okay im posting this link for everyone to see themself if its true that ribels are pigs,or even criminals
just walk throu this site http://www.amina.com/war/wphoto.html ,watch some pics,dont have to be of ppl for example
compare
http://www.amina.com/images/grozny_prdvb.jpg
http://www.amina.com/images/grozny_prdv.jpg
this s not a nuke "dam it".
so enoguh talking about terror and islam stuff,and dont tell me they dont have the right to react.
if u were in thier place what will u do?
i love the first 3 winning pics
http://www.amina.com/war/wphoto.html
and remember this could happen anywhere.
this what most of us dont want to see,the true side of the story.
and they call the reaction terror :bawling:

I'm not sure what your point is?

?

Originally posted by creedance
so enoguh talking about terror and islam stuff,and dont tell me they dont have the right to react.
if u were in thier place what will u do?[/B]

If it's a peaceful protest, sure they have every right to do so. When they feel "getting even" is appropriate they no longer are about protesting, but killing for revenge.

If the world would only follow MLK, Jr's protesting method the world would be a much more peaceful place. No one could say that the Blacks in this country didn't suffer, didn't face injustice, didn't get a fair shake in life -- but instead of bombing, and terrorizing the country, those who wanted change did so -- peacefully -- and got the respect of the majority.

That's a history lesson all these factions need to follow, not the killing ideas of folks angry to spill blood over whatever belief (I'd care less if one's Muslim; Christian; Buddhist; Atheist; Agnostic; Black; Asian; Indian; Caucasian or whatever ethnic group, for we're all humans first and we all deserve to live productively).

Chris

If the world would only follow MLK, Jr's protesting method

note that Dr. King was influenced and inspired by Mahatma Gandhi

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"


http://www.mkgandhi.org/

:)

Originally posted by akash


note that Dr. King was influenced and inspired by Mahatma Gandhi

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"


http://www.mkgandhi.org/

:)

Ethnic pride can, at times, be a root of evil? For Gandhi wasn't the first to establish peaceful protesting.

Part of the problem in the Middle East (and elsewhere) is the stubborness of one's ethnic pride that's more important than human life itself.

We're humans first above all.

Chris

For Gandhi wasn't the first to establish peaceful protesting.

Never said he was, but you said "If the world would only follow MLK, Jr's protesting method"...i was just simply pointing out that he was inspired by Gandhi and noting his famous quote...;)


and for everyone's information.....India is not a part of the middle east

Originally posted by akash


Never said he was, but you said "If the world would only follow MLK, Jr's protesting method"...i was just simply pointing out that he was inspired by Gandhi and noting his famous quote...;)


and for everyone's information.....India is not a part of the middle east

On a thread that seems to justify violence to end violence, with an ethnic flavor to it? The only reason I brought up MLK, Jr's protesting method is because it's one I'm personally familiar with.

Nor did I imply that India was part of the Middle East. India has problems with getting along with ethnic minorities in itself, so even though Gandhi was a visionary, the country has a long way to heal (not even getting into the chaste system that enslaves women).

If people are into ethnic pride, they must look long and deep in all aspects of that pride. Few ethnic groups in the world are guilt free of oppressing other ethnic groups, let alone enslaving part of their population.

The finger pointing, the "blame game" the self-righteous vengence/revenge and over zealous ethnic pride doesn't help human kind. It divides it.

Chris
Who's searching for the The Truth <tm> in a world of political/ethnic/religious spin control

so did USA act peacfully for 11/9 then?
how about iraq,how about old red indians
why didnt russia act peacfully from the start with chechen prob?
u got to be kidding.
would u plz tell me why does USA need to strick iraq then,why not korea?:D

Originally posted by creedance
so did USA act peacfully for 11/9 then?
how about iraq,how about old red indians
why didnt russia act peacfully from the start with chechen prob?
u got to be kidding.
would u plz tell me why does USA need to strick iraq then,why not korea?:D

The US had to protect itself, knowing full well that the same folks that helped harbor and plan the 9/11 attack were intact and posed a threat. How they attack Afghanistan will be judged by history (I personally feel it's not how we bombed there that will be problem, it's how the US hightails it afterwards. They did it to the Afghans in the early 80's, and I'm afraid they'll do it again, leaving a hole for another oppressive figurehead to rule that country. The US has to earn the trust of other nations, and turning it's back on countries does not do that).

The US role in the Middle East has been dismal. I make no bones about that, but I can also say we aren't the only problem. What makes it ugly in the region (and beyond) is radical Islam and ultra-nationalism (which the US is starting to face itself) which stokes the anti this and that frevor. It blinds folks of what's the real problems are, and replaces it with emotional fanfare designed to keep the citizens off center of what really ails their country (like non equality; poor health care; unemployment and various other social ills). You can't say those in those countries don't want the same social benefits the modern world has -- if they didn't, they'd be living in caves shunning the modern world truthfully (and not just forcing the general population from modernization while the "elite" has the cars, the weapons and internet access).

Are you familiar with US history? Over a hundred years ago a section of this country tried to leave the Union. This country fought for 4 years a brother-against-brother war that ravaged the nation. Much more died during those battles than what that break away republic faced (did any one battle there had over 70,000 die alone?), and it rift this nation for many years afterwards. But the Union was preserved. I personally don't have a problem if Russia wants to maintain their own Union, as united the countries (or states) are stronger economically and socially. The entire region doesn't know democracy, nor will it understand it in our lifetime and mistakes will be made -- but democracy isn't made overnight, and without some blood shed. The US history shows that plainly. The US didn't get to where we are today sitting on our hands.

And for your question about attacking Iraq instead of Korea? How about the bigger question: all deemed terrorist states? Iraq would be an easy target, and a political gain for Bush. Going into Korea would open old wounds and mistrust in Southeast Asia, and the US depends too much on that region for high-tech goods. If that region suffers our economy takes a hit (ust look how we kowtow to China about Korea). ;). Iraq has oil we haven't even really tapped, so toppling Hussein isn't going make our economy dive, it may increase it for more oil!

It's politics more than anything else. Whatever it'll take to make sure Bush, Jr has another election, bring more cheap oil for our gas hogging ways, and symbolically cut down another Islamic dictator (meanwhile glad handing Saudi Arabia [and Egypt], which are brutal Islamic countries equal to Iraq and Afghanistan on how they treat their citizens).

So in truth, the US helped make the mess in the Middle East worse, but the US can also help heal the wounds there -- if -- we'd honor promises and stand on the principles that made the US the most free country in the world.

Chris

ahah
do u believe what u have just said

Originally posted by creedance
ahah
do u believe what u have just said

ah-hah
Do you have a "y" or "o" key on your keyboard?
Do you have issues with certain facts he presented? If so, why dont you say what they are instead of a one-line response? If you want to debate something with someone, why not do it right?

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


ah-hah
Do you have a "y" or "o" key on your keyboard?
Do you have issues with certain facts he presented? If so, why dont you say what they are instead of a one-line response? If you want to debate something with someone, why not do it right?

Yes, I'd say the same about the use of more complete words. Raises the level of intellect involved (but I'm not perfect, either. The grammar and spell checkers can have a field day on my posts). :/

And for the record: I'm a she, not a he. ;)

Chris
A free thinking woman who loves a good debate :)

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
And for the record: I'm a she, not a he. ;)

My apologies. :)

creedance,

If you go to google you'll be able to find photos of russian soldiers lying on the ground with their throats slid. So I can use the same argument you had.

Originally posted by akash

Never said he was, but you said "If the world would only follow MLK, Jr's protesting method"...i was just simply pointing out that he was inspired by Gandhi and noting his famous quote...;)


And Ghandi was inspired by Thoreau, specifically, many say Ghandi's protests were an application of Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" (http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html).

Of course, Thoreau was influenced by Jesus :).

very true uuallan ;)

Frankie Goes to Hollywood: "War"

War
Oh no-there's got to be a better way
Say it again
There's got to be a better way-yeah
What is it good for?

*War has caused unrest

Among the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die?

War-huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War-huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Yeah

War-I despise
'Cos it means destruction

Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers how
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives

I said
War-huh

It's an enemy of all mankind
No point of war
'Cos you're a man

*(Repeat)

Give it to me one time-now
Give it to me one time-now

War has shattered
Many young men's dreams
We've got no place for it today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord, there's just got to be a better way

It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War

War
War-Good God, now

Now
Give it to me one time now
Now now
What is it good for?

Originally posted by timechange
Frankie Goes to Hollywood: "War"...
Of all the people who have covered that song, interesting choice... ;) :D

Originally posted by timechange
War...
What is it good for?

Standing up for what you know is right in the face of a governemnt that does any of the following:

1. Taxes unfairly without representation in gov't
2. Human rights violations such as those found in Asian countries
3. Mass genocide (ethnic cleasing) by one countries leader

etc, etc

Originally posted by Acronym BOY

1. Taxes unfairly without representation in gov't
2. Human rights violations such as those found in Asian countries
3. Mass genocide (ethnic cleasing) by one countries leader


All of which of can also be dealt with in a non-violent manner, often more effectively.

Originally posted by uuallan
All of which of can also be dealt with in a non-violent manner, often more effectively.

Let me uess, youre French?

1. We threw a small tea party and the Brits didnt like it. Civilians were massacared in the square because a kid threw a snowball at a solider. We said Screw you. This blows. We've got the short end of the stick. We're done with you. to the "throne" and became our own soverign nation. They didnt like that so Mr. Revere had to go hang some lanterns to let us know "The British were coming!". We would have been plenty happy if they just packed their bags and left but we had to pack their bags for them and kick them out.

2. Well youre peaceful methods arent working here. There are numerous protest groups around the world protesting everything from murder of innocents to censorship and everything in between. Plus you have things like this:

http://www.uncp.edu/library/instruction/images/tiananmen.jpg

Does it look like the peaceful method is working to you? :rolleyes:

3. Well you see, Hitler had this thing for taking over the world and making a master race. He came into power by promising solutions to all the problems that Germany was having (as any politician would do). He started blaming the Jews for them and everyone sort of went along, probably becuase people dont stand up and do the right thing enough. Anyhow, he gets to France and what do the Frnch do? The peaceful method. Oh please dont ruin our pretty city, Paris. Yeahhhhh. Hitler gets to the UK (and the only advantage they have against the Germans is radar, but the u-boats are still controlling the sea) and starts bombing the hell out of that. Any older Britons in here remember your air raid drills from school? Funny thing is if the US did half the stuff they did during WW2 today, the EU would be all over the US for being "barbarians" and "uncivlized" (like they do know when ever someone mentions we have the death penalty). But of course back than no one really said much becuase half of Europe was run by Nazi's and the UK wouldnt have made it without help.

So it seems that sometimes you dont want war, but your "mother" country wont let go. Others it seems that peace just isnt doing a thing. And still other times, talking nice to guys like Hitler wont get them to stop, you must stop them.

War, that is what its good for.

Unless youd rather greet everyone with the traditional Heil Hitler! instead of the more common hello.

Originally posted by creedance
okay im posting this link for everyone to see themself if its true that ribels are pigs,or even criminals
just walk throu this site http://www.amina.com/war/wphoto.html ,watch some pics,dont have to be of ppl for example
compare
http://www.amina.com/images/grozny_prdvb.jpg
http://www.amina.com/images/grozny_prdv.jpg
this s not a nuke "dam it".
so enoguh talking about terror and islam stuff,and dont tell me they dont have the right to react.
if u were in thier place what will u do?
i love the first 3 winning pics
http://www.amina.com/war/wphoto.html
and remember this could happen anywhere.
this what most of us dont want to see,the true side of the story.
and they call the reaction terror :bawling:


So I now have a right to react for 9/11. Thanks for clearing that up.

react to to binladden,where is he now by the way?
ahahah.
u guys feed on media too much.ur only interaction is media.

Originally posted by creedance
react to to binladden,where is he now by the way?

No one has been sure for many years where he is. The caves are sort of hard to tell a part.

Originally posted by creedance
ahahah.

yeah

Originally posted by creedance
u guys feed on media too much.ur only interaction is media.

Yet again, I would like to ask you to please find a keyboard with all of the letters on it. I am not the only one who would like to see that happen.

Do you have another source of information aside from the media? How else do you find out what is going on thousands of miles away?

If you do a search here, you will find my posts on why access providers and content producers shoudl not the be the same for this very reason.

Originally posted by creedance
react to to binladden,where is he now by the way?
ahahah.
u guys feed on media too much.ur only interaction is media.


They are not just reacting to the people that hurt them but the entire nation. Why should the rules change just for me.

I like how all these people not in America make speculations about what myself and other Americans are reacting to. You have no idea how I feel or what I am thinking... And if I have to kill to protect my children and family woe to whatever retard put themselves in that situation.

Back to the original point of the thread ... Chechnya is, indeed, a tragedy. Remember, however, that Russian sent troops back in only after Chechnyan rebels began to harass Dagestan.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


3. Well you see, Hitler had this thing for taking over the world and making a master race. He came into power by promising solutions to all the problems that Germany was having (as any politician would do). He started blaming the Jews for them and everyone sort of went along, probably becuase people dont stand up and do the right thing enough. Anyhow, he gets to France and what do the Frnch do? The peaceful method. Oh please dont ruin our pretty city, Paris. Yeahhhhh. Hitler gets to the UK (and the only advantage they have against the Germans is radar, but the u-boats are still controlling the sea) and starts bombing the hell out of that. Any older Britons in here remember your air raid drills from school? Funny thing is if the US did half the stuff they did during WW2 today, the EU would be all over the US for being "barbarians" and "uncivlized" (like they do know when ever someone mentions we have the death penalty). But of course back than no one really said much becuase half of Europe was run by Nazi's and the UK wouldnt have made it without help.


I wanted to respond to this point because you are confusing non-violent protest with submission. The key point in your argument is "blaming the Jews for them and everyone sort of went along", non-violent protest or resistance is not the same as submission (just ask Ghandi and MLK). Did you know that in the "war" between India and Britain, India won without a single shot being fired or a single person having to die, and Britain is still out of India.

Funny, you should mention France, when Hitler invaded France, there was a village in Northern France in which the people refused to acknowledge Hitler's rule, surrender Jews, or fight the German soldiers. The village remained untouched throughout WWII, and the Jewish people were untouched (the name escapes me now, if I have time I will dig up the reference).

Non-violent protest/resistence requires significant bravery and fortitude and only should not be confused with cowardice.

Originally posted by Chicken

Of all the people who have covered that song, interesting choice... ;) :D

Yeah I am an 80's kid :D

Originally posted by uuallan
But I wanted to respond to this point because you are confusing non-violent protest with submission. The key point in your argument is "blaming the Jews for them and everyone sort of went along", non-violent protest or resistance is not the same as submission (just ask Ghandi and MLK). Did you know that in the "war" between India and Britain, India won without a single shot being fired or a single person having to die, and Britain is still out of India.

My point is that without violence, how you you have stopped Hitler? Remember, war isnt an option. Dont you think they tried peace first? And when Hitler was bombing England I think it can be safe to say that peace failed.

Originally posted by uuallan
Funny, you should mention France, when Hitler invaded France, there was a village in Northern France in which the people refused to acknowledge Hitler's rule, surrender Jews, or fight the German soldiers. The village remained untouched throughout WWII, and the Jewish people were untouched (the name escapes me now, if I have time I will dig up the reference).

Yes, but Hitler still ran the show, whether they acknowldged it or not doesnt matter. And why woudl Hitler care about a small village? He had Paris, they let him walk right in!

Originally posted by uuallan
Non-violent protest/resistence requires significant bravery and fortitude and only should not be confused with cowardice.

Being able to stand up and say I am willing to die for what I know is right takes even more balls. Sitting there and saying, I wont acknowledge you, but I will let you run all over the rest of the world killing people at will is not being brave. That is what they did. They let Hitler carry on without opposing him.

What is worse, those who commit a henious act against humanity, or those who do nothing to stop it and sit idly by?

And if you read carefully, I didnt call them cowards, I simply said they let Hitler walk in. Than all of a sudden the "barbaric" Americans came in and no one carred that they were barbarians any more.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY

Being able to stand up and say I am willing to die for what I know is right takes even more balls. Sitting there and saying, I wont acknowledge you, but I will let you run all over the rest of the world killing people at will is not being brave. That is what they did. They let Hitler carry on without opposing him.


Why do you think that people who protest in a non-violent manner are not willing to die for what they believe in? Again, you are confusing non-violence with cowardice. Non-violent protest can be deadly, because the protester is facing someone who is armed, and presumably willing to use their weapons. I think staring into the eyes of someone pointing a gun at you and still refusing to comply with they want takes more "balls" than arming yourself and shooting back.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY

My point is that without violence, how you you have stopped Hitler? Remember, war isnt an option. Dont you think they tried peace first? And when Hitler was bombing England I think it can be safe to say that peace failed.


Peace is not the same as non-violent protest.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Acronym BOY
1. We threw a small tea party and the Brits didnt like it. Civilians were massacared in the square because a kid threw a snowball at a solider. We said Screw you. This blows. We've got the short end of the stick. We're done with you. to the "throne" and became our own soverign nation. They didnt like that so Mr. Revere had to go hang some lanterns to let us know "The British were coming!". We would have been plenty happy if they just packed their bags and left but we had to pack their bags for them and kick them out.

It was more than taxes that got the ire of the Colonists. I think it was more the second class citizenship that got their dander up more, for they didn't have representation because England considered the Colonists uncivilized barbarians.

2. Well youre peaceful methods arent working here. There are numerous protest groups around the world protesting everything from murder of innocents to censorship and everything in between.

How did the USSR fall? There was a minute armed conflict, and even the army had enough. Give a population a chance for freedom and they'll jump on it!

China's government as we know it will fall in the same manner. They're close to switching to capitalism. Human Rights resolution would be another matter -- China hasn't known that concept for thousands of years, and won't learn it over night. They're in the same boat as the Russians of only knowing how to live under autocrats.

Funny thing is if the US did half the stuff they did during WW2 today, the EU would be all over the US for being "barbarians" and "uncivlized" (like they do know when ever someone mentions we have the death penalty). But of course back than no one really said much becuase half of Europe was run by Nazi's and the UK wouldnt have made it without help.

Well, that is true. Once the France was saved -- twice-- their payback for our boys' lost lives is: SCREW YOU!!

I don't have much respect for French foreign affairs, as they were as brutal as the British with their colonies (and perhaps more so). Heck, most European countries. Even tiny Belgium was murderous.

So it seems that sometimes you dont want war, but your "mother" country wont let go. Others it seems that peace just isnt doing a thing. And still other times, talking nice to guys like Hitler wont get them to stop, you must stop them.

Sometimes. In today's terminology though the Revolution would be considered terrorism, and George Washington Saddam Hussein.

History is weird for if it's your country your leaders and fighters are pure and holy (that is the winning side), it's just the other country's leaders and fighters that were/are evil.

War, that is what its good for.

Unless youd rather greet everyone with the traditional Heil Hitler! instead of the more common hello.

Hitler's regime wouldn't have lasted long. Too much rivarly. He barely had the loyality of the old guard (the army generals especially). The Waffen-SS, SS and SD couldn't maintain law and order on their own, as those units were too small to police Germany, let alone Europe. The old guard would've retaken command and possibly broker a more peaceful end to that war. By 1944 the morale of the German forces was breaking by the shortages in ammo, food and sheer weariness of fighting. Stalingrad was a brutal campaign that literally broke their back (it was similiar to what Napolean faced over a hundred years before, that long and bitter retreat). The U-Boat fleet was almost sunk by the summer of that year, with a few sea wolves to spare, too.

Chris
Who loves military history, and it shows :/

Originally posted by uuallan
Why do you think that people who protest in a non-violent manner are not willing to die for what they believe in? Again, you are confusing non-violence with cowardice. Non-violent protest can be deadly, because the protester is facing someone who is armed, and presumably willing to use their weapons. I think staring into the eyes of someone pointing a gun at you and still refusing to comply with they want takes more "balls" than arming yourself and shooting back.

And when someone shoots someone else do you let them or do you tell them to stop and if they dont, take care of business. Yet again I ask:

What is worse, those who commit a henious act against humanity, or those who do nothing to stop it and sit idly by?

Originally posted by uuallan
Originally posted by Acronym BOYMy point is that without violence, how you you have stopped Hitler? Remember, war isnt an option. Dont you think they tried peace first? And when Hitler was bombing England I think it can be safe to say that peace failed.
Peace is not the same as non-violent protest.

Let me rephrase.

Do you think a non-violent portest would have stopped Hitler?

Yeah, sure :rolleyes:

Churchill probably held hands with some other govt leaders and sent a letter asking him to be nice, quit killing Jews, and stop taking over other countries. And that would have worked, right? The non-violent protest would be the solution?

Oh wait, thats right ,some people needed to step in and put a stop to it. But you refuse to acknowledge that. You refuse to acknowledge war is necessary under certain condition, of which I gave 3 examples.

Chris, I agree wth what you have to say for the most part, and Russia is an exception. But what I said about China and human rights violations still stands. You can either wait centuries for it to happen, or you can revolt and take care of business internally and catch up to the other 60% of the world.

I never said war is necessary all the time. I was stating war does come in handy and does have it purposes and even needs. uuallan seems to think that there is always a play nice with others way to handle things. Thats fine unless the reason the issue exists is becuase someone doesnt play nice, in which case they wont want to settle it nicely. uuallan cant see that. I have provided three modern examples of what war is "good for" and he seems to think the same result could have been had without violence.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Acronym BOY
Chris, I agree wth what you have to say for the most part, and Russia is an exception. But what I said about China and human rights violations still stands. You can either wait centuries for it to happen, or you can revolt and take care of business internally and catch up to the other 60% of the world.

The only thing I care about is the preservation of the species, AB. If we continue to fight instead of trying to find ways to live peacefully we won't have to worry about abortions, diseases or old age to keep check of our population.

We're social animals and when a loved one is killed (or murdered) it's hard on the survivors. That's what I dislike about war -- the utter destruction of not only property, the future of those who manage to survive. They will carry the burden long after the rally cries and and banners are gone.

War is never glorious. It's literal hell and few come out of it intact physically and/or mentally.

I never said war is necessary all the time.

I wasn't implying that, just expanding on what you said. Consider it a counterpoint. So much is said in brevity, that the "meat" is bypassed for a fruitbar and coffee. ;)

I was stating war does come in handy and does have it purposes and even needs.

When it's neccessary. WWI wasn't, and the aftermath of The Great War caused a rift in Europe that made WWII even more bitter.

[We tend to forget WWI, but the social ramifications of the war is what helped push 1917 and more. The intellectuals of that day also revolted in a manner not see even in the 60's (the rise of the Bloomsbury Group for example). Try picking up some books of the time and get a feel of what folks felt in 1913 and 1936 (when the young just knew war was brewing). I'm no way a "dove", but I also can understand the "other side's" views. It's important when we'll be facing future wars, as history tends to repeat itself as people forget].

uuallan seems to think that there is always a play nice with others way to handle things. Thats fine unless the reason the issue exists is becuase someone doesnt play nice, in which case they wont want to settle it nicely. uuallan cant see that. I have provided three modern examples of what war is "good for" and he seems to think the same result could have been had without violence.

I'd be curious of his response. ;)

[Sure beats the high and dry art history I'm reading at the moment. Looking left and right.....hmmmm, Poussin, isn't that French for "chicken"?].

:stickout:

Chris

Yet again I agree :)

But every Frenchman will be after you for that Nicolas remark, calling him/them "chickens"!

(Babelfish/systran say it means "chick" though so who knows.)

one more thing...

I agree about the war is a waste of time effort money and lives part. I agree 100%. If we could all just play nice and work for the good of humanity (communism on a large scale) we could accomplish much much more. All the killing (and I hold athiests accounatable for a large percentage of it, search here and the Soap Box at Ars and you can see why) is not productive.

I have also quoted this numerous times:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
Yet again I agree :)

But every Frenchman will be after you for that Nicolas remark, calling him/them "chickens"!

(Babelfish/systran say it means "chick" though so who knows.)

AB, that was a joke for our Chicken (the mod). The name sounds so lovely, and made a little joke (actually wondering if he'd change his nick to it). Might be good with the ladies. ;)

[Okay, it was dry joke, Chicken, but I'll call it even after you questioned if I was a woman. Dang I have a l-o-n-g memory] ;)

Chris

Oops, late at night, sorry :)

Originally posted by Acronym BOY

Let me rephrase.

Do you think a non-violent portest would have stopped Hitler?

Yeah, sure :rolleyes:


I think you are misunderstanding the concept of non-violent protest/resistence. I am not talking about staging a sit in, I am talking about a systematic approach to correcting something that is wrong.

To that end, the answer to your question is YES. If the Germans had organized a systematic approach of non-violent resistance, or if the French had done the same thing Hitler would have been stopped.



Churchill probably held hands with some other govt leaders and sent a letter asking him to be nice, quit killing Jews, and stop taking over other countries. And that would have worked, right? The non-violent protest would be the solution?

Oh wait, thats right ,some people needed to step in and put a stop to it. But you refuse to acknowledge that. You refuse to acknowledge war is necessary under certain condition, of which I gave 3 examples.

Non-violent resistence cannot come from the outside. You are talking about diplomacy, which I already pointed out is not the same thing as non-violent protest/resistance. Non-violent resistance has to be done by the people who are being wronged/oppressed. They have to collectively stand up those in power and say, "No, we are not going to be oppressed, but we are also not going to fight you."

I don't acknowledge that war is necessary under certain conditions, because it is not. War is never necessary. The three examples you gave:

1. Taxes unfairly without representation in gov't

Don't pay the taxes.

2. Human rights violations such as those found in Asian countries

Human rights violations exist in all countries, including the United States. Those violations need ot be brought to light, and the citizens of that country should protest and work to have them corrected, the more citizens that protest the more likely it is that human rights violations will stop.


3. Mass genocide (ethnic cleasing) by one countries leader

One leader cannot commit ethnic cleansing alone, the leader has to have the support (even the tacit support) of citizens in that country. Again, the more citizens that resist this leader, the less likely that leader is to succeed, and you don't have to resist violently.

There is a great essay on nonviolence.org that should help clear up some of the misconceptions you have about non-violent resistence:

http://www.nonviolence.org/commentary/messages/2323.htm

Also, read the Thoreau essay I posted here earlier.

Originally posted by uuallan
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of non-violent protest/resistence. I am not talking about staging a sit in, I am talking about a systematic approach to correcting something that is wrong.

To that end, the answer to your question is YES. If the Germans had organized a systematic approach of non-violent resistance, or if the French had done the same thing Hitler would have been stopped.

That's hard to fathom, when the Nazi's terrorized their own people into submission. Many of us don't understand the fear of living in a brutal regime, and the primal need to survive.

Extermination camp survivors hunkered down in the mode, helping out in the killing process, just to survive. If they didn't, there wouldn't be around to tell the world of their brutal fate -- they'd be dead.

It's easy in 20/20 hindsight to say that protesting Hitler's rise to power would've prevented WWII (and the loss of millions of Jews, Gypsies and other "undesireables"). But actually, the population would've done what it can to survive. The Russians understood this when Stalin's terror reign, too.

Hitler was so crazy, he'd kill his population to the extent that only the his bodyguard would survive. I think the German population understood that, and whatever protesting they could do wasn't the public variety.

BTW, Hitler's government would've collapsed in time from within, on it's own. The old power wasn't willing to let some foreign born enlisted man rule. It would've been different is some "von" replaced him, though.

Non-violent resistence cannot come from the outside.

Oh, it has. How do you think the protests in Russia and in China were setup. ;)

Just because the backers aren't there physically doesn't mean they weren't there in spirit. ;)

[Which is what makes these anti-war protests a little suspicious. There are some US citizens who truly are against any war, but I wouldn't doubt sympathizers of the terrorists are intermingled in that company, too. Which would cast doubt on the whole process. That's why it's so crucial that protesters make sure they have zero ties to any foreign organization or ideals. WASP military veterans protesting the war would be quite credible, at least on face value -- it worked with Vietnam].

You are talking about diplomacy, which I already pointed out is not the same thing as non-violent protest/resistance. Non-violent resistance has to be done by the people who are being wronged/oppressed.

Sometimes, but you'll find intermingled in the, say, 1964 march on Washington, whites who didn't like the situation blacks were in.

Then there was an all white government to get the sympathy vote from.

They have to collectively stand up those in power and say, "No, we are not going to be oppressed, but we are also not going to fight you."

Which is becoming more rare in this world -- since it's easier to go the route of the IRA or the PLO or Hamas or any other terror group. Just get some idealogs, some explosives and reign terror on the population. Much easier than trying to play the political footsie game.

I don't acknowledge that war is necessary under certain conditions, because it is not. War is never necessary. The three examples you gave:

Whoa! Just say that to those who were being killed by their invaders. Don't think the Chinese, the Koreans, the Poles, the Finns, etc would agree. They lost countless citizens, and needed to stop the invaders from killing more.

Sometimes war is a neccessity for survival!


Don't pay the taxes.

Then just go to jail.

Human rights violations exist in all countries, including the United States. Those violations need ot be brought to light, and the citizens of that country should protest and work to have them corrected, the more citizens that protest the more likely it is that human rights violations will stop.

What Human Rights violations? It can get pretty messy when one group claims capital punishment is "barbaric", then another claims that religion "must" be instilled in our school children; then another would claim that it's cruel that all kids don't have Nintendos and Nikes, and the government must provide everyone with each to be considered "humane." Or what about food? That everyone must have 7 steaks in their freezer; or that everyone must eat only veggies to be "respectful to all creatures" to be considered humans?

You may have an idea what is humane, but another group has a different belief. There's few universal Human Rights that most groups can agree with, and once that's accomplish (because power corrupts) they'll start trying to force change from what we wear, to what we eat, to what we read/listen/watch.

One leader cannot commit ethnic cleansing alone, the leader has to have the support (even the tacit support) of citizens in that country. Again, the more citizens that resist this leader, the less likely that leader is to succeed, and you don't have to resist violently.

It's not that simple. Not even the pacifistic Jews went to their deaths willingly. Some did fight, even in the extermination camps (the sundercommando (? spelling) unit in Treblinka was an example: blowing up one crematorium).

Peace is an answer, but sometimes war is necessary, or more innocents would die.

There is a great essay on nonviolence.org that should help clear up some of the misconceptions you have about non-violent resistence:

http://www.nonviolence.org/commentary/messages/2323.htm

Also, read the Thoreau essay I posted here earlier.

Although a good response, it's still full of loopholes where a person can drive a truck through.

Also relying on material from others to justify your beliefs can help (credibility wise only), but it can also come across as being a canned script from robotic followers without a clue in what they're talking about.

In debates like this, the one who has the grasp of the knowledge of the whole situation tends to be the most credible. Not the one who can paste the most links (or quote the most authors). In the internet age, that's too simple to do.

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
Extermination camp survivors hunkered down in the mode, helping out in the killing process, just to survive. If they didn't, there wouldn't be around to tell the world of their brutal fate -- they'd be dead.


Without making light of a horrific situation, remember that blindly following the orders of the Germans did not work either. Non-violent resistence would have started in Germany prior to Jewish people going to the camps, and it would have involved more than just the Jewish people.



Sometimes, but you'll find intermingled in the, say, 1964 march on Washington, whites who didn't like the situation blacks were in.

Then there was an all white government to get the sympathy vote from.


By outsiders, I meant people from other countries initiating. The civil rights movement in the US in the 50s/60s was started by black people. That does not mean that people of other races/nationalities should not join in thew protest. Part of non-violent resistance is standing up for things that are wrong, even if they do not, on the surface, directly affect you.



Whoa! Just say that to those who were being killed by their invaders. Don't think the Chinese, the Koreans, the Poles, the Finns, etc would agree. They lost countless citizens, and needed to stop the invaders from killing more.

Sometimes war is a neccessity for survival!


And yet if you ask the Indains who worked with Ghandi they will tell you that war was not necessary for their survival. GThey removed their invaders without a war.


Don't pay the taxes.

Then just go to jail.


If you believe that the taxes are wrong, you have to be willing to accept the consequences for not paying the taxes. That was Thoreau's famous quote to Emerson when Thoreau wound up in jail for refusing to pay taxes. Emerson asked him why he was in jail and Thoreau asked him why he was not.

Non-violent protest takes a lot of courage.


Peace is an answer, but sometimes war is necessary, or more innocents would die.


Perhaps, but it has been shown consistently throughout the years that fewer people die when non-violent forms of resistance are used. Does that mean no one dies, of course not. You have to expect that you could be killed resisting a tyrannical regime, but over and over--when non-violent protests are used less people die and more is accompolished.



Also relying on material from others to justify your beliefs can help (credibility wise only), but it can also come across as being a canned script from robotic followers without a clue in what they're talking about.


That doesn't make any sense. I am a router jockey by trade, if you want me to configure BGP I can do that, if you want to argue the relative merits of MPLS I can do that too, but I am not a philosopher. Since other people have expressed the same ideas I am trying to convey much more eloquently that I can, why should I not reference them? They are going to do a better job of explaining the ideas of non-violent protest than I will. Besides, I never said that non-violent protests were my belief, I am arguing a point and providing a different perspective, not necessarily expressing my views.

Originally posted by uuallan
Without making light of a horrific situation, remember that blindly following the orders of the Germans did not work either. Non-violent resistence would have started in Germany prior to Jewish people going to the camps, and it would have involved more than just the Jewish people.

Why didn't it start in the numbers you believe existed?

If it existed in the manner you seem to proclaim, Hitler and his cronies would've long been toppled. He wasn't toppled until he killed himself.

Protesting you're talking about doesn't happen too often when nationalism hits, and in Germany in 1933 it hit hard (like post 9/11).

By outsiders, I meant people from other countries initiating.

Plenty of foreign interests helped start protests. The communists were known to have infiltrated the labor unions, for example. Very notorious in the UK.

The civil rights movement in the US in the 50s/60s was started by black people. That does not mean that people of other races/nationalities should not join in thew protest. Part of non-violent resistance is standing up for things that are wrong, even if they do not, on the surface, directly affect you.

They had little choice but to protest peacefully. The South at that time would've killed any Black that decided to protest, it just wasn't done. If they were peaceful, the police couldn't claim they instigated something and gave them an excuse to shoot them.

It was a wise plan, and it worked.

It doesn't work in a less free country, though. Survival is prime, and getting shot isn't something many folks like to do on a Sunday afternoon.

Protests of the type you're seeking takes the right timing to pull off. It didn't work in China in 1989, as it was too early and the government wasn't willing to make concessions (and if you read history, after the bloodiest rebellion of all time -- the Taiping Rebellion -- they have plenty experience in putting such protests/insurgencies down. If folks thought the crusades killed a lot, they just don't read history!). It worked in Russia, as the majority was tired of the BS.

And yet if you ask the Indains who worked with Ghandi they will tell you that war was not necessary for their survival. GThey removed their invaders without a war.

Ah, and after how many deaths before them? Remember the Sepoy mutiny? There was so many in India that hundreds of thousands died before Gandhi came along.

If you believe that the taxes are wrong, you have to be willing to accept the consequences for not paying the taxes. [...]

??

Non-violent protest takes a lot of courage.

It also takes proper timing.

Perhaps, but it has been shown consistently throughout the years that fewer people die when non-violent forms of resistance are used.

Tell that to those who are mowed down.

How many died in 1989 in China? Is China free now?

Those Indians also didn't fare well until after Britain was broke.

Nevermind what happened in Cambodia.

Does that mean no one dies, of course not. You have to expect that you could be killed resisting a tyrannical regime, but over and over--when non-violent protests are used less people die and more is accompolished.

Hardly. All it takes is a military to shot, bomb or hack them to death. One reason why the reported numbers are so low is because they can't accurately count all of the dead -- it's claimed that thousands died after the 1989 protest.

BTW, how many US/UK troops died in the Gulf and Afghan wars?

That doesn't make any sense. I am a router jockey by trade, if you want me to configure BGP I can do that, if you want to argue the relative merits of MPLS I can do that too, but I am not a philosopher.

Perhaps if you were a philosopher wisdom would kick in. Like there is a time for peace, and there's a time for war. To have no war is as crazy as having war all the time.

It'll take millions of years of evolution before humans overcome their primal ways, too.

Since other people have expressed the same ideas I am trying to convey much more eloquently that I can, why should I not reference them?

Oh, you can, but copying and pasting links doesn't answer the questions as well. It's too easy, and requires no more knowledge of the subject than the ability to rant/rave the loudest.

They are going to do a better job of explaining the ideas of non-violent protest than I will.

I'm not providing links, ever wonder why? Not because I can't, because it serves no purpose intellectually (besides it's boring).

It's more interesting getting folks to actually debate what they know and feel. :) It shows who has the grasp of the situation, too.

Besides, I never said that non-violent protests were my belief, I am arguing a point and providing a different perspective, not necessarily expressing my views.

As I am. :D

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a

Why didn't it start in the numbers you believe existed?

If it existed in the manner you seem to proclaim, Hitler and his cronies would've long been toppled. He wasn't toppled until he killed himself.


I didn't say non-violent protest was widely used in Germany. I said I think it would have been more effective than war.




They had little choice but to protest peacefully. The South at that time would've killed any Black that decided to protest, it just wasn't done. If they were peaceful, the police couldn't claim they instigated something and gave them an excuse to shoot them.

It was a wise plan, and it worked.


Ahh, but they did have a choice, remember Malcom X started a more violent movement at the same time King started his. King's methods were much more effective.



Protests of the type you're seeking takes the right timing to pull off. It didn't work in China in 1989, as it was too early and the government wasn't willing to make concessions


And how much worse would the bloodshed have been if they had tried violent means of protest? Instead Tiananmen has become a sort of focal point for protesters in China, and its impact will be much more lasting than if they had tried a violent protest.




Ah, and after how many deaths before them? Remember the Sepoy mutiny? There was so many in India that hundreds of thousands died before Gandhi came along.


Right, that was before Ghandi conviced people that they should use non-violent methods of resistance, you are making my point here.




How many died in 1989 in China? Is China free now?


Again, how many more would have died had the protest been violent?


Perhaps if you were a philosopher wisdom would kick in. Like there is a time for peace, and there's a time for war. To have no war is as crazy as having war all the time.


Interesting, I'll tell you what, I am absolutely willing to take my chances in a world without war -- if it makes me crazy to not want to have any war, so be it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by uuallan
I didn't say non-violent protest was widely used in Germany. I said I think it would have been more effective than war.

How?

and

Why?

This is back to square one: if a population is terrorized into submission, and the #1 order of business is to survive, how and why should the majority sacrifice their lives for some unknown (or worse government)?

Iran sure didn't get better government, nor did North Korea; Cambodia; Rwanda; or countless other countries with dictators.

Ahh, but they did have a choice, remember Malcom X started a more violent movement at the same time King started his. King's methods were much more effective.

Where did Malcolm X reside? Where did MLK, Jr. live? Now which Black leader would get the attention (and following) more in the South in the 1950s and 60's?

The choice was simple: you go with who you know.

And how much worse would the bloodshed have been if they had tried violent means of protest? Instead Tiananmen has become a sort of focal point for protesters in China, and its impact will be much more lasting than if they had tried a violent protest.

Read some more on Chinese history. They're known for some very brutal uprisings. the 1989 protest was symbolic, but didn't have the muscle for change -- it didn't get the masses stirred (it got the college students instead).

Maybe after the Cultural Revolution they're just tired of it all (who can blame them?).

Right, that was before Ghandi conviced people that they should use non-violent methods of resistance, you are making my point here.

Don't you think there were other folks like Gandhi in India? He wasn't the first visionary, nor will he be the last. Gandhi just timed his protest right. If he did it 30 years earlier he'd be shot or hung dead.

Again, how many more would have died had the protest been violent?

How many died even though it was a peaceful protest?

Interesting, I'll tell you what, I am absolutely willing to take my chances in a world without war -- if it makes me crazy to not want to have any war, so be it.

Are you willing to become unhuman too? For humans can't remove their primal instincts by will power. Love and war is part of our being. The trick is to love, but to also understand war is a necessity for survival at times, too.

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a

Are you willing to become unhuman too? For humans can't remove their primal instincts by will power. Love and war is part of our being. The trick is to love, but to also understand war is a necessity for survival at times, too.


I feel sorry for you. I have absolutely no desire for war, or to do battle, and I have never needed to. I think it is a shame that you don't have the same capacity.

Since in your world humans must have the capacity for both love and war, what would happen if everyone loved each other? How would humans express this "inate" capacity for war? In my world, where there is no inate capacity for war, it is possible to get to a stage where everyone loves each other and war is a thing of the past.

Again, you have yet to convince me that war is necessary for survival -- just because things have always been done one way does not mean that it is the right way, and it certainly does not mean it is the best way.

Originally posted by uuallan
I feel sorry for you. I have absolutely no desire for war, or to do battle, and I have never needed to. I think it is a shame that you don't have the same capacity.

Man will kill as long as his animal instincts survive. And to remove our basic "humaness" would mean we're no longer human.

Since in your world humans must have the capacity for both love and war,

This is reality, uuallan, it's not a choice.

what would happen if everyone loved each other?

We'd be overpopulated. Take China's population and multiply it by 10.

How would humans express this "inate" capacity for war?

If we all loved one another? uuallan, do you have a girlfriend and/or married? If so, you'd understand warfare exists even with love!

In my world, where there is no inate capacity for war, it is possible to get to a stage where everyone loves each other and war is a thing of the past.

You can dream we'll never die; have hot fresh pizza 24/7; all of our clothes are tailored made to exacting standards; and we all can have supercomputers....BUT....we eventually have to face reality (we're mortal; pizza joints aren't always open all the time; one-size-fits-all clothing is the norm; and having a supercomputer costs serious $$$$$$$).

Again, you have yet to convince me that war is necessary for survival

Because that's your belief, uuallan.

-- just because things have always been done one way does not mean that it is the right way, and it certainly does not mean it is the best way.

Millions of years of evolution is all mankind has, and it'll take millions more to get to that Utopia.

Chris

OK, so I can't really argue philosophy, but I think everybody believes in violence. If you think you don't believe in violence under any circumstances, come over and I'll bop you on your skull until you make me stop*.

And this is exactly the problem with non-violence -- it just takes one non-believer to ruin the whole thing.

In reading the posts about how past atrocities could have been avoided by non-violent means, the implication is that mass atrocities are always the work of a relatively few bullies, depending on the quiet submission of the naturally non-violent masses. For a counterargument, read the book:

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda

It cures optimism in a hurry. It also raises the question: "What do you do when a whole country is guilty of murder?"

On the other hand, the general necessity of violence doesn't change the specific stupidity of my country's (USA) upcoming war with Iraq.


* I wouldn't really bop you on your head, but you get the idea.