If you don't give a refuge to a person who is unwilling to be a murderer then it's just a support for the one who compels him to kill
(and an assistance in turning a pacifist into an involuntarily murderer)
by Geser Kurultaev
Things are very clear - most people around the world don't
want to kill, even when killing is legal (during the wars) and when someone begins to forcibly mobilize them for war it is quite natural that most of these people do not want to become killers and/or at least do not want to risk their lives.
Some of these people will, also naturally, try to avoid the hell of war by seeking asylum in another country. These (fugitives trying to escape the mobilization) are more or less pacifists. (Everyone who refuses to be part of war, regardless of his motives, is against war, therefore he or she serves peace more than war, ergo he or she is to some extent a pacifist).
It would seem, in this situation, that any normal country should help those people who do something good (they refuse to become murderers or accomplices to murdering
) to be accepted. However, something absurd, unexpected, illogical and even inhuman is happening right at this part of the process -- they are denied access in some countries! Immediately the simple question arises: "Refusers except that they have no ordinary humanistic attitude and empathy towards these people (knowing that by refusing them they automatically condemn them to war or imprisonment, at minimum) do they aso haven't a simple pragmatic logic?
" I immediately clarify my question with the simple fact
((which obviously eluded the refusers), that when you return so many pacifists, then a large part of them (those who do not commit a suicide or do not end up in prisons) will be forcibly turned into involuntarily soldiers (i.e. potential killers or aiding in the killing), which will make exactly the one who mobilizes them stronger, with more military resources, and accordingly the war will last longer, and even if he does not win, the longer war will bring more death, maiming, economic, social and other suffering!
Is it so complicated if you don't have enough humanism and empathy, at least to have sound logic and then to realize that it makes your enemy stronger by giving him back more army? Or will it just turn out to be that those conspirators are right when claim that in fact many of those people in power have another logic and interest: they want a longer war and all their anti-war and pacifism speeches are just a mask? No matter what their motives are
, it's definitely true that to kick back a pacifist; not giving asylum to an unwilling to kill is a support for the one who forces him to kill and a form of assistance in turning the pacifist into a someone who commits suicide, a prisoner or an involuntarily killer.