response should be I'd like to offer this link to an article written by a Michael Kelly.
>
>For the record, I agree with his assessment.
>
>http://jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly.html

Once you get into a situation that you are attacked, pacifism doesn't help anymore. But then, the question of pacifism vs any other option wasn't issued when the circumstances which led to this were created.

In a world where rich are getting richer and the middle and poor are getting poorer, the only thing which could prevent the future wars is to make living as good as possible for as many people as possible. Since that is somehow out of scope for voters, they all elect (or tolerate) governments which continue doing as they do. The imbalance this layout creates breaks out this way or another, sooner or later. Once it breaks out, it's too late for pacifism.

Besides, pacifism in only one country, and/or on only one side, is necessarily fruitless and seen as treason. It's the pacifists on the attacking side who would matter. It did happen, but somehow didn't get into the news.