COMMENTS:
Well he didn't do it all by himself you know. I see where you're going with this and you're comparing apples to oranges.
First off, the Civil rights movement in this country was very violent and not at all "peaceful." There were lynchings, fightings, things were set on fire, people were shot, raped, hanged, harassed, you name it.
Secondly, look at the environment. We're talking about the USA so for the most part, they did not have a government that was corrupt and oppressive.
MLK had environment and circumstances on his side. There was also little or no foreign involvment, so its not like we had foreign militaries in our midst complicating things.
You're totally grasping at straws here and not doing a good job at it.
*agrees*
"I see where you're going with this..."
by TomSmith on Aug 10, 2006 11:03am
Well aren't you smart?
Tom: If you see where he's going with this, you have one up on me. I'm not seeing any point.
Its easy to see Cathex. She's trying to make a point and you can see that by her previous ballot on Tibet. I see where she is trying to go with this and shes way off track. Time to get a map JTK.
Oh yeah and you're not seeing a point becuase there is none.
I believe he advocated kidnapping and beheading whites until his demands were met. Failing that he told his followers to kill as many whites as they could in suicide attacks, ignoring police and military forces and focusing on civilians.
Hey, blacks were poor, oppressed and unable to fight back on equal terms, they had no choice but to resort to terrorism, right?
What you just wrote is totally meaningless. Its sounds more hysterical than reasonable. You contributed nothing.
Or is this the same old tired ploy of being too gutless to outright declare 'Muslims are the Enemy' and support a formal Crusade?
Cath: radical islam is the problem, yes.
In the last world war it was facism and imperialism that we were fighting, although I'm sure there were quite a few national socialists and imperialists who were darn swell people once you got to know them.
Radical islam is an ideology that is no less warlike or hostile to our values than the previous ideologies we've faced. They are more dispersed, so they tactics must change, but the overall goal is the same.
And unfortunately radical islam is widely accepted and rarely denounced by other muslims (and hardly ever actively combated).
There is a sickness in the islamic world that we in the west feel bad about acknowledging. We've been taught for so long that we should feel guilty for what we have, that we are the source of all problems, that other cultures are ancient and wise, and if they show faults it's because we've oppressed them. Why we developed this nihilism I can't say. But we have and we're going to have to discard it if we want to go on having a civilization for much longer.
The fact is other cultures and other people can have flaws as well, and it's ok to recognize those flaws.
Say it with me now "islam is not perfect, arab culture does have problems that need to be fixed"
herz, I agree that radical Islam is a problem. I have never claimed it was perfact and flawless.
I have chafed at many generalizations that seek to use 'Muslims' and 'radical Islam' interchangeably.
However, I do NOT put it up there with fascism, etc. I think it is a problem that can be successfully undermined. Bringing huge amounts of military force against it merely serves to legitimize and strengthen it.
Ironically, the very means we are currently using to 'fight' it have served only to bring it to its gretest strength in decades.
Voted : He used peaceful non-violent methods
duh and his methods worked far better than those who advocated often violent methods. It is a great thing when a non-violent movement achieves great things:
- US Civil Rights movement
- Fall of the Berlin wall
- Downfall of Soviet Union
- Solidarity movement in Poland
- People power movement in the Philippines which brought true democracy.
and on...
HIS methods were to PEACEFULLY resist the violent attacks directed at him and his followers.
"I see where she is trying to go with this and shes way off track"
by TomSmith on Aug 10, 2006 11:54am
Making assumtions, instead of giving facts does little to give your comments validity. What makes you think I'm a she, your great intelligence?
There's no neutral first-person singular pronoun in the English language that he could've used beside "it." And, seeing as it's considered courteous not call people "it," he chose what he thought was right. And what does his referring to you as "she" have to do with anything? You're straying from the point of your own ballot.
So should the Native Americans have used non-violence? What about the French resistance fighters? How about the Colonists in early America? Should all of them have used non-violence?
What about when our country was arming the Afghan rebels? Were we wrong to do so when they were trying to expel the Russians? How about what went on in Nicarauga? Didn't we arm some rebels? Once again, were we wrong to do so?
Change that to third-person.
What about Vietnam? Didn't we encourage and lead the way in using force against the Communists? Using your "logic," wouldn't it have been better if all of our leaders and generals and soldiers had gone over to Vietnam and locked arms and had one giant love in with them all singing Koombya? So if Arab nations invaded Israel and took some of their land, are you saying they should accept it and use non-violent means to drive the invaders out? What about this whole war with Lebanon? I see people on here writing that Israel was in the right to attack because Hezbollah kidnapped 2 of their soldiers. Shouldn't then, using your "logic" the Israeli's used non-violent pacifist means to get their soldiers back? Oh wait...is it that only the USA and allies of the USA are entitled to use force? That seems to be the attigude with some of you. :)
Oh I see Mr. "Himself". So if this (she) is a regular polite term used by Tom to address all peple, I guess it will be seen on all of Tom's posts? 
I never said that he used it to address all people. I said that he used it to address you because he thought you were female. I thought you were too, but if you want me to call you "it," I will. To each its own.
Damn, take it easy. He, she what does it matte. Thought you were a girl. But you're more focused on that issue than the topic of your ballot. And you're telling me I'm not discussing the facts but neither are you. Reading your entries here, you've done everything but discuss your own topic. In fact you seem more interested in focusing on me. And where are your facts? Your ballot intro is more of an editorial than a recounting of facts. So lets hear the facts from you JTK.
If you believe this ballot is saying any lie, I would be more that happy to be corrected.
Saying any lie? You have a persecution complex. Paranoid much? Later.
he was murdered for being so good :(
by Jyl on Thu Aug 10, 06 7:02pm
[+]
An excellent example of PUSH polling, if I ever saw one.
Voted : He used peaceful non-violent methods
He used non-violent resistance. He is one of my favourite political figures- along with other pacifists such as Gandhi, Mandela and more contemporarily Burma's pro-democracy campaigner- Aung San Suu Kyi.
patch- you seem to show a great dislike for pacifism and pacifists. That's okay, we like you anyway.
We pacifists recognise that warfare historically has always had collateral damage, which is why we do not like war. Collateral damage is brutal and disgusting.
I hear many complaints about Israel's war being gruesome in its collateral damage. But really, it is war, it is the nature of war. Which is why I am a pacifist. One who is against collateral damage and is not a pacifist, should look at the historical facts of warfare, reassess their stance, and consider becoming a pacfist?
Soc ... You view yourself as a pacifist?!? Wow ... have to admit, I didn't get that impression from previous ballots.
patch- you seem to show a great dislike for pacifism and pacifists. That's okay, we like you anyway.
by Socrates on Aug 11, 2006 6:29am
Then you need serious help. If you don;t see what is going on here, then its useless even talking to you. I can't belive someone I thought had a brain could be so wrong.
Personally, I could not care less what you think. To come away with the complete opposite of reality tells me lots about you.
Before you go pompously making assumptions as to what I belive, I strongly suggest you take the time to know me...which you obviously failed to do.
What we're seeing here is people who would see Israel and the USA CRUSH innocent people. Its sick that they want to invoke "pacifism" when what they really mean is that the Lebonese and the Palestinans should just lay down and die. If YOU don't see that, then I feel more sorry for you.
Arrogant and obnoxious is how you're coming across. Now step off.
patch22us- the bottom line of what I was saying is that war is wrong. Judging from history, war, including defensive wars, have had innocents as collateral. This is why not only do I declare the Hezbollah-Israeli war as wrong, but overall, war itself is wrong. All wars are wrong. And when I speak of pacifism, it should be the US and Israel also that should reconsider their actions, not just the Lebanese.
When I say something is 'collateral damage', many users on here think that I am trying to justify the violence. Of course, that is not true, as I am against all wars. Calling something collateral damage is not an automoatic attempt to make it look good. I think 'collateral damage' is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable. It is never justified from my point of view. For me 'collateral damage' is an ugly term, and when I say Israel has collateral damage, I mean it as a condemnation, because I perceive the term as being something completely immoral.
Next, when I say that Hezbollah started the conflict, and that Israel is fighting a defensive war- that is honestly how I see it. But once again, when I claim this, I am not trying to make Israel sound good. Why? Because I think defensive wars are unacceptable too- I am a pacifist. I don't believe in just war doctrines- so when I imply Israel was being defensive- I am NOT implying that their response is justified. It isn't. I disagree with both defensive and aggressive wars.
And I don't have a bias toward Israel. Ask FiddleFaddle and Yosi, they know I have criticised the nature of Israel's very existence.
"Before you go pompously making assumptions as to what I belive"
- I get impressions, impressions can be wrong.
When you said "So should the Native Americans have used non-violence? What about the French resistance fighters? How about the Colonists in early America? Should all of them have used non-violence?", etc, etc - I did get the impression that it was expressing a distaste for pacifism. Which of course I could easily have been wrong. And in answer to those questions- yes, non-violent resistance would have been better from my point of view.
Cathexis- Indeed, I am a pacifist. Defensive wars and ones that do not necessarily INTENTIONALLY target civillians are wrong, because all wars are wrong.
Martin Luther King did not champion BLACK rights, this is a fallacy, he championed HUMAN rights, even his widow has said the same thing, that she didn't care for how her husbands message got twisted around. King championed human rights, and was known to make that distinction at times to members of his own movement, that to focus solely on the rights of blacks was the wrong way to look at the issues at hand.
This is why I have such a great amount of respect for this man, and why I was so offended when people used his wife's funeral as a pulpit to preach about issues that quite frankly, King would not have agreed with in terms of the way they were presented.
Voted : He used peaceful non-violent methods
Jappy
The opening lines of King's 1963 "I have a dream" speech.
"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.
One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."
|
