Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

[Gandhi>Bush]

If “the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,“ and yet “there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,” all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.

Ehh? "Well if this is this and that is that then this is what you're saying." That's strawman. It's annoying and disingenuous.

From your source on euthanasia: “By the time Hitler ordered a temporary halt to the program August 18, 1941 due to protests from churches and relatives of the victims, 70,000 people had already been executed. However such public resistance merely slowed the program, and the killings continued under greater secrecy.”

So all they managed to do with your method of nonviolent protest is to slow the program and teach them to hide the nasty mess from the public, that must be why our troops paraded the “unknowing” Germans past the mass graves.

My point is so long as the people know, the people will not allow it. The people must know the truth. If they know the truth, I promise they will make the right decision. I understand the complication of a dictatorship, but when people are allowed to protest, that's one hell of an angle.

{I wonder, if nonviolence in America had anything to do with my father having an Indian girlfriend in India during WWII?}

Doubtful.

The infernal Gandhi should be made to personally dig the graves of those Jews he would not have gone to war to save, one at a time, it would be only fitting. I wonder, how long would it take for him to finish?

The infernal Gandhi? This screams that you have little if no knowledge of this man.

Considering he was around 70, the thought of him picking up a rifle or a shovel is comical if not stupid. In a letter he wrote either to the Czechs or the Polish, he basically says if there has ever been a war worth fighting it was a war to save the Jews, but then he says that he doesn't believe in war. He then calls them to nonviolence. He was Gandhi. There is a reason he is called the man of the millenium: because his ideas were revolutionary.

 

[DivineComedy]

Ehh? "Well if this is this and that is that then this is what you're saying." That's strawman. It's annoying and disingenuous.

The quotes of Gandhi that I used in the offending sentence clearly teach that a minority nonviolence movement insisting on a just treatment cannot be better at providing just treatment than a majority of citizens ruling for the exact same just treatment.

No strawman argument was made, simply because it is a historical indisputable fact that the nonviolence movement is not 100% effective, therefore it is not a strawman to say that “all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better” to have self rule than for a minority to be reliant on insisting that that a majority provide them with just treatment.

Self rule > Having to Insist

Self rule > Digging a grave

Self rule > Nobility

Self rule > Gandhi

I stand by what I said:

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.

My mistake though for future refererence, if you're going to quote someone let me know that you're quoting them. I didn't understand your paragraph, but I do now.

First of all, the quotes you posted are completely out of context, and misrepresented.

These are taken from Zionism and anti-Semitism by M.K. Gandhi printed in Harijan in 1938:

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same way that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave where they are settled?

(Huge Snip)

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany.

For the first quote, it's talking about the desire for a Jewish homeland, and hasn't much to do with the holocaust in Germany.

Shoving them together doesn't add up to much sense. It makes for a very good strawman...

The first quote calls for Unity. Jews born in Germany are Germans, rather than untermenschen or Israeli.

The second quote says that there can be no alliance with Germany if we refuse to make war with Germany.

 

[George_Washington]

I can't find any record of a nonviolence program or effort in Germany or Russia. Do you have a source I could read or just elaborate?

lol Well, you must have been reading totally different books than I did. I've read books on Hitler, the Third Reich, and various materials on the Holocaust. I've never read anything about how the Jews were violently attacking the Germans or even the Nazis for the matter. Before the Third Reich, the Jews occupied many white color jobs. They were lawyers, bankers, businessmen, etc. They were peaceful for the most part. Besides, the Jews only amounted to 1% of the population in Germany. There was little they could do, really. There were times when Jews rioted against the Nazis but this was only after the SA had done things like murdered people in name of them being "communists" and burned down Jewish synagogues.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

lol Well, you must have been reading totally different books than I did. I've read books on Hitler, the Third Reich, and various materials on the Holocaust. I've never read anything about how the Jews were violently attacking the Germans or even the Nazis for the matter. Before the Third Reich, the Jews occupied many white color jobs. They were lawyers, bankers, businessmen, etc. They were peaceful for the most part. Besides, the Jews only amounted to 1% of the population in Germany. There was little they could do, really. There were times when Jews rioted against the Nazis but this was only after the SA had done things like murdered people in name of them being "communists" and burned down Jewish synagogues.

A lack of violent resistance does not equate to nonviolent resistance. From my understanding of the German-Jewish response in Germany it was simply to wait and hope allies came to kill their oppressors. In the above mentioned letter that Gandhi wrote he says, "If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept tthe prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than they are now." To me those words held a bit of sting for the near total lack of response or efforts against such horrific acts.

 

[MSgt]

A man under the threat of a tyrannical government would use that for freedom. What did Patrick Henry use it for?

Freedom through violent means.

"I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!"

"The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Jordan is condemning terrorism because they've finally realized the kind of monster that the entire world has to deal with and what a damage it is to their religion. I believe that King Abdullah probably has had these feelings for a while and only recently has it been politically convenient to endorse.


Iraq is condemning terrorism because it's in their grill everyday and because America is condmening terrorism. Iraq is not free of America, and I don't expect it will be for a very long time.

Very true about Jordan. There is much more internal issues, but very good. The Indonesian government and it's President have appeased their extremists, because they did not wish to antagonize them beyond the simple murders and minor violence. There are other factions in the government that have wanted to crack down on their home grown terror groups and the Al-Queda base there. The Bali bombings have made the government face their problem and given those other factions their excuse. Iraq is condemning it because of what they are witness to. "Apolcalyptic" terrorists always sew their own demise. Remember what you said about America being in Iraq for a long time. There is very little reason for us to be there anymore, and there have been unofficial plans for pullouts next year. The future unit deployments and equipment movements are always perfect indicators to what is to come.

"Now look at them?" I am looking at them. There is a terrorist attack everyday it seems like now..

It's easy to kill civillians. This is what I meant by how fractured and small they have become. It is impossible for us to track them down, because they have a world to hide in and an indefinate amount of targets. The only way for the Islamic world to abolish their terror attacks and their extremists is to change their civilization the same way every religious civilization has done before them. We are attempting this. The alternative is to be ruled by dictators and Mullahs. It's simple. You want the security a dictator can provide or security that a democracy can provide? Transitioning from a dictator to a democracy is going to have it's growing pains. The vast majority of Muslims in the region would like the lifestyle that freedom brings. Unfortunately, There are millions in the Middle East that prefer the status quo. The status quo is deadly to us. We can no longer wait for them to do it themselves - and thus far, for the large part, they aren't lifting a finger. What makes their religious civilization different from other religious pasts is that this is the 21st Century and the spear has been replaced by the bomb and they are determined to be at war for their "God."

It doesn't matter what the President says so long as his actions speak of war.

Well, when Iran becomes a better democracy than Iraq and Syria transitions from a Baathist ruling nation to a more democratic nation in the next decade through internal means, not by our military action - remember that the democracy in Iraq started it and it took military action to get rid of Saddam.

Your peaceful means to an end will not work and never works against a foe that is determined to do you harm. Not oppress you, not be mean to you, not take away your civil rights, not tax you without representation - but kill you. All you will do is make their job easier. Iran will not stop it's quest for nuclear power and eventually nukes so that it can "push Israel from the face of the earth" and supply terrorist that want to place one in your city, based on our peaceful protest and means. It will take aggressive diplomacy and eventually it will take military strikes upon nuclear facilities in which civillian workers will die. There are plenty of examples in history where peaceful means back fired. There are plenty that we can see today.

Like I said, I admire your convictions and strength. Your kind have a lot more to offer this world than someone like me, but it's a good thing people like me stand between you and the ones who want you dead. I and hundreds of thousands of others will not simply stand by while some jackass with a Koran kills you as you peacefully protest.

 

[DivineComedy]

My mistake though for future refererence, if you're going to quote someone let me know that you're quoting them. I didn't understand your paragraph, but I do now.

First of all, the quotes you posted are completely out of context, and misrepresented.

These are taken from Zionism and anti-Semitism by M.K. Gandhi printed in Harijan in 1938:

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same way that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave where they are settled?

(Huge Snip)

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany.

For the first quote, it's talking about the desire for a Jewish homeland, and hasn't much to do with the holocaust in Germany.

Shoving them together doesn't add up to much sense. It makes for a very good strawman...

The first quote calls for Unity. Jews born in Germany are Germans, rather than untermenschen or Israeli.

The second quote says that there can be no alliance with Germany if we refuse to make war with Germany.

Simply snipping something out does not mean it is a taking out of context or a misrepresentation. Sorry about not giving proper identification of the quotes, but I didn’t think it should make a difference to the argument presented.

The first part of my offending sentence quotes the entire thesis statement and does not misrepresent the views of the author, as is clear: “The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred.”

The sentences that follow do not change the meaning of the first complete thesis statement that I quoted in that instance, so there was no misrepresentation.

The second sentence that was snipped said “there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany,” and what I left out does not misrepresent the views of the author.

Gandhi was against a war with Germany, “even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,“ and his views were represented and not misrepresented.

I was not claiming that Gandhi was for an alliance with Germany, but was only pointing out that he was against a war with Germany “even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,” so I did not misrepresent the views of the author.

You said: “Shoving them together doesn't add up to much sense. It makes for a very good strawman…”

You have created a strawman argument.

The two main points are these:

1) Gandhi was against the creation of a Jewish Home in Palestine, “under the shadow of the British gun,” and felt that “the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred.”

2) Gandhi had sympathy for the Jews but was against a war with Germany “even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews.”

I did not misrepresent his views. The two points are in the same letter, so you cannot separate them and claim “shoving them together doesn't add up to much sense,” or that they do not have much to do with each other. Gandhi put the two points together and is the very thesis of his letter.

This sentence by you is a fallacy: “For the first quote, it's talking about the desire for a Jewish homeland, and hasn't much to do with the holocaust in Germany.”

What you said is a fallacy because of the thesis at the beginning of the letter: “Several letters have been received by me, asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany.” (Mohandas K. Gandhi Published in Harijan on November 26, 1938)

That thesis “shoving them together” is later supported: “But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.” (“The Jews in Palestine 1938: By Mahatma Gandhi (Mohandas Kirmachand Gandhi)”)
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_gandhi_1938.php

My argument stands and is a valid argument:

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

Gandhi never taught that it was better for the Jews to have their own country. He said that people born and raised in Germany are Germans regardless of their religious heritage and people born in Palestine were Palestinian regardless of their religious heritage. To assert that he meant for the Jews to have their own country, is in my opinion based on my knowledge of both Gandhi and Nonviolence, to be a misrepresentation.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Freedom through violent means.

"I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!"

"The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

The ideals are the same. "I am willing to die if I am not given freedom." Only in this case it is not a "willingness" it is a demand.

It's easy to kill civillians. This is what I meant by how fractured and small they have become. It is impossible for us to track them down, because they have a world to hide in and an indefinate amount of targets. The only way for the Islamic world to abolish their terror attacks and their extremists is to change their civilization the same way every religious civilization has done before them. We are attempting this. The alternative is to be ruled by dictators and Mullahs. It's simple. You want the security a dictator can provide or security that a democracy can provide? Transitioning from a dictator to a democracy is going to have it's growing pains. The vast majority of Muslims in the region would like the lifestyle that freedom brings. Unfortunately, There are millions in the Middle East that prefer the status quo. The status quo is deadly to us. We can no longer wait for them to do it themselves - and thus far, for the large part, they aren't lifting a finger. What makes their religious civilization different from other religious pasts is that this is the 21st Century and the spear has been replaced by the bomb and they are determined to be at war for their "God."

I don't doubt that with change their will be pain, but I doubt completely that pain will result in a change in the way of hatred for the west.

Well, when Iran becomes a better democracy than Iraq and Syria transitions from a Baathist ruling nation to a more democratic nation in the next decade through internal means, not by our military action - remember that the democracy in Iraq started it and it took military action to get rid of Saddam.

I don't believe we had to invade Iraq in order for these movements to flourish. The ideas of democracy and change were already there. If we showed them anything, it was that you have to resort to violence in order to change things.

Your peaceful means to an end will not work and never works against a foe that is determined to do you harm. Not oppress you, not be mean to you, not take away your civil rights, not tax you without representation - but kill you. All you will do is make their job easier.

Your violent means will not work against such an enemy either. When two people fight, it forces people to choose a side. The human brain has a tendency called the "binary instinct." It makes people divide things in to two categories and then to differentiate between "good guys" and "bad guys". Think about it. Its everywhere. Liberal or Conservative. Democrat or Republican. With us or against us. Friend or Foe. When this is instinct is enforced it makes it incredibly simple to make a man hate another man, and human hatred is what causes people to kill. This binary instinct is the enemy of peace. You cannot enforce this instinct on to people if you want them to be tolerant, if you want them to live peacefully.

When you engage in a conflict, everyone that has the slightest instinct is more apt to become your enemy. It causes all moderation to be thrown out the window and forces people to the extremes. The advantage is that you force moderates onto your side. The disadvantage is that you force moderates against you. This will not work. You can't divide people down the middle and declare war on the wrong half. I tell you: it will not work.

Iran will not stop it's quest for nuclear power and eventually nukes so that it can "push Israel from the face of the earth" and supply terrorist that want to place one in your city, based on our peaceful protest and means. It will take aggressive diplomacy and eventually it will take military strikes upon nuclear facilities in which civillian workers will die.

The answer to the problems in Iran is the Iranian people. You will not reach them by any form of military strike.

There are plenty of examples in history where peaceful means back fired. There are plenty that we can see today.

Can we discuss when in history the efforts of nonviolence have failed?

Like I said, I admire your convictions and strength. Your kind have a lot more to offer this world than someone like me, but it's a good thing people like me stand between you and the ones who want you dead. I and hundreds of thousands of others will not simply stand by while some jackass with a Koran kills you as you peacefully protest.

It took a Jackass to awaken the Jordanian people. It did not take a soldier of any army.

 

[DivineComedy]

Gandhi never taught that it was better for the Jews to have their own country. He said that people born and raised in Germany are Germans regardless of their religious heritage and people born in Palestine were Palestinian regardless of their religious heritage. To assert that he meant for the Jews to have their own country, is in my opinion based on my knowledge of both Gandhi and Nonviolence, to be a misrepresentation.

I never said that he did.

I never asserted “that he meant for the Jews to have their own country.”

It is MY argument, as I said “My argument stands and is a valid argument,” and it is not a misrepresentation of any other views.

I am arguing that all your “all your nonviolence {Gandhi’s view and your view} teaches {as a result of rational and reasoned interpretation, considering the consequences of a German extermination of the Jews (“sub-humans“), in light of nonviolence that is against a war to stop the extermination of the Jews} is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

My argument stands and is a valid argument:

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

It might help if you would try and improve your comprehension of things.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I never asserted “that he meant for the Jews to have their own country.”

Yeah... You did.

I am arguing that all your “all your nonviolence {Gandhi’s view and your view} teaches {as a result of rational and reasoned interpretation, considering the consequences of a German extermination of the Jews (“sub-humans“), in light of nonviolence that is against a war to stop the extermination of the Jews} is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

Let's go slowly shall we. I'm going to reword your argument, as I understand it, as you refuse to reword it yourself.

"Gandhi's view(of nonviolence) teaches that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting."

It might help if you would try and improve your comprehension of things.

If you were in the least bit coherent, I would not have to be a psychic.

 

[DivineComedy]

Yeah... You did.



Let's go slowly shall we. I'm going to reword your argument, as I understand it, as you refuse to reword it yourself.

"Gandhi's view(of nonviolence) teaches that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting."



If you were in the least bit coherent, I would not have to be a psychic.

It is a true statement that, “I never asserted ‘that he meant for the Jews to have their own country.”

As I clearly said: “Sorry about not giving proper identification of the quotes, but I didn’t think it should make a difference to the argument presented.”

The argument I made is a valid argument, and it does not distort the views of Gandhi, but it does argue that his views result in a teaching.

You are here under the name of Gandhi>Bush teaching, and I am the student of you and Gandhi. Just because I am a student does not mean that I must accept what you teach, but I may from my perspective, and understanding of history, and reasoned interpretations of what you teach say that you teach something other than what you want me to accept. Gandhi’s view of nonviolence teaches me, but I am not an insect that just absorbs your teachings and accepts it as a member of the “hive mind.”

The first word of my argument was the word “IF.” And that is important.

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,…’”

If two things are true, then “all your nonviolence teaches” is a thing. As a result of what you teach I the student formulate an argument based upon those teachings, and I may use my own reason as to what your views actually teach.

We are not talking about a slap where the slave, or low born, or lower economic class, or barbarian (without Roman civilization), or inferior culture, or conquered people, turns the cheek in nonviolent defiance. We are talking about an extermination where the exterminator cannot see the victim is a human. Under such circumstances IT MUST BE BETTER for them (the “sub-human“) to have their own government, in their own country, where they can do insisting on just treatment instead of expecting a nonviolent protest to produce effective results in a country where they are considered “sub-human.”

My argument stands as a valid argument, and I see no reason to reword it:

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

 

[Tashah]

"the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred" and yet "there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews"

What this coupling says, in effect, is that:

1) The Jews have a problem in Germany.
2) The Jews are not getting a just treatment in Germany.
3) I will peacefully insist on a just treatment for Jews in Germany.
4) If my peaceful insistence results in a better treatment of Jews in Germany, then the problem is solved.
5) If my peaceful insistence does not result in a better treatment of Jews in Germany, then no further measures are valid and the Jews can indeed be exterminated.


That flow-chart of logic is horiffic... and sheer lunacy.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

As I clearly said: “Sorry about not giving proper identification of the quotes, but I didn’t think it should make a difference to the argument presented.”

How does it not make a difference? Until you told me, I had no idea of where the quotes came from, I didn't even know it was from Gandhi.

The argument I made is a valid argument, and it does not distort the views of Gandhi, but it does argue that his views result in a teaching.

You are here under the name of Gandhi>Bush teaching, and I am the student of you and Gandhi. Just because I am a student does not mean that I must accept what you teach, but I may from my perspective, and understanding of history, and reasoned interpretations of what you teach say that you teach something other than what you want me to accept. Gandhi’s view of nonviolence teaches me, but I am not an insect that just absorbs your teachings and accepts it as a member of the “hive mind.”

No one wants you to be that insect, but I don't understand what you claim to be "learning".

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,…’”

If two things are true, then “all your nonviolence teaches” is a thing.

This is what I'm talking about. It's sentences like these that really throw me off.

We are not talking about a slap where the slave, or low born, or lower economic class, or barbarian (without Roman civilization), or inferior culture, or conquered people, turns the cheek in nonviolent defiance. We are talking about an extermination where the exterminator cannot see the victim is a human. Under such circumstances IT MUST BE BETTER for them (the “sub-human“) to have their own government, in their own country, where they can do insisting on just treatment instead of expecting a nonviolent protest to produce effective results in a country where they are considered “sub-human.”

Under such circumstances, it is better that the Jews be treated justly wherever they are born and bred. In South Africa, when Gandhi worked for the rights of Indians, Asians, and African-Americans, he nonviolently protested and succeeded in changing the hearts of men that saw him as "sub-human". The German 1930s & 40s extension of this is certainly an extreme one, but a similiar none the less. I faithfully and fully believe that if the Jews had taken to nonviolence with the conviction of Gandhi himself, they would have succeeded in convincing the German people of the truth rather than of the Propaganda of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime.

“If ‘the nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred,’ and yet ‘there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews,’ all your nonviolence teaches is that it is better for the Jews to have their own country where their citizens can do the insisting.”

I understand how you may feel about it and how you may be able to comprehend it 100%, but I do not. I graciously and simply request that you reword your "argument" so that I may tell you my view of it.

 

[Tashah]

The Ashkenazi Jews of Europe and Russia from 1930 to 1945 did indeed embrace non-violence. Only a small portion eventually took up arms (Warsaw ghetto uprising/Red Army/partisan forces) against Nazi oppression and its program of Jewish extermination.

I can't find any record of a nonviolence program or effort in Germany or Russia. Do you have a source I could read or just elaborate?

Nonviolence program? Do you actually believe the Gestapo and SS/SD allowed any form of dissent against the Reich?

Your analogy between European/Russian Jewry of the Hitler era and the black civil-rights movement in America is an artificial and false construct. Blacks in America, although certainly oppressed, had Constitutional guarantees and Federal laws acting in their legal behalf. Jews trapped in Germany and Nazi occupied territory in WWII had no such legal recourse. In fact, the law of the Third Reich mandated that Jews be stripped of all citizenship and treated as 'Üntermenschen' (Sub-humans).

I didn't mean to call their struggles one and the same. I meant to say changing the hatred of the German people and changing the hatred of the American people were the same.

The struggles were not the same and neither was the outcome.

In the most extreme, black protestors could anticipate tear-gas, water-cannon, canines, batons, and arrest from Southern authorities. Even so, these actions were mitigated by civil-rights lawyers and eliminated with the introduction of Federal troops. Black protestors lived in a democratic country with inalienable rights, legal protections, and a liberal media.

When the Klan is setting fire to churches, murdering prominent figures, lynching men for the wrong thoughts, I think you have a little more to fear.

So far you have missed (or ignored) the point completely. The KKK was a small civilian hate group. The Third Reich was the entire government of Nazi Germany. Although both groups deal hate, no viable comparison can be made with regards to the misery and death meted out by each.

The Holocaust was possible because Germany was deeply steeped in anti-Semitism and its resultant apathy. Germans adored a nationalistic Hitler more than they abhorred his crimes against humanity. The overarching reason that Hitler's Euthanasia Program was curtailed was not because people were being murdered, but because those being murdered were 'Völksdeutch' (ethnic Germans).

First, did the German population know entirely what was going on in the Holocaust? I don't know the answer, but maybe you do. Even if the outcry over the murder of the hadicapped was simply because they were ethnic Germans, which I'm not sure that it was, I think even that amount of care and compassion is enough to appeal to a Nazi's ethical judgement.

Must I list for you the concentration and death camps located within Germany proper? Must I list the number of German SS personal involved in the extermination program? Must I list the Reichsbann train transports of Jewish victims that originated in German cities? Must I list the numbers of German Wehrmacht (regular army) soldiers who witnessed mass executions in Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia?

The Euthanasia Program that originated in Germany and administerd by T4 personel continued... albeit at a reduced pace. Many T4 personel were transferred to the gassing facilities located in Poland. Is out of sight/out of mind your idea of care and compassion?

I would suggest that you rethink your analogy and argument in this regard.

Once again I did not mean to make an exact comparison. On another note, I really don't feel like talking about nonviolence in the holocaust, I would much prefer to try to get back to terrorism.

There is no comparison at all. May I remind you that you yourself introduced the Holocaust into this debate. If you don't wish to discuss a certain topic, then please refrain from crossing that rubicon.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What this coupling says, in effect, is that:

1) The Jews have a problem in Germany.
2) The Jews are not getting a just treatment in Germany.
3) I will peacefully insist on a just treatment for Jews in Germany.
4) If my peaceful insistence results in a better treatment of Jews in Germany, then the problem is solved.
5) If my peaceful insistence does not result in a better treatment of Jews in Germany, then no further measures are valid and the Jews can indeed be exterminated.


That flow-chart of logic is horiffic... and sheer lunacy.

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.

 

[MSgt]

The ideals are the same. "I am willing to die if I am not given freedom." Only in this case it is not a "willingness" it is a demand.

Nobody gives freedom to their oppressed. It must be taken and nobody that ever faced a tyrant achieved it without violent means.

I don't doubt that with change their will be pain, but I doubt completely that pain will result in a change in the way of hatred for the west.

Hatred is fine. As long as they aren't using it to pervert their religion to justify mass murders and slaughters. Democratic nations aren't eager to wage war upon each other.

I don't believe we had to invade Iraq in order for these movements to flourish. The ideas of democracy and change were already there. If we showed them anything, it was that you have to resort to violence in order to change things.

Negative. The ideas exist in Iran and Syria and they can exercise those wishes more freely. They did not exist under Saddam Hussein. With Saddam Hussein still in power, the people in Iran and Syria would have just continued the status quo and the people in Iraq wouldn't have had a shot in hell. Iraq had to happen to inspire surrounding areas. These are not stupid people. We didn't have to show them anything when it comes to violence. Don't forget what these people are capable of. I don't know of too many civilizations that breed extremists in the form that would crash airplanes into cities and other various crimes. Violence is very much a part of their world.

Your violent means will not work against such an enemy either. When two people fight, it forces people to choose a side. The human brain has a tendency called the "binary instinct." It makes people divide things in to two categories and then to differentiate between "good guys" and "bad guys". Think about it. Its everywhere. Liberal or Conservative. Democrat or Republican. With us or against us. Friend or Foe. When this is instinct is enforced it makes it incredibly simple to make a man hate another man, and human hatred is what causes people to kill. This binary instinct is the enemy of peace. You cannot enforce this instinct on to people if you want them to be tolerant, if you want them to live peacefully.

When you engage in a conflict, everyone that has the slightest instinct is more apt to become your enemy. It causes all moderation to be thrown out the window and forces people to the extremes. The advantage is that you force moderates onto your side. The disadvantage is that you force moderates against you. This will not work. You can't divide people down the middle and declare war on the wrong half. I tell you: it will not work.

Fine sentiments, but hardly our reality. We are, militarily and nationally, in a transition phase. Even after 9/11, so many do not fully appreciate the cruelty and determination of our enemies. We will learn our lesson, painfully, because the terrorists will not quit. The only solution is to kill them and keep on killing them: a war of attrition. But a war of attrition fought on our terms, not theirs. Extremists do not change their stripes....ever. Of course, being a pacifist, you will make no end of fatuous arguments to the effect that we can’t kill our way out of the problem. Well, until a better methodology is discovered, killing every terrorist we can find is a good interim solution. The truth is that even if you can’t kill yourself out of the problem, you can make the problem a great deal smaller by effective targeting and make no mistake - this is exactly what we are doing. Of course, diplomacy is going to be the most used, because military action is not necessary in most places.

The answer to the problems in Iran is the Iranian people. You will not reach them by any form of military strike.

Of course. Like I said, 70 percent of the population is disenchanted youth under the age of 30 years old who do not agree with their manner of existence. They are very well aware that Khomeini brutalized Islam. However, reaching the "Iranian people" and destroying their governments means to create nuclear weapons are two different things.

Can we discuss when in history the efforts of nonviolence have failed?

No. Because any reference you have will not be a reference that relates to facing an enemy that wants you dead. The racist American people weren't out to kill Blacks. The British Empire weren't out to kill Indians. This brings up a good point. Would it have made a difference if the American Indians peacefully protested instead of fighting for their lands? Of course not. The pioneers and U.S. Government wanted them gone...period. Nazi's and Islamic extremists were and are the same way.

It took a Jackass to awaken the Jordanian people. It did not take a soldier of any army.

But it will take a soldier to prevent it from happening again. An aggressively peaceful protest against these people will not have the affect you have your brain wrapped around. You have to realize that the Middle East represents the one single region that is completely set apart from the rest of the world. They do not think like us. Imagine Pat Robertson multiplied by millions and throw in all of the regional problems of the Middle East that are looking to blame anyone else for their self-inflicted problems. Palestine and Israel are the perfect example. We have spent an indefinate amount of time trying to bring peace between the two for decades. Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip and they are attacked for their efforts. These people only want peace on their terms.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Nonviolence program? Do you actually believe the Gestapo and SS/SD allowed any form of dissent against the Reich?

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

The struggles were not the same and neither was the outcome.

Their struggles were not the exact same and their outcome was not similiar at all.

So far you have missed (or ignored) the point completely. The KKK was a small civilian hate group. The Third Reich was the entire government of Nazi Germany. Although both groups deal hate, no viable comparison can be made with regards to the misery and death meted out by each.

Once again they are not the same, but all hatred is similiar in at least some respect. On top of that, I did not mean to draw a comparison at all in this regard, merely to point out that when you marched with Martin Luther King, when you openly boycotted the Jim Crow buses, when you worked with a civil rights campaign, you did indeed put yourself in jeopardy; you put yourself at the mercy of more than just water cannons and tear gas.

The difference is that there was a choice. The Jews had no choice, and I realize that. The difference is the degree. The Jews were dealing with hatred and oppression in their most cruel and unjust forms that I have ever heard or read about, but I believe that they could have succeeded.

Must I list for you the concentration and death camps located within Germany proper? Must I list the number of German SS personal involved in the extermination program? Must I list the Reichsbann train transports of Jewish victims that originated in German cities? Must I list the numbers of German Wehrmacht (regular army) soldiers who witnessed mass executions in Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia?

The Euthanasia Program that originated in Germany and administerd by T4 personel continued... albeit at a reduced pace. Many T4 personel were transferred to the gassing facilities located in Poland. Is out of sight/out of mind your idea of care and compassion?

No I would not call such things compassion. I believe that when you hear about sadness and suffering, it is easy to turn a blind eye. I believe that when you physically hear and see sadness and suffering it is impossible. The problem then becomes how do you make people see. That would be the problem set in front of a Jew bent on nonviolence. You have to get the people to physically see the atrocities. Other than that I would say you must focus on the men that are at your throats. You have to show them that you are human rather than an untermenschen. You would have to beat propaganda. Gandhi suggested individual action rather than group action, but honestly I haven't given much thought as to what should have actually been done.

I do not believe that the correct repsonse was to wait for the military response of the western powers. You have do something yourself.

There is no comparison at all. May I remind you that you yourself introduced the Holocaust into this debate. If you don't wish to discuss a certain topic, then please refrain from crossing that rubicon.

It was actually brought up when GySgt claimed that nonviolence would not work against an army led under the flag of the Nazi Swastika.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Nobody gives freedom to their oppressed. It must be taken and nobody that ever faced a tyrant achieved it without violent means.

Here is a secret. No one can take your freedom away. You always have freeedom. You always have choice. Period.

Hatred is fine. As long as they aren't using it to pervert their religion to justify mass murders and slaughters. Democratic nations aren't eager to wage war upon each other.

Hatred is the reason the religion is being perverted. Hatred is the reason oppression rules over democracy. It all comes back to hatred.

Negative. The ideas exist in Iran and Syria and they can exercise those wishes more freely. They did not exist under Saddam Hussein. With Saddam Hussein still in power, the people in Iran and Syria would have just continued the status quo and the people in Iraq wouldn't have had a shot in hell. Iraq had to happen to inspire surrounding areas.

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.

These are not stupid people. We didn't have to show them anything when it comes to violence. Don't forget what these people are capable of. I don't know of too many civilizations that breed extremists in the form that would crash airplanes into cities and other various crimes. Violence is very much a part of their world.

That is precisely why they do not need another war in this area of the world.

Fine sentiments, but hardly our reality. We are, militarily and nationally, in a transition phase. Even after 9/11, so many do not fully appreciate the cruelty and determination of our enemies. We will learn our lesson, painfully, because the terrorists will not quit. The only solution is to kill them and keep on killing them: a war of attrition. But a war of attrition fought on our terms, not theirs. Extremists do not change their stripes....ever. Of course, being a pacifist, you will make no end of fatuous arguments to the effect that we can’t kill our way out of the problem. Well, until a better methodology is discovered, killing every terrorist we can find is a good interim solution. The truth is that even if you can’t kill yourself out of the problem, you can make the problem a great deal smaller by effective targeting and make no mistake - this is exactly what we are doing. Of course, diplomacy is going to be the most used, because military action is not necessary in most places.

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.

Of course. Like I said, 70 percent of the population is disenchanted youth under the age of 30 years old who do not agree with their manner of existence. They are very well aware that Khomeini brutalized Islam. However, reaching the "Iranian people" and destroying their governments means to create nuclear weapons are two different things.

I believe the two are intertwined.

No. Because any reference you have will not be a reference that relates to facing an enemy that wants you dead. The racist American people weren't out to kill Blacks. The British Empire weren't out to kill Indians. This brings up a good point.

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.

Would it have made a difference if the American Indians peacefully protested instead of fighting for their lands? Of course not. The pioneers and U.S. Government wanted them gone...period. Nazi's and Islamic extremists were and are the same way.

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.

But it will take a soldier to prevent it from happening again. An aggressively peaceful protest against these people will not have the affect you have your brain wrapped around.

I have never suggested a peaceful protest.

You have to realize that the Middle East represents the one single region that is completely set apart from the rest of the world. They do not think like us. Imagine Pat Robertson multiplied by millions and throw in all of the regional problems of the Middle East that are looking to blame anyone else for their self-inflicted problems. Palestine and Israel are the perfect example. We have spent an indefinate amount of time trying to bring peace between the two for decades. Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip and they are attacked for their efforts. These people only want peace on their terms.

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.

 

[Iriemon]

Extremists do not change their stripes....ever.

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.

 

[George_Washington]

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.

No offense dude but I feel in many respects Gandhi was naive. Pacifism might work sometimes but certainly not all the time.

 

[DivineComedy]

I faithfully and fully believe that if the Jews had taken to nonviolence with the conviction of Gandhi himself, they would have succeeded in convincing the German people of the truth rather than of the Propaganda of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime.

The problem is that it does not matter what you believe, or what Gandhi believed, it mattered what Hitler, and the NAZI’s, and their allies believed, and whether you could effectively teach them to adopt your belief. Did Gandhi get off his ass and go to Germany where he was needed? NO!

Can you prove that the insisting of just treatment in a nonviolent protest could have prevented the holocaust? If not, then what is a better solution than living under the threat of extermination is a matter for reasoned argument and debate, that leads to a choice as to who has the best argument that can be effective. There is an old joke told to me, that “if Germany is so efficient, how come we have an Arab/Israeli problem?” Our troops were horrified in Germany, but they were there peering into the ovens, and were Gandhi’s people in India effectively teaching nonviolence?

In your response to the hot looking Tashah you said that “Gandhi was against killing of any form” and that is exactly what my father ran into in India during WWII. One picture he brought back perfectly illustrated where Gandhi got his belief system from. The picture showed a woman sitting outside a temple with her starving to death child, ribs, skull, skeleton, and all around were well fed sacred animals of all descriptions, she would rather have died than mash up a bug to keep her child alive. In a remote village my father took a picture of a temple in a deeply wooded area that would have gotten you killed for being there, he could only be there because he miraculously killed the flies with DDT and they worshiped him as a manifestation of their destroyer god. How could you possibly claim that Gandhi’s nonviolence could be effective against the holocaust if in his own country they name a nuke after a god?

Another thing you said was that Gandhi “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.” Well I have news for you, Hitler had his plans for conquest before the Jews knew about it, and WWII was not started from a “request for world wide aid!”

 

[DivineComedy]

What this coupling says, in effect, is that:

1) The Jews have a problem in Germany.
2) The Jews are not getting a just treatment in Germany.
3) I will peacefully insist on a just treatment for Jews in Germany.
4) If my peaceful insistence results in a better treatment of Jews in Germany, then the problem is solved.
5) If my peaceful insistence does not result in a better treatment of Jews in Germany, then no further measures are valid and the Jews can indeed be exterminated.


That flow-chart of logic is horiffic... and sheer lunacy.

Tashah I believe you are right, for Gandhi‘s nonviolence to be effective requires something unnatural, or misguided, a lunacy, and absolutely nothing in nature has ever shown that it accepts what the nonviolence movement would have us ALL accept. We are not a “hive mind,” nor can we all live as one as John Lennon would imagine us (without God as a ruler), and that is exactly what is required for nonviolence to effectively work in a closed system. Somewhere out there in space may be a sentient race as smart as us with a “hive mind,” but the creepy things that inhabit every place I have ever witnessed place doubt on nonviolence as a characteristic trait of the species. A logic that coolly took out the calipers and measured the skulls, and any religion that considers that unbelievers are predestined to be led by Shaitain, teaches us that we simply must stake out some turf and rule ourselves with a sword in its place if we wish to survive. Gandhi’s movement cannot disarm the military in his native country, and that should guide him to some realization! The argument that we can survive and rule ourselves to the betterment of our condition and our posterity by adopting nonviolence simply has far less proof than Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The problem is that it does not matter what you believe, or what Gandhi believed, it mattered what Hitler, and the NAZI’s, and their allies believed, and whether you could effectively teach them to adopt your belief.

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

Did Gandhi get off his ass and go to Germany where he was needed? NO!

Well for one thing, Gandhi was celebrating his 70th birthday in 1939. I'm sure he would have loved to go to Germany and march and participate in any activism going on there, but the end it was an impossibility. It was an impossibility because Gandhi was solving problems in his own country. He was running his own farm, fighting for political action for the untouchables, women, children, not to mention fighting for his countries independence. Gandhi was hardly "on his ass".

Can you prove that the insisting of just treatment in a nonviolent protest could have prevented the holocaust? If not, then what is a better solution than living under the threat of extermination is a matter for reasoned argument and debate, that leads to a choice as to who has the best argument that can be effective. There is an old joke told to me, that “if Germany is so efficient, how come we have an Arab/Israeli problem?” Our troops were horrified in Germany, but they were there peering into the ovens, and were Gandhi’s people in India effectively teaching nonviolence?

I cannot proove that nonviolence would not have worked any more than I can proove that it would have worked. I believe it is better to try than to do nothing.

In your response to the hot looking Tashah you said that “Gandhi was against killing of any form” and that is exactly what my father ran into in India during WWII. One picture he brought back perfectly illustrated where Gandhi got his belief system from. The picture showed a woman sitting outside a temple with her starving to death child, ribs, skull, skeleton, and all around were well fed sacred animals of all descriptions, she would rather have died than mash up a bug to keep her child alive.

That's Jainism, Gandhi was a Hindu. The spiritual fortitude and faith of the Jains is something I find to be incredibly admirable and nearly indestructable, I do believe the above mentioned picture represents the hypocrisy of the almost utilitarianism that was exists in not killing an animal and letting a child die. But as I said: Gandhi was a Hindu. He was a vegetarian as well, but because he believed it was wrong to kill an animal for pleasure (the taste) rather than a belief that they had souls.

In a remote village my father took a picture of a temple in a deeply wooded area that would have gotten you killed for being there, he could only be there because he miraculously killed the flies with DDT and they worshiped him as a manifestation of their destroyer god.

Vishnu is seen as the Destroyer, but in the same sense a giver of life. It is the destruction seen as in... Dusk. The sun sets to begin a new day. It is that kind of destroyer. My Religion proffesor claims his dog is a manifestation of Vishnu.

How could you possibly claim that Gandhi’s nonviolence could be effective against the holocaust if in his own country they name a nuke after a god?

When did India name a nuke after a God?

What does India have to do with the Holocaust?

What makes you think India has to embrace the ideas of a leader of the past? After all it has made war in the Kashmir region since the Mahatma's death.

Another thing you said was that Gandhi “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.” Well I have news for you, Hitler had his plans for conquest before the Jews knew about it, and WWII was not started from a “request for world wide aid!”

No, it did not start because of the request of the Jews, however I never said as much. 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.

 

[George_Washington]

No, it did not start because of the request of the Jews, however I never said as much. 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.

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.