Helpful hints if you happen upon a Peace Rally

[John Fisher]

Does punching back solve the problem long term ? No, but neither does letting him hit you over and over. You do need to do something in order to get him to quit. (In preferred order) talking, running, kicking and running, punching and running, rendering him immobile, or whatever is required to get yourself out of harm's way is only the first step. After you're out of immediate danger, the law needs to step in and punish him for his actions. Getting him to stop in the first place can't always be solved without force (example: trapped in an alley with only one way out). John

[Zyxil]

the roshi asked his new student why he left his old master to study with him. the student replied that every time he asked his master what was the true nature of budda the master whould hit him, so he left his master to seek enlightenment elsewhere. the roshi hit his new student and said, "return to your old master and apologise for leaving him and his gentle love!" ----- life, liberty and the persuit of happiness were punched in the face, the foundations of western industrial libertarian society were punched in the face ----- we can have peace in our time... NOT -John

[Tim Smith]

BZZZZZZZZZZZ. I sorry contestant #2, but that is the wrong answer. 200 points off your score. Imagine what the world would be like if the allies didn't "punch back" against Hitler. Saying the violence is never the solution is like saying the no violence is always the solution. If we lived in a world where everyone thought just like me, we would all get along just fine. But, that isn't the real world. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

[Zyxil]

now THATS comedy! ;) -John

[Zyxil]

maybe i should have tagged it with a HumourHint(tm)... -John

[Ray Kinsella]

All i am saying is perhaps we should ask why first ? And then if the other party insists on punching and doesn't want to talk, then start punching them back until they do. Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire"

[Paul Watson]

if someone murdered your children and your wife and you did not retailiate then I would be ashamed to be in your presence. Standing around and making peaceful motions towards terrorists will simply make them think we are even easier targets. I agree punching some idiot who disagrees with something I say is not the way. But when that someone is hiding away behind legions of men, when that someone has murdered 6000 people and when that person declares that it is not the last time he would act then anything but force will fail against him. Ghandi and Luther King all had very, very different situations to our present one. Hence the different reactions. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes

[Chris Losinger]

if someone punches me in the face, i'll punch them back, harder. but what happened on 9/11 was not a punch in the face. can you see the difference? 6,000 dead and billions of dollars in damage vs. a fucking black eye. we're talking many magnitudes of difference. the analogy fails, it doesn't scale. even with your murdered children example, the analogy fails; if it happened, you wouldn't murder a murderer's family (in any civilized country), right? you'd take him to jail and let the law decide what to do. eye-for-an-eye went out with the old testament. punch-in-the-face analogies are an attempt to over-simplify the situation. and they only make matters worse by hiding important details and worse, by suppressing rational thought. who are you going to go kill 6,000 of? afghans? pakistanis? palestinians? will doing that change anything but our sense of dignity? hell no. and the millions we didn't kill will be on our doorstep in no time, avenging the deaths of those we killed. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

[Jonathan Gilligan]

When Gandhi maintained that nonviolence was the appropriate response to the British machine-gunning a peaceful demonstration in Amritsar in 1919, killing over 400, or when King maintained that nonviolence was the appropriate response to a terrorist bombing of a Sunday School, what was so different about their situations? Should King have demanded that we bomb Alabama, for at the highest levels, that state was clearly harboring terrorists and helping them evade justice for decades. What's interesting is to see how little effect military response has on terrorism. For decades, the English have been trying it in Northern Ireland, and Israel has been trying it against the Palestinian terrorists. As far as I can see, neither has managed to reduce terrorism significantly through force. Only diplomacy with the IRA seems to have reduced the level of terrorism, and even that has only been moderately effective. Gene Sharp, a professor at Harvard, has spent decades studying effective nonviolent methods of political struggle. He has collected case histories that show how nonviolence was even effective against the Holocaust (Civil disobedience and demonstrations by the Danes prevented the Nazis from deporting their Jews to the death camps. A peaceful protest by women in Berlin got the Nazis to release their Jewish husbands). Rather than reacting with violence for violence's sake, let's calm down and look at what might actually be most effective against terrorism. The sad fact is that for the most part, we don't have a clue what would be effective against terrorism. As Martin Luther King repeatedly said, "War is obsolete." (I would recommend reading what he had to say about war, particularly in his 1967 Christams sermon on peace, published in "The Trumpet of Conscience"). We need to find something that will be effective now that we see how impotent military power is against an invisible foe who does not fear death. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you --- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Paul Watson]

Ok Chris, then tell us, what should we do? I would love to know. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes

[Tim Smith]

But asking them nicely to stop won't do anything either. Which of course is a moronic oversimplification of your position, but the idea that most want to level Afghanistan is just as moronic. I don't want a war. But if that is the only option THEY leave us, then so be it. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

[Tim Smith]

The sad fact is that without the military, the diplomatic wouldn't work. Running around saying "PLEASE STOP" won't help anything. When you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, why stop? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

[Paul Watson]

lol I reckon that would have been a good idea... right now I feel like a HumourMint :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes

[Richard Stringer]

No. But a short term solution, if reapplied on a regular and escalating basis, can be an effective alternate to a long term solution. The easiest long term solution is to eliminate the problem. Kill them all- end of problem. If the perfect solution is not attainable, and I'm not yet convinced of that, an answer may be found in making them so fearful that they will not be tempted to do anything again. In order to accomplish that we should just kill as many as practically possible. And leave a threat hanging over the head of the terrorist(s) that any activity on his/her part to bring him/her to the worlds attention will result in his/her early departure from the toils and troubles of a worldly existance. While on an abstract basis they may want to be martyers I'm a firm beliver that when the abstract becomes concrete they will have a different attitude. f you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

[Stan Shannon]

Sure, slam the old guys! Actually, I don't have a problem with the peace movement. I also don't have a problem with the Klan or Neo-Nazi's (so long as they aren't actually killing people). The existence of such groups simply prooves that *our* civilization is great enough to tolerate morons. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.

[Stan Shannon]

Chris, I don't follow your logic either. We are already under attack, isn't it kind of late to worry about makeing someone else angry? "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.

[Chris Losinger]

i don't know. but an eye-for-an-eye can't be the best answer. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

[Chris Losinger]

do we know why we're under attack? i haven't heard any good reason, except what g_wBush mentioned in his vague speech. i guess it could be our "freedom" - but there are plenty of other countries with similar freedoms. it could be our "economy" - but plenty of other countries have solid thriving economies. it might be our "way of life" - but the US lifestyle is probably close to many other countries, in the eyes of a poor afghan. maybe we should find out why this happened - maybe there's a simple solution that doesn't involve a war that, in my opinion, will only create more problems. look at Isreal - they've been trying to beat back the Palestinians for years; Isreal has better weapons, better intelligence (spies), better infrastructure better everything. but what has their use of their better weapons accomplished? absolutely nothing except more resistance, more suicide bombers, more fighting, more hatred. but no, i don't know of a better way - wouldn't matter if i did. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

[Chris Losinger]

then the goal should be to eliminate the "everything to gain" part of it. ie. why do people need to resort to such acts to get their point across? what point are they trying to make? is it a valid point? can we do something to help them? ignoring them until we get mad enough to kill them is stupid. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

[John Fisher]

It sounds like you're using the "eye for an eye" phrase way out of proportion. Never was is meant to apply to anyone other than the criminal. In other words, you can take the eyes from a criminal if he took the eyes from 6000 people. But you can't take any more than that -- can't kill him because he didn't kill them, can't take the eyes of other people since they weren't involved, etc. Just trying to straighten out your apparent misunderstanding. John