Retaliation...

[Chewbacca]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nachtrafe:



Hmmm...strangely...YES! [img]smile.gif[/img]

BTW...Yes, we did this 'joke' before. And the shortened version that Merlin_the_Arch-Wizard posted really fails to make its point. I have a longer version that does make the point and does it much more eloquently. This version is just a joke designed to offend.

Of course...those on the recieving end of the joke always seem to miss the underlying message and just be offended.

---

Tell that message to the many Americans who held steadfast to non-violent actions in order to bring about civil rights or to end the killing in vietnam, even in the face of terror wrought upon them by other Americans.

Lets say that Non-violent person in the joke is gahndi, or Martin luther king jr, or jesus, or the Dali Lama, is it still funny? does the point still get made?

The underlying message I see and disagree with is this- violence solves problems, take a fist in the mouth repeatedly if you disagree.

No wonder so many young people resort to violence to solve problems, we have set a fine example and continue to do so.

[Nachtrafe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chewbacca:



Tell that message to the many Americans who held steadfast to non-violent actions in order to bring about civil rights or to end the killing in vietnam, even in the face of terror wrought upon them by other Americans.

Lets say that Non-violent person in the joke is gahndi, or Martin luther king jr, or jesus, or the Dali Lama, is it still funny? does the point still get made?

The underlying message I see and disagree with is this- violence solves problems, take a fist in the mouth repeatedly if you disagree.

No wonder so many young people resort to violence to solve problems, we have set a fine example and continue to do so.

---

Hmmm...you also seem to be missing the point of my post. The point isn't that 'Violence solves problems'. The point is that sometimes, you have to commit violence to stop worse violence, or to right injustice, or even, to defend peace. All of the men you mentioned are fine examples of how things can be changed through peaceful means. And yes, the world really can be changed through peaceful means.

But, on the flip side, there have been a great many positivly world shaping events that have occured through violence. The Romans conquering the known world, thereby bringing civilization to it was a pretty profound thing, dont you think? Or the creation of the US. The US was created in the crucible of war. Something that a great many pacifists seem to want to forget. The very freedom you have to express your opinion was paid for in blood. The blood of soldiers and patriots.

So, whilst you are up on your soapbox preaching about peace, please remember that violence in defense of liberty is a necessary, and worthwhile thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nachtrafe:



Hmmm...you also seem to be missing the point of my post. The point isn't that 'Violence solves problems'. The point is that sometimes, you have to commit violence to stop worse violence, or to right injustice, or even, to defend peace. All of the men you mentioned are fine examples of how things can be changed through peaceful means. And yes, the world really can be changed through peaceful means.

But, on the flip side, there have been a great many positivly world shaping events that have occured through violence. The Romans conquering the known world, thereby bringing civilization to it was a pretty profound thing, dont you think? Or the creation of the US. The US was created in the crucible of war. Something that a great many pacifists seem to want to forget. The very freedom you have to express your opinion was paid for in blood. The blood of soldiers and patriots.

So, whilst you are up on your soapbox preaching about peace, please remember that violence in defense of liberty is a necessary, and worthwhile thing.

---

The only reason why people commit "violence in defense of liberty" is beacuse they have commited "violence in defense of Liberty", Violence always a Circle and in the end solves nothing. In this modern age it IS possible to apply peaceful means to solve situations like in afganhistan,but as long as people are killed the circle of violence and hatred will remain. The only way to break the circle is by peaceful methods, such as disarmament and peacekeeping forces. Also a lot of this situation seems to boil down to a hatred of America, if only the American goverment had changed their foriegn policys perhaps this never would have happened.

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

if only the American goverment had changed their foriegn policys perhaps this never would have happened.

---

Dramnek, I shall attempt to remain calm, but this is an extremely inflammatory viewpoint. It is akin to saying a girl wearing provokative clothing brings rape on herself. It is a hurtful and callous opinion to post on a forum such as this.

On you ideas about "there is a peaceful solution" what is it? You keep saying as such, yet never detail a plan. Until you do, it is as meaningless as saying "we can all live in harmony".

How?

You mention disarming and peacekeepers. What if people refuse to disarm and attack the peacekeepers? This has happened many many times before.

The Taliban reject the international communities views. They are not, and never were a recognised government in any nation other than Pakistan. It is highly likely that they would have attacked the "imperialist west's" peacekeeping forces.

What then?

I have experienced aggression. Been a victim of it. In no way can you prevent a person from smacking you by being a dove.

This is not to say nonaction is not the right thing to do, but that if you want to prevent violence, inaction will not do it.

"Turning the other cheek" in fact means the other cheek gets slapped, not that the action brings about a cessation of cheek slapping.

The victim has the assurety that they have not become their aggressor though.

On a national level the issue is complex. A government has an obligation to prevent loss of life. A responsibility. No one said what the coalition was doing was not evil. Killing is evil.

It is the lesser of tow evils from the Western perspective.

Given that they, we, were the victims of a gross crime this is hardly unnatural behaviour, nor unwarranted behaviour.

Condemn the U.S. actions and you condemn humanity.

What are you going to do? Change human nature? Alter the behavioural patterns of an entire species?

What about accepting that shit happens. It's not a perfect world and never will be. All we can do is negotiate a delicate mistake ridden path, and hopefully enjoy the ride - the ups and downs - in the process.

[KHaN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:


Also a lot of this situation seems to boil down to a hatred of America, if only the American goverment had changed their foriegn policys perhaps this never would have happened.

---

Sorry pal but the U.S. isn't going to change whats worked for over 200 years just because some other country can't "deal with it". I have never seen more envious people posting here and on the international news. Like it or not we are the predominate country on this planet. We sure didn't ask to be.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KHaN:


Sorry pal but the U.S. isn't going to change whats worked for over 200 years just because some other country can't "deal with it". I have never seen more envious people posting here and on the international news. Like it or not we are the predominate country on this planet. We sure didn't ask to be.

---

I've seen this 'envious' thing posted a lot lately. People assuming that people who are anti-war are 'envious' of what America has. I'm intrigued as to why you assume this to be so?

I know an awful lot of anti-war people, both on this forum and off, and I think I can safely say that none of them, including myself, are 'envious' of America. What's to be envious of? We are mostly European, and have great standards of living in our own countries, thanks. I myself am a freelance business and technical writer, amongst other things. A great paying job (when I can be bothered to do it... - certainly I prefer to keep out of the corporates, and run up my debts whilst spending my days painting, and posting, of course... )

I personally am not 'envious' of the fact that America is the world's one remaining superpower. Why on earth would I be? I just don't get it.

It is precisely because the US is the world's only superpower that its methods and motives come under such scrutiny. It has tremendous power in the world, both for good and for ill. It is right that a country that affects so many people's lives around the world be subject to comment, criticism, suggestion and praise, where each of those things is appropriate. This process really has nothing to do with envy, at least as far as most of the peple posting here are concerned.

It might be different when you're talking about people who have flat rock bottom nothing, and see that America has so much. What's happening here is questioning about WHY America has so much, when much of the world's people have very little. Some of the answers are to do with exploitation of the world's people by American institutions, which are backed by the US government, and who are in collusion with unsavoury regimes all over the world.

Given the circumstances, envy and anger might seem to be reasonable emotions for the world's poor to feel? (Not blaming the US for all the world's ills here, just saying yes, US companies are partially to blame for some of them. As are many European countries. However, most of the big multinationals are American... ) I'm including the whole oil thing here, about which there has already been much discussion, i.e. America's relationships with repressive regimes to safeguard oil interests. You may see that as fine - those whose human rights are being abused do not, and America is apportioned a share of the blame.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Also a lot of this situation seems to boil down to a hatred of America, if only the American goverment had changed their foriegn policys perhaps this never would have happened.

---

I removed the author's name in the quote above to just take the statement at face value. In doing so, I hope to make all those who blame the US for what happened realize the other side of the coin if the US hadn't been involved in world affairs

True, not much could be said to dissagree with this. If the US would have changed their policies since the end of WWII, perhaps the attacks of 9-11 would have never happened (I say WWII because before that the USA were in isolation).

In fact, I'm pretty sure they never would of. Probably not for the same reasons you are thinking about. The truth of it is that if the US wouldn't have done what it has done in the past, most of the world (with the exeption of the US, Canada, Australia and a few minor countries) would have been under the fist of the still-standing USSR.

That's right, all of Europe, all of Africa, all of Asia, all of the Middle-East and most of South America under whoever was ruling the USSR. You would have no freedom, secret police arresting people left and right, executing them for crimes that aren't crimes.

Most of us we appauled by what was going on in Afghanistan when the Talibans were in power. That's what the entire world would have been like if the US would have fallen back into isolationnism at the end of WWII. Just to make you think a little more, it would all be either Nazi or Communist if the USA hadn't come out of it to fight during WWII.

You tell me which is better! To have a 9-11 to pay for our involvement or to have a totalitarian regime headed by an Hitler or a Stalin rule the world?

Personnally, I take a 9-11 over the other (though it's desastrous, it's an evil we unfortunatly have to live with ). If you live in one of those regions, you should be gratefull for the US involvement on the world scene rather than blame them for everything!

We live in the world we live today only because the USA are the USA. They are rightfully the super-nation of this planet. Don't blame them for what was done in the past for it was done so we could live in the world we have today... and it's not bad at all compare to the alternate!

The problem doesn't lie with the US involvement on the world scene over the last 60 years, it lies with us being HUMAN. We are the ones that need to change. We need to take our responsibilities and be gratefull for the involvement of others rather than blame them for our misfortune when we are to blame!

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KHaN:


Sorry pal but the U.S. isn't going to change whats worked for over 200 years just because some other country can't "deal with it". I have never seen more envious people posting here and on the international news. Like it or not we are the predominate country on this planet. We sure didn't ask to be.

---

Sorry pal the US has only been involved on the world scene for about 60 years (roughly since Pearl Harbor with the exeption of a very small stunt during the Great War). Before that, it was in self-isolation. You don't bug us, we don't bug you type of thing.

[Barry the Sprout]

People, people, people. Can we please stop getting into discussions solely about America. I have said it before and I will say it again but they are not the only people involved in any of this. They are not the only country to have caused the worlds problems and they are not the only country waging war on Afghanistan. They were the victim of the attack that could have happened to any of the major western powers for exactly the same reasons.

Yorick, thanks for remaining calm. But if you could hold on for a bit longer because I just have this to say:

I agree with Dramnek about that point - western actions were the cause of the attack.

I think the point needs to be made that America did not deserve it as no one deserves it.

But they should have expected it, something like this has been on the cards for a while. And even after it has happened the policy is not changing.

I am sorry if my response to the "joke" was heated guys, but look at it from my perspective. It basically said that I was stupid and I have had enough of that kind of thing lately. (Not on IW but in general).

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Yorick, thanks for remaining calm. But if you could hold on for a bit longer because I just have this to say:

I agree with Dramnek about that point - western actions were the cause of the attack.

---

Then you agree the rape victim is at fault, and know nothing about Wahabist Islam. Know thine enemy. You have continually made the mistake of assuming western rationale from this very different cultural mindset Barry.

I'm sorry but you do not know what you are talking about.

Western actions can be the cause of hatred, anger and vehemence, but nothing a victim does forces the hand of the perpetrator.

I cannot see how you fail to see this logic.

You proclaim it from the reverse, citing the west to be a demon for attacking Al Qa'eda - giving the west ownership of it's actions - yet fail to accord the same judgement on Al Qa'eda.

You cannot have it both ways Barry, which is it? Has Al Qa'eda brought this destruction on themselves? How far do you take back blame?

Blame is at once individual and universal.

If you get to the origin of the problem, had Mohammad sated himself with conquering Mecca and Medina, instead of north Africa and the middle east, none of this would have occured.

Or you could say had Abraham trusted God and not taken matters into his own hands, he would not have birthed a son who would have eternal enimnity with his younger brother. The Jew and the Arab echo Isaac and Ishmael.

Alternately you could say that no matter the cause, the current choice, and the current action are yours alone. No-one forces you to do anything. Even with an ultimatum and gun to your head, you choose to live and obey, rather than refuse and die.

Own your choices and actions.

No-one forced Mohammad Atta to fly a plane filled with people into a building normally filled with 50,000 people.