Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

Gandhi>Bush · Nov 29, 2005

George_Washington said:
Well, what did you expect the Jews to do? They were completely held down by the Nuremberg laws which stripped them of their rights. They fought back at times. They certainly fought the Nazis in Warsaw. They weren't just sitting on their asses waiting for a, "western savior". That is absurd. I don't know why you think the way you do.

What would I expect them to do? Do something, anything.

MSgt · Nov 29, 2005

Iriemon said:
You think? Why are we fooling around in Iraq then; we should have invaded Lybia. After all, unlike Hussein, Kaddafi actually was implicated in several terrorist attackes in which Americans were killed.

Not the thread for this, but....

Their are millions of extremists in the Middle East, but the majority of the Middle East does not subscribe to the most violent passages their Mullahs preach to them and what their Koran provides. Our fight is with the few (terrorist), but our struggle must be with the many who are raised to admire their "martyrs" and stand a chance to become one. It will take generations for the Middle East to set aside their hatreds for a largely imagined enemy. The Israelites and Americans are not out to destroy them or their religion as they are taught. It is the other way around. Iraq and Hussein was a identity of strength in that region. Iraq was the only country that could not change on its own, but would easily embrace the notion of a democracy. Muammar Kaddafi has no strength.

Our enemy is a civilization and their digressing society...not individuals. That in mind...no President could ever assassinate himself or this country by coming on international TV and stating this. Instead, you will hear things like "WMD" in Iraq, Iran plans to build "WMD," etc. At the heart of this is the real threat...the failing civilization of the Middle East. In the 21st Century, we can no longer wait for the adherents of the blashpemous Arabic Islam to prove that they can harm us. 9/11 taught us that. Bin Laden, like so many others, is a symptom. If we continued to ignore this regions oppressions, so long as the oil flowed, some day, a couple airplanes will be replaced by a nuclear explosion and the attackers and planners will have come from anywhere within this region. You can't stop them without addressing the region.

Back to the thread at hand.

MSgt · Nov 29, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
Hatred is the reason the religion is being perverted. Hatred is the reason oppression rules over democracy. It all comes back to hatred.

I know what you are saying, but you didn't get my meaning. We "hate" communism, but we aren't eager to wage war upon China or the Soviet Union (Russia). It's not because of their size, it's because of trades and mutual agreements and so on. Nations can be completely opposites, but their "hatreds" do not have to result in war.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Why do the people of Iran and Syria fear Saddam Hussein's anti-democratic ideals? I refuse to believe that you remain apathetic in fear of what a leader of another country does to a people that are not yours.

This is because you do not understand the Middle East. They are unlike any other country on earth. They do not care what occurs across borders, however, they are united with their hatreds and religious beliefs. You're looking at this wrong. If the Iranian or Syrian people protested enough to overthrow their government and looked towards a more democratic society, would Hussein send his armies across the border to help the Iranian or Syrian Government? Of course not. Where he mattered is in the symbology. The most impossible scenario to occur in the Middle East occurred. Saddam went down and Iraq is building a democracy. This is great inspiration for a civilization who lives in despair and without hope. Taking Saddam out was beneficial to everyone (except to those who were profiteering less honorably).

Gandhi>Bush said:
This problem isn't like the problems of the past. Nazism might be dimished by killing Nazis because Nazis come from Nazi Germany. It doesn't work that way with Anti-semitism though. The problem is in this situation there is no country or homeland where these people come from. They come from the middle east, London, Indonesia, Oklahoma. There are many many countries in the Middle East and many people in the Middle East. Unless you win a person, you cannot win a people, and if you can not win a people you cannot win a country, and if you cannot win a country, you cannot win the region, and without winning the Middle East, you will not win. If what you say is true, and an extremist can't change his colors, then no man can change his colors, and you can win no man.

You are absolutely correct. This is not like anything we have seen in the past. We have entered a new age of a war on attrition. The root of all Islamic terrorism is the Middle East. It doesn't matter that some are in London or Indonesia. (The Bali bombings were a collaberation of home grown extremist and Al-Queda by the way.) Oklahoma has nothing to do with nothing. The issue at hand is Islamic extremism...not rogue-ish acts from retards.

When I say "extremists" I refer to the ones that have traveled into the terrorist camps. Our enemies in the “War on Terror” are men who believe, literally, that they are on a mission from God to destroy your civilization and, who regard death as a promotion, are not impressed by our morals and restrictions to remain civil. We must find them; no matter how long it takes, and then kill them. If they surrender, we must accord them their rights under the laws of war and international conventions. But, as we have learned so painfully from all the mindless, left-wing nonsense spouted about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, we are much better off killing them before they have a chance to surrender.

For the extremists who merely cheer on their "martyrs," it will take generations. Racism doesn't end because an individual decides to stop being a racist. His children are raised in different environments and even though being taught to hate, he is exposed to more things than the father. This will involve a democracy of some sort and education. Something sorely lacking in the Middle East.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I believe the two are intertwined.

Not in the Middle East. They do not pride themselves to their governments or to flags as we do. The extended family or clan is the basic unit of social organization. There is no great pride in being Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, and so on. Of course, there are exceptions - there always are. The problem with this is that they are "exceptions." It is not a national sentiment.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I wasn't about to bring up a reference. I really do not know of a single time in history that a people resorted to nonviolence wholly and truly and did not succeed in their endeavor.

There isn't one that I know of. It is a concept that is untested, because to do so is too risky to the protester. Common sense will tell a person to defend himself rather than allow a determined enemy kill him as he peacefully welcomes his own death.

Gandhi>Bush said:
The plight of the American Indian is perhaps the hardest of any effort that nonviolence could take to. The problem is the lack of communication and information. It was only long after their continent had been taken did they have the resources necessary to try to inform the public. Eventually, the American Government did begin to turn toward lenience for the America Indian, but it was far too late. Nonviolence I don't think would have worked in their situation any more than violence would have, but surely if they had taken to it they would have been better off than they were when they were bent on war.

It wouldn't have matterd. The American Army and pioneers were too determined to push them away by any means necessary. Determination to do harm can only be opposed successfully by the determination to protect oneself.

Gandhi>Bush said:
This region is not set apart from the rest of the world. Not anymore. The easiest way to incite revolution in the Middle East is to industrialize. As soon as the computer and the internet becomes as essential there as it is elsewhere, the revolution will happen on its own along with social stratification. When it comes to Israel, I believe the answer is persevearance. Results will come, but it won't happen a month after the Gaza strip is made independent of Israel.

You actually are seeing my point, however they are set aside. History has forgotten them. As the civilizations all over the world has progressed, their societies have flourished, and their religions have changed to meet technologies, the Middle East has stagnated. 9/11 showed us that we can no longer wait for this to happen. The threat is too great. As lucrative as oil is, we should be seeing a completely opposite face upon the Middle East. We see no world class universities (except in Israel), we so no libraries worth mentioning, we see no freedom through Internet, no freedom through media, no technological break throughs, no exportation to compete with the rest of the world, and no equality towards women (with small insignificant exceptions). The hard men from Islam's ancient homelands have always been determined to frustrate every exploratory effort they can. The Muslim extremist from the Middle East has one consistent message: Return to the past, for that is what God wants. Beware, no matter his faith, of the man who presumes to tell you what God wants. It cannot be accomplished, of course, this longed-for return to a golden age of sanctity and success, that is mostly myth, is gone. But the bloody-handed terrorists and their mentors are determined to pay any price to frustrate those Muslims who believe that God is capable of smiling, or that it is possible to change the earth without challenging Heaven. And believe me...the extremist's God is a blood thristy god bent on revenge and demands infidelic sacrifice. So, amidst all of this, Islam itself is going through an identity crisis and its forms are at least as various as the countless confessions and sects of Christendom.

DivineComedy · Nov 29, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
With actions yes, you could teach them that there is no difference between a Jewish German and a Protestant German.

If the nonviolence thing can convince enough people (like genocidal Hamas) that nonviolence works, and we get peace in the Middle East with an Israeli State and a Palestinian one ruling their own people in peace, I say GO FOR IT! Just don’t be too picky as to who you target, and I don‘t expect anyone to buy the nonviolence thing until Al Quacka’s Hamas and their ilk buy it!

You claim that with actions Gandhi‘s nonviolence could “teach” the Germans “that there is no difference between a Jewish German and a Protestant German,” but instead of not waiting for the Jews to adopt his beliefs, or leading by example, Gandhi’s nonviolence movement stayed home to deal with petty things that were not life and death to an entire race because their leader was too old. Is that he gist of it?

“If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example.…” (The Jews in Palestine 1938: By Mahatma Gandhi (Mohandas Kirmachand Gandhi)) http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_gandhi_1938.php

“If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is, therefore, outside my horizon or province.
But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews…” (The Jews in Palestine 1938: By Mahatma Gandhi (Mohandas Kirmachand Gandhi)) http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_gandhi_1938.php

The question should not be, “what does India have to do with the Holocaust,“ but it should be, “What ACTIONS did Gandhi’s nonviolence do to try and prevent the Holocaust or to STOP IT?”

What could be done to prevent a Holocaust from happening again?

A Jewish State where they can pass their own laws for their own citizens sounds good to me.

Some action against this:

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Bible and Torah), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

Did Gandhi’s nonviolence lead by example and find its way into a German oven? NO, he was too old, but could he spare so much as fifty men to go to Germany on his behalf to lead by example and die in the ovens? Could his movement spare ten men to stand out in front of buses in Israel and demand the Hamas suicide bombers blow them up? NO, they are not Jews.

Oh, I found Gandhi:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C497C346-7122-4674-9EC9-DC2390EB3308.htm

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3778.shtml

“Gandhi's nonviolent tactics won't work everywhere. They couldn't move a Stalin or a Hitler - or a Saddam Hussein. But Israel, like Britain in Gandhi's time, is a nation that views itself as morally accountable and is therefore a perfect target for nonviolent resistance.” (The Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2004, Palestinians Need a Gandhi, Not a New Arafat) http://www.diak.org/artikelaktuell/iponline 26/Palestinians Need a Gandhi.htm

I agree with that part, but until Al Quacka’s Hamas and their ilk buy it Israel needs a “Great Wall” like the one the “liberals“ wanted us to build at our ports and airports instead of taking the fight to the enemy!

America is somewhat responsible for the Holocaust, just as every nation on earth that didn’t take action to stop it.

It is not about whether India has to accept nonviolence, or “embrace the ideas of a leader of the past,” but whether nonviolence works effectively, and if India does not accept nonviolence how can you claim it could have been effective in Germany?

I suppose you are going to claim that the Shakti-1 has nothing to do with the Hindus?

Gandhi>Bush · Nov 29, 2005

DivineComedy said:
If the nonviolence thing can convince enough people (like genocidal Hamas) that nonviolence works, and we get peace in the Middle East with an Israeli State and a Palestinian one ruling their own people in peace, I say GO FOR IT! Just don’t be too picky as to who you target, and I don‘t expect anyone to buy the nonviolence thing until Al Quacka’s Hamas and their ilk buy it!

Al Qaeda is nothing without members. Members come from the people. That means we have to focus on winning the people, not conquering a single tribe of terrorists.

You claim that with actions Gandhi‘s nonviolence could “teach” the Germans “that there is no difference between a Jewish German and a Protestant German,” but instead of not waiting for the Jews to adopt his beliefs, or leading by example, Gandhi’s nonviolence movement stayed home to deal with petty things that were not life and death to an entire race because their leader was too old. Is that he gist of it?

The question should not be, “what does India have to do with the Holocaust,“ but it should be, “What ACTIONS did Gandhi’s nonviolence do to try and prevent the Holocaust or to STOP IT?”

Gandhi believed that the only way for nonviolence to be applied was for it to come from with in. If the Jews wanted to make peace with their German neighbors, Gandhi believed that it was necessary for the Jews to take to nonviolence rather than a 70 year old Indian with limited knowledge of German culture, history, and language. Gandhi wrote letters to the Jews in Poland, and to the people of Germany, and even to Adolf Hitler himself though there is little evidence to suggest the Nazi leader read such a letter.

What could be done to prevent a Holocaust from happening again?

Killing anti-semitism and hate in general.

A Jewish State where they can pass their own laws for their own citizens sounds good to me.

Segregation? Great plan. Build a wall or build a bridge, that is the decision that you must make. I have two cousins and they used to hate each other. When they started fighting their mother would always send them each to their respective rooms and chores were divided so that one would set the table for dinner and the other would clean it, one would load the dish washer and the other would unload it. After a suggestion from a relative, their mother bought a bunk bed, and had them move their belongings into a single room. From then on chores were not divided between, but requested of both them, and from then on it was their responisbility to choose who did what. Today their relationship has changed, for the better I assure you. I hope you that it is not requested of me to explain the moral of the story.

When the British partitioned India
When the UN partitioned Israel and Palestine
When the US government segregated society

All of these were terrible ideas and have resulted in pain and predjudice and hatred and violence.

Some action against this:

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Bible and Torah), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

The action required to change the tolerance level of Islam is to imitate the actions that led to change of tolerance in the religion of Christianity and Judaism. I know what I think caused those changes, what do you think caused those changes.

Did Gandhi’s nonviolence lead by example and find its way into a German oven? NO, he was too old, but could he spare so much as fifty men to go to Germany on his behalf to lead by example and die in the ovens? Could his movement spare ten men to stand out in front of buses in Israel and demand the Hamas suicide bombers blow them up? NO, they are not Jews.

I don't know how 50 Indians going to Germany and becoming martyrs for their ideals would do much for the Jews. The resistance, the response, had to come from the Jews.

“Gandhi's nonviolent tactics won't work everywhere. They couldn't move a Stalin or a Hitler - or a Saddam Hussein. But Israel, like Britain in Gandhi's time, is a nation that views itself as morally accountable and is therefore a perfect target for nonviolent resistance.” (The Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2004, Palestinians Need a Gandhi, Not a New Arafat) http://www.diak.org/artikelaktuell/iponline 26/Palestinians Need a Gandhi.htm

I disagree with this particular Author. I believe that Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein, held themselves morally accountable. I believe they know right from wrong just like the British Empire, though they did not have checks and balances to keep them from comprimising various moral standards in the name of their own self interests and beliefs. I believe that their people hold their leaders morally accountable, and it is in the people that the solution lies.

I agree with that part, but until Al Quacka’s Hamas and their ilk buy it Israel needs a “Great Wall” like the one the “liberals“ wanted us to build at our ports and airports instead of taking the fight to the enemy!

I am what many call "liberal" and I do not recommend any such wall or any such fight. I believe Israel must comingle with Palestine not wall them off. Only then will there be peace.

America is somewhat responsible for the Holocaust, just as every nation on earth that didn’t take action to stop it.

I don't feel that America is responisble for the Holocaust.

It is not about whether India has to accept nonviolence, or “embrace the ideas of a leader of the past,” but whether nonviolence works effectively, and if India does not accept nonviolence how can you claim it could have been effective in Germany?

Nonviolence does work effectively.

Nonviolence was effective in India. India does not "accept" nonviolence in the sense of "accept's" current connotation. The same is said about America.

I suppose you are going to claim that the Shakti-1 has nothing to do with the Hindus?

Click to expand...

I was unaware they named a nuke after a God. Kind of ironic when you consider the ideas and philosophy of Hinduims.

George_Washington · Nov 29, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't feel that America is responsible for the Holocaust.

I'll agree with you on this one.

America is in no way responsible for the Holocaust and neither is any other country. The Nazis were solely responsible themselves. Maybe there was more America could do but I think we did plenty enough. If it wasn't for us, Germany probably would have won the war. We spent a lot of lives to fight Germany and so did Russia. Maybe we could have entered the war earlier but so what? That doesn't mean we were responsible for the crimes that the Nazis committed. Its dangerous for a nation to just immediately leap into war without thinking first.

Gandhi>Bush · Nov 29, 2005

GySgt said:
I know what you are saying, but you didn't get my meaning. We "hate" communism, but we aren't eager to wage war upon China or the Soviet Union (Russia). It's not because of their size, it's because of trades and mutual agreements and so on. Nations can be completely opposites, but their "hatreds" do not have to result in war.

Now, now, I don't think you hate communism in the same sense that Usama bin Laden hates America.

This is because you do not understand the Middle East. They are unlike any other country on earth. They do not care what occurs across borders, however, they are united with their hatreds and religious beliefs. You're looking at this wrong. If the Iranian or Syrian people protested enough to overthrow their government and looked towards a more democratic society, would Hussein send his armies across the border to help the Iranian or Syrian Government? Of course not. Where he mattered is in the symbology. The most impossible scenario to occur in the Middle East occurred. Saddam went down and Iraq is building a democracy. This is great inspiration for a civilization who lives in despair and without hope. Taking Saddam out was beneficial to everyone (except to those who were profiteering less honorably).

I don't think the ideas of Syrians and Iranians were held in stasis for lack of "symbology."

You are absolutely correct. This is not like anything we have seen in the past. We have entered a new age of a war on attrition. The root of all Islamic terrorism is the Middle East. It doesn't matter that some are in London or Indonesia. (The Bali bombings were a collaberation of home grown extremist and Al-Queda by the way.) Oklahoma has nothing to do with nothing. The issue at hand is Islamic extremism...not rogue-ish acts from retards.

I don't think Islamic extremism is curbed by war. I think it has been enhanced. I don't know that America or London had Islamic extremist terrorists homegrown at all before 9/11 and the War on Terror and Iraq.

When I say "extremists" I refer to the ones that have traveled into the terrorist camps. Our enemies in the “War on Terror” are men who believe, literally, that they are on a mission from God to destroy your civilization and, who regard death as a promotion, are not impressed by our morals and restrictions to remain civil. We must find them; no matter how long it takes, and then kill them. If they surrender, we must accord them their rights under the laws of war and international conventions. But, as we have learned so painfully from all the mindless, left-wing nonsense spouted about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, we are much better off killing them before they have a chance to surrender.

I think you should have some more respect when you're talking about killing other men. When you look at the religion of Islam it is more true that they are on a mission to defend their civilization and defend their religion. Many muslims do not feel that industrialization or westernization is a threat to Islam. The notion of shirq (holding something before God) is something many point to when they see American materialism and consumerism and the rampant capitalism of the west. This is becoming more uncommon as I have heard from a young Iranian adult.

For the extremists who merely cheer on their "martyrs," it will take generations. Racism doesn't end because an individual decides to stop being a racist. His children are raised in different environments and even though being taught to hate, he is exposed to more things than the father. This will involve a democracy of some sort and education. Something sorely lacking in the Middle East.

I think the answer to reaching children is in the internet and technology. All of the tainted education and brainwashing attempts are reduced to ashes in the face of truth unfilitered and undoctored and completely and utterly unable to be censored. That's China's problem today. In their effort to compete technologically with America, they have run into the problem of extending censorship to umbrella over the internet, and it's simply impossible.

Not in the Middle East. They do not pride themselves to their governments or to flags as we do. The extended family or clan is the basic unit of social organization. There is no great pride in being Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, and so on. Of course, there are exceptions - there always are. The problem with this is that they are "exceptions." It is not a national sentiment.

When people are ruled by a government, they tend to try to influence it's policy. If the people of a government, tyrannical or not, demand something, generally it is given.

There isn't one that I know of. It is a concept that is untested, because to do so is too risky to the protester. Common sense will tell a person to defend himself rather than allow a determined enemy kill him as he peacefully welcomes his own death.

In this case you are calling common sense what I would call basic instinct.

I would agree, the concept is untested and indeed risky to the activist, but I do believe that it can succeed.

It wouldn't have matterd. The American Army and pioneers were too determined to push them away by any means necessary. Determination to do harm can only be opposed successfully by the determination to protect oneself.

Click to expand...

The Native Americans are what the Swedes would call "skroood," nonviolent or otherwise.

MSgt · Nov 30, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
Now, now, I don't think you hate communism in the same sense that Usama bin Laden hates America.

Of course not, but that goes right back to my point of Democracy. Bin Laden embraces the complete opposite of freedom and democratic values. Even with countries like China and Russia, the people have a sense of freedoms and a form of voice. We have free enterprise and trades. Bin Ladden represents a civilization that wants complete control and a seperation from infidels. Until the world receives it's oil from somewhere else, his kind must change their religion as man has done throughout history to suit the society in which progress has taken it. Certainty is comforting, but a religion’s capacity for adaptive behavior unleashes the energies necessary to renew both the faith and the society in which it flourishes. What much of the Arab world is, instead, doing is holding on to passed down traditions and they have withdrawn into a fortress of intolerance and self-righteousness as psychologically comfortable as it is practically destructive. In the mean time, they are perfectly content with murdering anyone not like them out of revenge.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't think Islamic extremism is curbed by war. I think it has been enhanced. I don't know that America or London had Islamic extremist terrorists homegrown at all before 9/11 and the War on Terror and Iraq.

Of course it did. You're being naive. I wish you would study this region and Islamic extremism. You'd be surprised what all is out there and has been out there for decades. We don't have an Islamic extremist problem. England has always had one. These people don't exist, because of Iraq or Afghanistan. Spain has always had one. France is going to have one (for that matter, all of Europe is headed towards one). The Phillipines have always had one. Indonesia has always had one. Where ever you find Islamic populations, you will find extremists organizations bent on revenge for their God and for their own failures. Nothing has been enhanced. It's been exposed and they are desperately lashing out.

-You can't operate on a body, without cutting it open and causing a painful recovery with a scar.
-You can't organize files without making a mess first.

My point is that everything usually appears to be worse when on a path to progress and positive change. Even a completely peaceful stance against this civilization would result in chaos and death. Except the deaths would be Americans and they would never change their religion as long as "Allah's" enemies are dying. Islamic extremism must remain on the losing side.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I think you should have some more respect when you're talking about killing other men. When you look at the religion of Islam it is more true that they are on a mission to defend their civilization and defend their religion. Many muslims do not feel that industrialization or westernization is a threat to Islam. The notion of shirq (holding something before God) is something many point to when they see American materialism and consumerism and the rampant capitalism of the west. This is becoming more uncommon as I have heard from a young Iranian adult.

Marines aren't trained to hug. They are trained to kill and to do it well. "Respect" in killing other men is targetting only combatants. You will not find this "respect" from our enemy.

You're right. They are on a mission to defend their civilization and to defend their religion. The problem is that they have imagined an enemy. For decades, we have backed the wrong players. As long as the oil flowed, we have protected the world's oil supply and maintained stability. We have looked the other way as the Middle East continued to fail under the leadership of greedy Arabs. This is where our guilt ends. 9/11 has taught us that we can no longer look the other way. Through their acts of terror, they have forced us to take necessary measures (right or wrong). Israel does not wish them to be Jewish. Americans do not wish them to be westernized. We do not wish to rule over them. We do not wish for them to surrender their religion. However, they do wish for the west to embrace their teachings. All Religions in their dark histories, have embraced violence to "convert" non-believers. Islam's dark history has continued to present day. The Crusades are very much alive in their perspective of the world. What they see in the west is a society that embraces technology and many of it's people have strayed from God because of it. They do not wish that for their civilization, but by keeping it oppressed and hanging on to passed down traditions that do not work in the 21st Century, they are digressing away from progress. Their revenge for what they have done to themselves, is to kill for their God. There is a reason for their seperation. Has the west prevented them from building world class universities? Has the west prevented them from building libraries? Has the west prevented them from building Internet Cafes? Has the west kept them from creating industry that would enable them to compete with the western world on any front? Has the west stripped them of the free flow of information and forced the likes of Al-Jazeer down their throats as their only outlet to the world? No, but we all know who has and we all know who has perverted a religion to enforce this seperation as a means to control. From this perversion and civilization failures through suicide, we have symptoms - Islamic extremism, pervereted Clerics, dictators, theocracies, and terrorism. All used to enforce this great illusion that we are their enemy.

People don't realize just how dangerous this civilization is to us. Currently, people are whining about the Patriot Act. They are complaining about their "loss" of freedoms. (I don't see it, but whatever.) As this civilization's failures get worse and worse, we will have to take more restrictive measures to protect our society. They are a threat to us.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I think the answer to reaching children is in the internet and technology. All of the tainted education and brainwashing attempts are reduced to ashes in the face of truth unfilitered and undoctored and completely and utterly unable to be censored. That's China's problem today. In their effort to compete technologically with America, they have run into the problem of extending censorship to umbrella over the internet, and it's simply impossible.

Exactly!!! The Arab elite and their legion of Mullahs throughout the Middle East will not allow this to happen. President Bush has started up another news station through satellites so that the Muslims of the Middle East can get a more "worldly" perspective on current events instead of being brainwashed by their Mullahs and Al-Jazeera that continue to you use "Allah" and the cruelest injunctions of the Koran as the basis for everything.

Gandhi>Bush said:
The Native Americans are what the Swedes would call "skroood," nonviolent or otherwise.

Much like anyone that stands in front of an Islamic extremist who believes that your death will gain him favor in the after life. They are determined. Islamic extremists generally fall into the "apocalyptic" category..not the "practical." We face a civilization who cheers for their "martyrs." War is not the answer. Aside from the former Iraq and Afghanistan, the rest of the Middle East has the capacity and ability to change.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Nov 30, 2005

Hay Ghandi remember when you said that the peace corps was the answer to solving terrorism and then I said that the terrorists would take the peacenicks hostage and cut off their heads, well the terrorists have taken the peacenics hostage by the people who cut off heads:

http://openthread.dailykos.com/story...1/28/224443/76

Tashah · Nov 30, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
Forgive me. I thought you meant that "the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe and Russia from 1930 to 1945 did indeed embrace non-violence."

The Ashkenazi Jews of Europe/Russia from the turn of the century (1900) embraced a form of Judaism known as Hasadic Judaism. This form of Judaism as practiced in the diaspora embraced nonviolence. Rather than civil protest, they strongly believed that peaceful co-existence and intellectual accomplishment were the keys to social acceptance and national mobility.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Gandhi was against killing of any form. He did not condone the murder of the Jews nor did he turn a blind eye to nor did he recommend that the rest of the world turn a blind eye to it. He did not support a war, nor would he ever at that point in his life. He did recommend that the Jews take to tactic, the ethic, the lifestyle of nonviolence rather then request for world wide aid in the form of WWII.

If I had not read this quote with my own eyes, I would not have believed it originated from you.

The only thing that the Jews of Europe and Russia between 1935 and 1 September 1939 requested of the international community was sanctuary in the form of relaxed immigration laws. It was their last hope. The Jews did not request World War II! I daresay, your understandings of the Holocaust seem to be only one step removed from those of Aryan Imperium. I would strongly suggest that you thoroughly read these benchmark historical works:

The War Against The Jews - Lucy Dawidowicz
The Final Solution - Sir Martin Gilbert
The Destruction Of The European Jews - Raul Hilberg

Gandhi>Bush said:
That was the Jewish response to oppression: hoping for a western savior. That's not a response at all. I find it to be apathetic in the same way an African American slave would keep his head down and do his master's work because the after life would make things okay. The onus is not on anyone else to save you. If you want your world to improve, it is your place to improve it, not someone in another countries. It sounds colder than was intended, but I believe it to be the truth.

You hypocrite! You have persistently bitched and moaned that Israel herself and the entire friggin world should come running to the aid of the Palestinians! NOW READ YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE IN BOLD!

Gandhi>Bush said:
What would I expect them to do? Do something, anything.

You sir, are nothing more than an Israel-basher, a Palestinian propogandist, and a terrorism apologist. From your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you have no viable understandings of Judaism, Ashkenazi history, Islam, Nazi fascism, World War II history, Holocaustal history, Arabic culture and customs, the Middle East, or global terrorism. You are also a hypocrite. Many people on this thread have remarked exhaustively on the errancy of your historical/strategic/tactical understandings and have demonstrated your position to be simplistic, impractical, and highly biased. You have exposed yourself with fanfare, and I vow to remain here for the duration of your exhibition.

MSgt · Nov 30, 2005

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Hay Ghandi remember when you said that the peace corps was the answer to solving terrorism and then I said that the terrorists would take the peacenicks hostage and cut off their heads, well the terrorists have taken the peacenics hostage by the people who cut off heads:

http://openthread.dailykos.com/story...1/28/224443/76

This, unfortunately, shows my point clearly. Passive aggressiveness and peacefully protesting against a determined enemy like an Islamic extremist is useless. They do not care, because your death is just another infidelic blood offering to their God.

DivineComedy · Nov 30, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
I was unaware they named a nuke after a God. Kind of ironic when you consider the ideas and philosophy of Hinduims.

I agree with your statements, “that Al Qaeda is nothing without members. Members come from the people. That means we have to focus on winning the people, not conquering a single tribe of terrorists.”

That is why for years I have referred to Hamas as an Al Quacka that quacks like the duck Al Qaeda. You are not going to win the people by giving the terrorist barbarians what they want, which is the destruction of the State of Israel.

You say that “Gandhi believed that the only way for nonviolence to be applied was for it to come from within.” That is convenient, considering that Gandhi would have had his little head measured and found lacking! So your nonviolent polytheist members can’t go to Mecca and apply nonviolence from within, and how is that a commingling and not a segregation? You have not proven that it is better for a minority to rely on nonviolence than to be able to rule themselves “within” their own state. Having a Jewish State or a Black State does not mean that all Jews or Blacks must move to their respective States, or be expelled there, as the infernal Gandhi claimed would look reasonable but be unreasonable:

“If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.”

A lot of them would be alive if they had a place to go, but the ship S.S. St. Louis had no safe place to go after they were turned AWAY from America! Why did they have no safe place to go?

I don’t think the proposed wall between Israel and Palestine is any different than the unrealized demilitarized zone of UN resolution 242, which was to prevent violent people from preventing the peaceful commingling. Israel does commingle as a civilized people, but the problem is that the other side’s barbarian “known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions“ through the use of uncontrolled groups using civilian disguise and shields in violation of the civilized rules of warfare.

You asked: “The action required to change the tolerance level of Islam is to imitate the actions that led to change of tolerance in the religion of Christianity and Judaism. I know what I think caused those changes, what do you think caused those changes?”

The ability to rule themselves in relative peace free from the abuses of a majority that wanted the destruction of their various sects led to tolerance between the various Christian sects. An understanding was created as the individual self ruled States, that were founded by difference sects, were allowed to commingle across borders without fear. If Israel is allowed to rule themselves, free from being forced to live commingled with barbarian savages under the rule of a hostile barbarian majority, over time they and their barbarian neighbors will learn to live next to each other and commingle across secure borders in peace, after the barbarian savages learn to be civilized.

My mammy taught me that nonviolence can work, but I never wanted to kill my mammy.

You said “After a suggestion from a relative, their mother bought a bunk bed, and had them move their belongings into a single room.”

That is an act of applied force and not a nonviolent solution, but I am sure that you miss the moral of the story! {A family that eats together, stays together! Many poor whites ate with their one slave, and worked with their one slave, if they could afford one, and in many cases that slave may have fought for the Confederacy! So that mother’s solution was not a bad one, “within” a household.} If one cousin believed with all his hearth that god commanded him to kill the other, and the nonviolent one said like Gandhi “shoot me,” the forced commingling would have ended badly, but there would have been “peace” in the house.

oldreliable67 · Nov 30, 2005

Ghandi,

don't know that America or London had Islamic extremist terrorists homegrown at all before 9/11 and the War on Terror and Iraq.

Oh? You mean that when I was trekking down 92 floors of 2 WTC in the dark, in February 1993, it was because _______ (you fill in the blank) exploded a bomb in the basement? And come to find out, the guy that mixed the explosives (he was a chemist at a nearby pharmaceuticals plant) and rented the truck lived in New Jersey in the same town that I lived in? Other participants lived in Jersey City, just across the river from downtown Manhattan.

Well, now you know.

Gandhi>Bush · Nov 30, 2005

GySgt said:
-You can't operate on a body, without cutting it open and causing a painful recovery with a scar.

This isn't a tumor. It's a person, it's a people.

-You can't organize files without making a mess first.

You know it's funny, that's not how I organize things.

My point is that everything usually appears to be worse when on a path to progress and positive change. Even a completely peaceful stance against this civilization would result in chaos and death. Except the deaths would be Americans and they would never change their religion as long as "Allah's" enemies are dying. Islamic extremism must remain on the losing side.

Islamic terrorism is on the losing side. That's where it's been for a near century. It's dying. It's withering away and it's dying. You can keep throwing coals in the furnace and keep messing up your file cabinet, but it's not getting you anywhere.

Marines aren't trained to hug. They are trained to kill and to do it well. "Respect" in killing other men is targetting only combatants. You will not find this "respect" from our enemy.

I expect you to be better. I expect them to be better. How can you hold a man to a higher standard if you do not hold yourself to that standard?

You're right. They are on a mission to defend their civilization and to defend their religion. The problem is that they have imagined an enemy.

Aye, there's the rub.

I do not believe that you will get anywhere solving the problem of the imaginary enemy by being a real enemy.

For decades, we have backed the wrong players. As long as the oil flowed, we have protected the world's oil supply and maintained stability. We have looked the other way as the Middle East continued to fail under the leadership of greedy Arabs. This is where our guilt ends. 9/11 has taught us that we can no longer look the other way. Through their acts of terror, they have forced us to take necessary measures (right or wrong). Israel does not wish them to be Jewish. Americans do not wish them to be westernized. We do not wish to rule over them. We do not wish for them to surrender their religion. However, they do wish for the west to embrace their teachings. All Religions in their dark histories, have embraced violence to "convert" non-believers. Islam's dark history has continued to present day. The Crusades are very much alive in their perspective of the world. What they see in the west is a society that embraces technology and many of it's people have strayed from God because of it. They do not wish that for their civilization, but by keeping it oppressed and hanging on to passed down traditions that do not work in the 21st Century, they are digressing away from progress. Their revenge for what they have done to themselves, is to kill for their God. There is a reason for their seperation. Has the west prevented them from building world class universities? Has the west prevented them from building libraries? Has the west prevented them from building Internet Cafes? Has the west kept them from creating industry that would enable them to compete with the western world on any front? Has the west stripped them of the free flow of information and forced the likes of Al-Jazeer down their throats as their only outlet to the world? No, but we all know who has and we all know who has perverted a religion to enforce this seperation as a means to control. From this perversion and civilization failures through suicide, we have symptoms - Islamic extremism, pervereted Clerics, dictators, theocracies, and terrorism. All used to enforce this great illusion that we are their enemy.

We can help with Universities. We can help with libraries. We can help with Internet Cafes. We can help them compete. We can help with their media. But we won't. It's not very profitable. The land with the one resource everyone needs to get itself out of the Dark Ages.

People don't realize just how dangerous this civilization is to us. Currently, people are whining about the Patriot Act. They are complaining about their "loss" of freedoms. (I don't see it, but whatever.) As this civilization's failures get worse and worse, we will have to take more restrictive measures to protect our society. They are a threat to us.

And we have proven that we are a threat to them. Congradulations.

Exactly!!! The Arab elite and their legion of Mullahs throughout the Middle East will not allow this to happen. President Bush has started up another news station through satellites so that the Muslims of the Middle East can get a more "worldly" perspective on current events instead of being brainwashed by their Mullahs and Al-Jazeera that continue to you use "Allah" and the cruelest injunctions of the Koran as the basis for everything.

With all due respect, the Mullahs cannot stop it.

Much like anyone that stands in front of an Islamic extremist who believes that your death will gain him favor in the after life. They are determined. Islamic extremists generally fall into the "apocalyptic" category..not the "practical." We face a civilization who cheers for their "martyrs." War is not the answer. Aside from the former Iraq and Afghanistan, the rest of the Middle East has the capacity and ability to change.

We cheer martyrs. The redneck at the end of Independence Day who drives his plane into the alien space ship: Hooray, what a hero. Men dieing for freedom are heros. Jesus was a martyr. Martyrs are heros everywhere. These men are killing people in their martrydom just like the redneck from the stupid alien movie and just like the men that kill people for democracy and freeom. What we hve to do is show them that killing is wrong.

Gandhi>Bush · Nov 30, 2005

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Hay Ghandi remember when you said that the peace corps was the answer to solving terrorism and then I said that the terrorists would take the peacenicks hostage and cut off their heads, well the terrorists have taken the peacenics hostage by the people who cut off heads:

http://openthread.dailykos.com/story...1/28/224443/76

Yes, I have heard the story.

Have you heard these?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/01/content_499432.htm

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475655893&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

They knew the risks, just as a Marine does. However, they chose to act without a rifle, without a tank. When the past soldiers were abducted and stripped of their weapons and the killed, it sent a message to people. When a man with no gun is abducted and killed, I suspect it will be a different message.

The people of the region aren't buying the "western spies" propagnada. They know the truth, becuase it is all too clear now.

Think of how Jordan backfired. Think of the peacekeepers abduction. These men are in the conscience of Arabs. Is it right? Is this what Allah wants?

It's happening, and God willing we may see the enlightenment during our life time.

George_Washington · Nov 30, 2005

G>B, I still just don't know how you could fault the Jews for not "doing more" to stop the Nazis. They were the victims. Was it really up to them to single handedly bring down the Reich and end WW2? If someone gets attacked walking down the sidewalk, is it partially that person's fault because he or she didn't fight back? No, of course not. Unless you're saying that in some way the Jews brought the holocaust on themselves. But that is absolutely crazy. No group of people deserves to be slaughtered and rounded up like sheer cattle.

Gandhi>Bush · Nov 30, 2005

Tashah said:
The Ashkenazi Jews of Europe/Russia from the turn of the century (1900) embraced a form of Judaism known as Hasadic Judaism. This form of Judaism as practiced in the diaspora embraced nonviolence. Rather than civil protest, they strongly believed that peaceful co-existence and intellectual accomplishment were the keys to social acceptance and national mobility.

That's not a philosophy I disagree with, but I think more action when it comes to resistance is necessary.

If I had not read this quote with my own eyes, I would not have believed it originated from you.

The only thing that the Jews of Europe and Russia between 1935 and 1 September 1939 requested of the international community was sanctuary in the form of relaxed immigration laws. It was their last hope. The Jews did not request World War II! I daresay, your understandings of the Holocaust seem to be only one step removed from those of Aryan Imperium. I would strongly suggest that you thoroughly read these benchmark historical works:

The War Against The Jews - Lucy Dawidowicz
The Final Solution - Sir Martin Gilbert
The Destruction Of The European Jews - Raul Hilberg

It was my understanding that the only thing the Jews did to resist the Nazis in their own land, was to get out of dodge and to hope for military intervention. In hindsight, I feel that the word "request" is quite an ignorant word to use, and I apologize, though I don't think it's going to get me anywhere. It wasn't until the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943 that there was much of any resistance, armed or otherwise.

You hypocrite! You have persistently bitched and moaned that Israel herself and the entire friggin world should come running to the aid of the Palestinians! NOW READ YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE IN BOLD!

I have suggested that the US try to use its political power and good relationship with Israel to aid in the process. There is the stirrings of nonviolence in Palestine, and if the change came as a result of that, others in the Middle East might look to such an idea and see its benefits rather than change by means of terrorism. I do believe that if Israel wants peace there are things they can do. I do not recall ever "bitching and moaning" for the "entire friggin world" to aid, however the show of international compassion for Muslims in a state of suffering would certianly be beneficial as well.

You sir, are nothing more than an Israel-basher, a Palestinian propogandist, and a terrorism apologist.

No, I am not.

From your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you have no viable understandings of Judaism, Ashkenazi history, Islam, Nazi fascism, World War II history, Holocaustal history, Arabic culture and customs, the Middle East, or global terrorism.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You are also a hypocrite.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Many people on this thread have remarked exhaustively on the errancy of your historical/strategic/tactical understandings and have demonstrated your position to be simplistic, impractical, and highly biased. You have exposed yourself with fanfare, and I vow to remain here for the duration of your exhibition.

Many people have remarked and I have responded to all of them with what I believe to be the best of my ability. I am sorry if it is not good enough, but I am trying.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Dec 1, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
Yes, I have heard the story.

Have you heard these?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/01/content_499432.htm

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475655893&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

They knew the risks, just as a Marine does. However, they chose to act without a rifle, without a tank. When the past soldiers were abducted and stripped of their weapons and the killed, it sent a message to people. When a man with no gun is abducted and killed, I suspect it will be a different message.

The people of the region aren't buying the "western spies" propagnada. They know the truth, becuase it is all too clear now.

Think of how Jordan backfired. Think of the peacekeepers abduction. These men are in the conscience of Arabs. Is it right? Is this what Allah wants?

It's happening, and God willing we may see the enlightenment during our life time.

That's bullshit it goes to further prove that pacifist resistance only works against a civilized society. Shoot even the British needed to get there noses bloody a couple times before they got the message.

When your enemy deals in a zero sum game the way the followers of Dr. Qubt (founder of the Islamic Brotherhood as Al-Qaeda members are followers of). do that there is only one path to Allah and that the rest of humanity is in direct contradiction to that belief then there is no more common ground on which to base an agreement on and all that is left is war.

rami · Dec 1, 2005

Tashah said:
I will simply say that all of the three great monotheistic religions enjoy commonalities, yet each is also distinct in various ways.

This would not even be a possibility if the Palestinians had simply met Mr. Sharon halfway. The deadly attacks after the Gaza withdrawal has caused many moderate Israelis to begin to gravitate towards the right... which is the power base of Mr. Netanyahu.

There is an addage... it takes two to tango. One cannot dance with a partner who refuses to grace the floor.

If the Palestinians choose to harbor and shield terrorists, then they have also made a cogniscent decision to suffer the possible consequesnces. By your own argument, the most effective way for the Palestinian people to end repercussions and bring about a positive change would be for them to clean house and eliminate the vermin causing them such heartache.

The Christians DID attempt to move in and claim a country. Remember the Crusades for the Holy Land? Instead of merely expelling Arabs, they slaughtered them by the thousands. When the Crusaders captured the city of Jerusalem, they slaughtered every Arab and Jew within the city. They also slaughtered every Jew in Trent and Worms on their merry way to Jerusalem.

Your analogy is false and disingenuous. Muslims are recent newcomers to North America. Jews have always been in Israel.

Merely the ideology is different. The end goals of subjugation and domination are completely coherent.

It is already too late to put the nuclear genie back in Pandora's box. The best that one can hope for now is that every nuclear state understands and appreciates the ugly concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD). It is incumbant upon the global community to ensure that all potential fissile material be strictly controled and the transfer of such material to any non-state entitiy is absolutely forbidden. Even stringent measures however do not guard against radioactive 'dirty bombs' which can be easily fabricated with discarded medical nuclear waste (strontium, cessium etc).

Thank you. There are also other Israeli reach-out programs to assist the Palestinian people in various ways. Lol... perhaps someday I'll tell you about the Oasis casino in Hebron.

well i agree with you saying that palestine is the home of jews. but which jews. there are many jews around the world. they are the home of arab jews. jews who lived with christians and muslims for many years. not jews comming form russia,germany,britain....etc. you are trying to say that all jews belong to this land which is incorrect.non arab muslims doesnt have the right to come to mecca for example, by force and kill people and ruling a country they were never born in. christians in many countries doesnt have the right to invade the vatican and rule it becuse their christians.

oldreliable67 · Dec 1, 2005

We can help with Universities. We can help with libraries. We can help with Internet Cafes. We can help them compete. We can help with their media. But we won't.

That is simply not true. Go to this thread and read about some of the help being provided in Iraq that you never hear about from MSM.

Gandhi>Bush · Dec 1, 2005

DivineComedy said:
I agree with your statements, “that Al Qaeda is nothing without members. Members come from the people. That means we have to focus on winning the people, not conquering a single tribe of terrorists.”

That is why for years I have referred to Hamas as an Al Quacka that quacks like the duck Al Qaeda. You are not going to win the people by giving the terrorist barbarians what they want, which is the destruction of the State of Israel.

I do not suggest giving the "terrorist barbarians" what they want. I do not desire the destruction of Israel.

You say that “Gandhi believed that the only way for nonviolence to be applied was for it to come from within.” That is convenient, considering that Gandhi would have had his little head measured and found lacking!

Quite right. In an effort to pacify the British, Hitler offered to kill Gandhi.

On a side note, while I'm sure I said the above quote, I believe it is flawed. I don't think Gandhi thought the "only way" for nonviolence to work was from the inside.

Having a Jewish State or a Black State does not mean that all Jews or Blacks must move to their respective States, or be expelled there, as the infernal Gandhi claimed would look reasonable but be unreasonable:

“If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.”

Gandhi never claimed it would be reasonable. He said it would "afford a colorable justification."

A lot of them would be alive if they had a place to go, but the ship S.S. St. Louis had no safe place to go after they were turned AWAY from America! Why did they have no safe place to go?

I feel that America should have taken these people.

I don’t think the proposed wall between Israel and Palestine is any different than the unrealized demilitarized zone of UN resolution 242, which was to prevent violent people from preventing the peaceful commingling.

UN resolution 242 prevented commingling all together, violent or otherwise.

Israel does commingle as a civilized people, but the problem is that the other side’s barbarian “known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions“ through the use of uncontrolled groups using civilian disguise and shields in violation of the civilized rules of warfare.

I've never seen or heard of any kind of "civilized war".

You asked: “The action required to change the tolerance level of Islam is to imitate the actions that led to change of tolerance in the religion of Christianity and Judaism. I know what I think caused those changes, what do you think caused those changes?”

The ability to rule themselves in relative peace free from the abuses of a majority that wanted the destruction of their various sects led to tolerance between the various Christian sects. An understanding was created as the individual self ruled States, that were founded by difference sects, were allowed to commingle across borders without fear. If Israel is allowed to rule themselves, free from being forced to live commingled with barbarian savages under the rule of a hostile barbarian majority, over time they and their barbarian neighbors will learn to live next to each other and commingle across secure borders in peace, after the barbarian savages learn to be civilized.

You expect the "barbarian savages" to learn to be tolerant by not being around anyone different?

The reasons today's Christianity is more tolerant than today's Islam is that Christianity was at some point forced to coexist with people that were not like them. The black animists from Africa during the times of slavery. The Quakers, the Puritans, the Mormons, the Catholics, all living under one flag in one country. The success of the idea spread to England and eventually Europe.

That is an act of applied force and not a nonviolent solution, but I am sure that you miss the moral of the story! {A family that eats together, stays together! Many poor whites ate with their one slave, and worked with their one slave, if they could afford one, and in many cases that slave may have fought for the Confederacy! So that mother’s solution was not a bad one, “within” a household.} If one cousin believed with all his hearth that god commanded him to kill the other, and the nonviolent one said like Gandhi “shoot me,” the forced commingling would have ended badly, but there would have been “peace” in the house.

You're taking the comparison out of context. These are two protestant Children that believe in God like they believe in Santa Clause. These are two boys that if they wanted to, could possibly get a fake nerf gun. These are two boys that, despite their differences, dont' undestand the concept of "kill" or "death." The moral of the story is: A people that eat together, stay together. Unity and peace are not created by division.

Tashah · Dec 1, 2005

Tashah said:
You are also a hypocrite.

Gandhi>Bush said:

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Click to expand...

Sorry doesn't cut it in my world. I will publicly document your hypocracy...

Gandhi>Bush Post#86 - 11-21-2005, 08:55 AM
This post of yours denotes what the State of Israel should do to assist the Palestinians:

Gandhi>Bush said:
Israel should educate Palestinian children if they so want to be educated. Technology: No one should have nukes, but I do think that helping them develop in various fields couldn't hurt. Till their soil if they need it done. Seems kind of Peace Corps-ish so I'm all for it. Give them press if that is what they need, if that is what they want. As for international power they should work for things that would benefit both Israel and Palestine.

Gandhi>Bush Post#149 - 11-28-2005, 10:34 PM
Yet this recent post of yours concerns the plight of the European/Russian Jews of World War II who desperately needed any form of assistence:

Gandhi>Bush said:
The onus is not on anyone else to save you. If you want your world to improve, it is your place to improve it, not someone in another countries.

You stipulate in Post#86 that the Palestinians deserve to recieve every possible aid and comfort from modern Israel... even till their soil. Yet you also stipulate in Post#149 that the Ashkenazi Jews of the Holocaust era deserved no assistence of any kind from anyone.

Clearly sir... you are either a hypocrite, or anti-Semitic.

MSgt · Dec 1, 2005

Gandhi>Bush said:
Islamic terrorism is on the losing side. That's where it's been for a near century. It's dying. It's withering away and it's dying. You can keep throwing coals in the furnace and keep messing up your file cabinet, but it's not getting you anywhere.

No they weren't. The civilization is failing, but their "martyrs" were winning until 9/11. We ignored every attack made by many different groups by men of different Muslim countries but all coming from one single region. Hatred taught to the young seems a lingering cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunities, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders to remain in power. Al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups of the past separated because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity. Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror, no matter what we do. But it’s far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if they’re allowed to become triumphant heroes to every jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I expect you to be better. I expect them to be better. How can you hold a man to a higher standard if you do not hold yourself to that standard?

Save it for a bumper sticker. Your "standards" are unrealistic in this world.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I do not believe that you will get anywhere solving the problem of the imaginary enemy by being a real enemy.

We are not at war with Islam. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us and they would have many around the globe believe it too. There is absolutely nothing we can do to convince them that their "God" is wrong. We are not the enemy, yet their Koran states that we are. This is a region that is full of fanatics and they are led by fanatics who pervert their religion to oppress.

Gandhi>Bush said:
We can help with Universities. We can help with libraries. We can help with Internet Cafes. We can help them compete. We can help with their media. But we won't. It's not very profitable. The land with the one resource everyone needs to get itself out of the Dark Ages.

-Never before in the Arab world have a country's citizens been permitted to vote on the laws that would govern them. This will enable industry.
-The media will quickly point out the destroyed schools from our bombing and our fighting with their region’s extremists, yet, dismiss the fact that most of the decay is the result of over a decade of neglect and under-funding following the imposition of UN sanctions after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, as well as the impact of three wars starting with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Despite the global left wishing and giving impressions that “we” are to take credit for all of this destruction, the truth is that we are funding and building schools, through contractors and Seabees, all over Iraq and despite much of the current poor facilities, a recent survey by UNICEF found that overall enrollment has surged from 3.6 million youngsters in primary school in 2000 to some 4.3 million at present.
-Currently, a collaboration of countries is sponsering a media form other than Al-Jazeera for the Muslims of the Middle East. It is sent to their television via satellites and it is free.

That's MEDIA, SCHOOLS, a chance to compete globally in the future, and FREEDOM.

Gandhi>Bush said:
And we have proven that we are a threat to them. Congratulations.

Say's who? Levels of satisfaction in Iraq vary by region. Among the Kurds, 85 percent think life has improved since the fall of Saddam. In the Mid-Euphrates region and the south, 52 percent are more satisfied. In Baghdad there was a three-way split between better, worse, and don't know. And in the Sunni Triangle only 12 percent think things have gotten better, understandable given both the fact that they had enjoyed special privileges under Saddam, and those who are now denied those privileges are making life difficult for everybody. Naturally, the security situation is on people's minds. Around 70 percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, "Life today is full of uncertainty" and "I am afraid for myself and my family." However, there were similar high scores agreeing to the statement "I am hopeful for the future," and the highest scoring statement of all was "I think things will slowly get better."

Gandhi>Bush said:
With all due respect, the Mullahs cannot stop it.

Can't stop what? The people's will to defy their God that has been shoved down their throats? These are not Americans. They weren't born into freedom. The were born into oppression and a dominating religion and every where they look across any border, they will see more oppression and more of the same dominating religion. They are controlled.

Gandhi>Bush said:
We cheer martyrs. The redneck at the end of Independence Day who drives his plane into the alien space ship: Hooray, what a hero. Men dieing for freedom are heros. Jesus was a martyr. Martyrs are heros everywhere. These men are killing people in their martrydom just like the redneck from the stupid alien movie and just like the men that kill people for democracy and freeom. What we hve to do is show them that killing is wrong.

Hmmmm. A movie vs. a civilization of millions in reality.

A martyr is Martin Luther King. An Islamic "martyr" is an extremist that murders for a perverted reason. A hero is an individual that risks or gives his life by protecting, saving, or liberating. Your complete lack of wisdom to this world and to the reality of our lives is horribly misguided. Trying to put terrorist on the same playing field as a hero is sad. It doesn't matter how the Middle East sees their "martyrs." They are wrong and you know it. This fantasy world you live in where Gandhi is standing beside you as you spout off little sentences with a question mark at the end of them does not serve you well. Especially, when completely disregarding the reality.

You are really coming off as an apologists who is looking for any reason not to protect yourself. I'm starting to believe that this is how you protected yourself after not being able to defend yourself in life. It's easy to get beat up and then look around and save face by professing to be a "pacifist." I could be waaaay off. Something tells me that you are actually sincere about this junk. Even a pacifist learns of his environment. What you are doing is wreckless. You got a lot to learn about the real world.

Gandhi>Bush · Dec 1, 2005

oldreliable67 said:
Ghandi,

Oh? You mean that when I was trekking down 92 floors of 2 WTC in the dark, in February 1993, it was because _______ (you fill in the blank) exploded a bomb in the basement? And come to find out, the guy that mixed the explosives (he was a chemist at a nearby pharmaceuticals plant) and rented the truck lived in New Jersey in the same town that I lived in? Other participants lived in Jersey City, just across the river from downtown Manhattan.

Well, now you know.

It was my understanding the 1993 bombing was perpetrated by men from born and raised in foriegn countries. If this is wrong, I would like to be corrected.

Gandhi>Bush · Dec 1, 2005

George_Washington said:
G>B, I still just don't know how you could fault the Jews for not "doing more" to stop the Nazis. They were the victims. Was it really up to them to single handedly bring down the Reich and end WW2? If someone gets attacked walking down the sidewalk, is it partially that person's fault because he or she didn't fight back? No, of course not. Unless you're saying that in some way the Jews brought the holocaust on themselves. But that is absolutely crazy. No group of people deserves to be slaughtered and rounded up like sheer cattle.

I do not think the Jews were responsible for the cost of WWII. I do think that there could have been some sort of resistance.

In the case of a person acosted while going for a walk, I don't think you can make such a comparison. A better comparison would be made of... (off the top of my head) a domestic dispute. Two people that are familiar with one another, two people that live together under a single roof. If there is a disagreement it is up to the one of the two people to solve it in one way or another.

You're right, no group of people deserves what happened to the Jews.

Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

Non-Passive Pascifist

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

Non-Passive Pascifist

Non-Passive Pascifist

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

Non-Passive Pascifist

Non-Passive Pascifist

Non-Passive Pascifist

New member

Non-Passive Pascifist

Read Some Books

Non-Passive Pascifist

Non-Passive Pascifist