excerpt from "what about hitler?"

in preparing for my systematic theology creedal paper, i decided to ask some help from friends that are basically my version of a living library. thanks l.p and j.p!

i was researching for the section on evil when i came across the following excerpt. it comes from the end of the fourth meditation in robert m. brimlow's book, "what about hitler?: wrestling with Jesus' call to nonviolence in an evil world" ...

"If just war theory and supreme emergencies -- especially used by Walzer and Elshtain -- are sufficient to sanction the killing and destruction inherent in conventional and total wars, then they are sufficient to sanction terrorism as well: to accept one as right and proper is to accept the other, and this means we have no moral basis to object to what Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are doing. The United States responds to an attack that was, in itself, a response to an attack; the attempt of one to eliminate a threat to survival constitutes a further threat to survival for the other; and since each party to the conflict is evil objectified, all communication and negotiation are appeasement. The only alternative either side has is to violence, which begets more violence, until one or the other or both are destroyed.

Even on secular terms, this is immoral and pathological. How any Christian could reconcile this reasoning and the actions that follow from it with the call to live a life of discipleship to Christ is something I cannot comprehend."

- Robert M. Brimlow, "What about Hitler?", Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006, p.98

and yet we reconcile it everyday...either that or we do the even more cowardly thing and choose not to engage it at all.