Debates
12 Jan 05
12 Jan 05
1 edit
We often hear this phase when discussing the 'state of the world' and how to win the 'minds of all people' using ideas and reason instead of war.
My question is:
How does this work when used with people who have never had an idea in their lives, and will only stare at you in a confused manner if you COULD ask them 'what are you thinking'?
Have any of you read the underpinnings of Islamofacism? That is one hell of an intellectual vaccuum. Good luck waging wars against it using 'Ideas'. The only idea it seems to recognize is 'death to all who dare to oppose us'.
My answer is:
It won't work.
Wouldn't it be fun to take everybody who thinks 'marching for peace' is a workable solution to confronting evil people and plopping them down in a fire-fight with a weapon and their wits? It just makes me smile to think of the fun of it.
'Yoo Hoo! Over there! With the guns. Let's talk. Ok?' -- snicker.
12 Jan 05
the very fact that you've posted these comments shows that you yourself are closed minded and of narrow point of view.
gandhi never lifted his hands in anger and stands as a role model to us all, Nelson Mandela suffered in prison for 25 years and came out stronger and even more respected. what you may think is weak and useless to others is a demonstration of real inner strength.
marching for peace is one way of non violently showing your support for a movement for better understnding, tollerance and peace. and will always be more effective than terrorism or countries attempting to bully governments into similar forms of governments.
revolutions leading to peace have to come from within from the people. that is why there are so many issues in the middle east and until they understand their potential they are doomed to their fate. why oh why should we intervene.
12 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kcamsEver notice that Ghandi and Nelly always made it a point to go up against "reasonable" people? I wonder why they did that? Hmmmm...
the very fact that you've posted these comments shows that you yourself are closed minded and of narrow point of view.
gandhi never lifted his hands in anger and stands as a role model to us all, Nelson Mandela suffered in prison for 25 ...[text shortened]... ial they are doomed to their fate. why oh why should we intervene.
You'll be ok. You just have to learn to think while reading. The original premise was based on "people who have never had an idea in their life".
Piece. errr.r... peace!
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGhandi & Mandela 'made it a point to go up against "reasonable" people'. Nonsense. Like Ghandi or Mandela had a choice on who their oppressors were.
Ever notice that Ghandi and Nelly always made it a point to go up against "reasonable" people? I wonder why they did that? Hmmmm...
You'll be ok. You just have to learn to think while reading. The original premise was based on "people who have never had an idea in their life".
Piece. errr.r... peace!
Mandela was leading a quiet life in a cosy, trouble-free corner of the world, and he woke up one morning and thought, 'I know, I'll go and take up the cause of an oppressed people somewhere. Only those being oppressed by someone reasonable of course - wouldn't want to rock the boat too much'.
I don't think so. Mandela, Ghandi, and the many others who fought against oppression did so in the way they thought best.
They didn't choose who they fought against - they fought against their local enemy - they didn't have to go looking and selecting reasonable people to go up against.
And since when was Apartheid or British Imperialism reasonable?
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by kcamsActually Ghandi was involved in the armed uprisings by ethnic Indians in South Africa, and similarly Mandella was a freedom fighter in the same formerly 'riddled with apartheid' 'democracy', so they have both advocated violence early on in their 'careers'. The white rulers advocated racial hatred against any 'dark' race, hence the Indians & Negro were 'classed' similarly.The apartheid regime evolved from European thoughts of 'supremacy' and their histories of violence against mainly the Bushmen, who the white 'Afrikaans' would trap and skin ALIVE for fun - at white community picnicsin the country, attended by men, women & children, often a Bushman hunt was staged and the captured 'Natives',who are probably one of the most gentle people on earth, would be strung up,upside down, to a tree branch, and skinned alive by the kids! Hence racial superiority/hatred was perpetuated and normalised.
the very fact that you've posted these comments shows that you yourself are closed minded and of narrow point of view.
gandhi never lifted his hands in anger and stands as a role model to us all, Nelson Mandela suffered in prison for 25 years and came out stronger and even more respected. what you may think is weak and useless to others is a demonstration ...[text shortened]... l they understand their potential they are doomed to their fate. why oh why should we intervene.
Ghandi came to realise that their forms of violence would not work against such a ruthless regime and sought another way, he found this in the NZ example set by Te Whiti at Parihaka, the forerunner to peaceful protesting....the rest as they say is history😉
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaThe point is that he was smart enough to see that he couldn't win and left. He had very little effect over the eventual outcome. Nor did anyone except the people of south africa deciding to "try another way". You will have to ask each of them why they decided to change. I suspect there are as many reasons as people. And a slim majority hates the change to this day?
Actually Ghandi was involved in the armed uprisings by ethnic Indians in South Africa, and similarly Mandella was a freedom fighter in the same formerly 'riddled with apartheid' 'democracy', so they have both advocated violence early on in their 'careers'. The white rulers advocated racial hatred against any 'dark' race, hence the Indians ...[text shortened]... Te Whiti at Parihaka, the forerunner to peaceful protesting....the rest as they say is history😉
12 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeA universal truth. Enemies are right in front of you. And like your nose, they are picked rather easily. If you choose to do it, you do.
Ghandi & Mandela 'made it a point to go up against "reasonable" people'. Nonsense. Like Ghandi or Mandela had a choice on who their oppressors were.
Mandela was leading a quiet life in a cosy, trouble-free corner of the world, and he w ...[text shortened]... .
And since when was Apartheid or British Imperialism reasonable?
As I have said. You will have to ask the people who granted freedom to India. And who abolished apartheid.
I don't know, but I suspect that they will give a passing nod to the mythical peace makers then tell you why they really did it. I might be wrong though. But then so might you?
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYes, so Mandela & Ghandi didn't choose to go up against 'reasonable' pepole. They chose the enemy in front of them.
A universal truth. Enemies are right in front of you. And like your nose, they are picked rather easily. If you choose to do it, you do.
As I have said. You will have to ask the people who granted freedom to India. And who abolished apartheid.
I don't know, but I suspect that they will give a passing nod to the mythical peace makers then tell you why they really did it. I might be wrong though. But then so might you?
If Mandela was no threat to Apartheid they wouldn't have jailed him.
12 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeThat seems reasonable. They (his enemies,ie, SA Govt.) probably just wanted to kill him. But not being communist, they felt a compunction to use more moderate means? That sounds about right.
Yes, so Mandela & Ghandi didn't choose to go up against 'reasonable' pepole. They chose the enemy in front of them.
If Mandela was no threat to Apartheid they wouldn't have jailed him.
Have you ever wondered about all of the great "people" we will never know? Because your religion killed them outright? I have.
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou don't believe the South African Apartheid regime killed anyone? Try telling that to Steve Biko's widow. Did Martin Luther King oppose 'reasonable people'. Think again. Your argument on this point has been shot to pieces. Have you ever changed your oppinion, or do you always believe that you are right?
That seems reasonable. They (his enemies,ie, SA Govt.) probably just wanted to kill him. But not being communist, they felt a compunction to use more moderate means? That sounds about right.
Have you ever wondered about all of the great "people" we will never know? Because your religion killed them outright? I have.
12 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ianpickeringDid I say that? We were talking ONLY about Nelly and why he was "imprisoned" not "killed". We have also been discussing "the power of myth" recently. A good modern example of "myth" is the notion that crazy people give a crap about "great men of peace". Nice myth. Just not grounded in reality. Which was my point of starting this thread.
You don't believe the South African Apartheid regime killed anyone? Try telling that to Steve Biko's widow. Did Martin Luther King oppose 'reasonable people'. Think again. Your argument on this point has been shot to pieces. Have y ...[text shortened]... anged your oppinion, or do you always believe that you are right?
Edit. Nice catch, by the way. Biko is more typical of "great peace-makers" who aren't smart enough to move out of country and "try something else". The secret to non-violent methods is in finding "rational" enemies. I think. All the fine "non-violence" in the world didn't help Dr. King. Did it?
13 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHelp in what sense? Because he was assassinated? He wasn't concerned for his own life as he said at the end of his speech the day before his death.
Did I say that? We were talking ONLY about Nelly and why he was "imprisoned" not "killed". We have also been discussing "the power of myth" recently. A good modern example of "myth" is the notion that crazy people give a crap a ...[text shortened]... fine "non-violence" in the world didn't help Dr. King. Did it?
"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
He certainly felt that his non-violent methods had progressed the cause of black people in America. He understood that these methods showed up the evil deeds of the vicious southern racists and brought many influential whites in to work alongside him.
On the point of Islamic terrorists - Are you saying that it is impossible to have a rational conversation with them? If that is the case then we are in a bad way, because a military 'war on terror' cannot be won. I'm not saying that we should roll over with our paws in the air and capitulate. What I am saying is that we should explore all ways to engage the Islamic world in dialogue and look for ways to address any 'legitimate' grievances that they feel they have.
13 Jan 05
There is a difference between the absence of ideas and ideas that you consider unsound.
Certainly militant nonviolence is a powereful idea: Gandhi, King, Chavez all used it with success. But as an idea, it works best against State power that has become corrupted, and out of step with its own ideals. "Islamofascism" is a different animal, and calls for different strategies.