• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Violence Begets Violence

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is something about human nature that perpetrates violence.

America has been blessed with a history almost devoid of violence perpetrated against innocent citizens despite the wholesale violence the American government and American controlled corporations have perpetrated against millions of innocent civilians across the globe.

The terrible act of revenge perpetrated against thousands of innocent Americans during the attack on The World Trade Towers, is an act of terrorism which those who have been victims of American violence justify as appropriate revenge.

Evil is evil in any form and violence toward any of God’s children, in any biological form is evil.

ETHICIANS denounce violence and revenge regardless of its source or origin. Some of the violence which America and Americans have been responsible for either directly or indirectly are as follows:

1. Millions of women, children, senior citizens and other innocents were victims of the Viet Nam War which was nothing more than ‘money making business’ for napalm makers, helicopter manufacturers, and body bag factories. How could anyone be surprised if the survivors harbored resentment.

2. Tens of thousands of Guatemalan peasants and Indians were murdered by American backed ‘Death Squads’ bent on acquiring their lands, minerals, and forests.

3. We have repeatedly armed and supported dictators, tyrants, robber corporations, and other entities which have been responsible for the deaths of additional millions of earth’s peoples as well as gene-o-cide on a horrific scale.

4. When the Nation of Israel was established in what had been the Nation of Palestine we failed to see to it that the displaced persons were treated with respect, compensated, and provided with new homes and quality lives. We will suffer the consequences for our inhumanity until we learn to treat all peoples equally and fairly.

Yes, violence begets violence and until we stop committing violent acts against God’s human children and against God’s Creation we are going to suffer from the violence of retaliation from the abused whether in the form of terrorism from humans or floods, hurricanes, desertification, and other forms of natural violence caused by our destruction of Creation.

Until our government and our corporations develop an ethic which respects all of God’s children and all Creation we will be faced with those who will retaliate against the violence which we have perpetrated against them.
ETHICIUS I
http://www.violencebegetsviolence.org/
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree with the concept violence begets violence; I beleive there is truth to it. Sometimes you have to fight, but when you do not have to fight, this rule is one (of many) good reason why you should not.

I find it ironic that conservatives, who stereotypical are Christians, are (again stereotypically) the biggest supporters of war. Christians' (and I am one) Lord lived His life urging His followers to be lovers of peace. He said things like (paraphrasing) love one another, due onto others as you'd have them do unto you, when someone strikes you turn the other cheek, and blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
I agree with the concept violence begets violence; I beleive there is truth to it. Sometimes you have to fight, but when you do not have to fight, this rule is one (of many) good reason why you should not.
Yes, violence just snowballs, and it leads to even more violence in this terryfying, vicious cycle. I agree, there is sometimes when violence must be used; i.e. self-defense, but I feel that diplomacy is way underrated.

I find it ironic that conservatives, who stereotypical are Christians, are (again stereotypically) the biggest supporters of war. Christians' (and I am one) Lord lived His life urging His followers to be lovers of peace. He said things like (paraphrasing) love one another, due onto others as you'd have them do unto you, when someone strikes you turn the other cheek, and blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
Yes, apparently they seem to disregard all of their messiah's teachings. They feel the need to cling to such primitive messages as "eye for an eye" and such. You figure it out.:2razz:
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
My theory is that the only justified use of violence is when you are attacked. And only as a last resort. And then when its over, you should try and make ammends.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
if you are unable to see the difference in violence as a method of conquering, and aquiring land......and violence as a method of self defense, and preventing future violence against innocent American civilians, then nothing anyone says.......and nothing written in any book.......will make you understand it.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ProudAmerican said:
if you are unable to see the difference in violence as a method of conquering, and aquiring land......and violence as a method of self defense, and preventing future violence against innocent American civilians, then nothing anyone says.......and nothing written in any book.......will make you understand it.
Ok, so what's your point?:lol: Violence as a method of self-defense is understandable. But I guess your hinting at Iraq? That was anything but self-defense. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. None were Iraqi. Iraq did nothing to warrant an invasion and occupation. It was all pre-emtion.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
kal-el said:
Ok, so what's your point?:lol: Violence as a method of self-defense is understandable. But I guess your hinting at Iraq? That was anything but self-defense. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. None were Iraqi. Iraq did nothing to warrant an invasion and occupation. It was all pre-emtion.

you conveniently avoided my point about preventing the future deaths of innocent civilians.

one could certainly argue that attacking Al Queda pre 9-11 would not have been self defense......but one can also only wonder if we had started agressively persuing Al Queda years ago would 3,000 future innocent lives have been spared.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ProudAmerican said:
one could certainly argue that attacking Al Queda pre 9-11 would not have been self defense......but one can also only wonder if we had started agressively persuing Al Queda years ago would 3,000 future innocent lives have been spared.
Yea, I kinda have a theory on this "war". It might not have been necessary. Think about it, if after 9/11 Bush would not have telegraphed his moves to the entire world, al-Qeada wouldn't have set-up a defensive posture, hence the training camps in Afghanistan would be nothing but dust, if Bush would have retaliated quickly and efficiently, and of course, quietly. But Iraq, I still can't figure that one out.:2razz:
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But Iraq, I still can't figure that one out.
and nothing anyone ever says. no ammount of facts or evidence anyone ever puts forth, will be enough to help you figure it out.

as far as Bush telegraphing anything to the entire world....well, theres no doubt that there is much going on that the entire world has no clue about.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"The terrible act of revenge perpetrated against thousands of innocent Americans during the attack on The World Trade Towers, is an act of terrorism which those who have been victims of American violence justify as appropriate revenge." Kal El


We have protected ourselves and our allies against bloodthirsty Muslim psychos for generations upon generations. They would do the same. There is nothing controversial about it. "Victims of American violence" is nauseating spin. Nazi Germany was a "victim" of American violence. So was Saddam, the Taliban, the Kaiser, and a whole bunch of others who more than earned it. Spinning it as America being a Disney Villain out to pick on innocent sovereign states is dishonest and I will call you out on it every time.

And as Democrats have proven repeatedly, it is not violence that needs to be avoided to prevent violence. When Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter appeased North Korea, it emboldened them, and they demanded more. Now they are nuclear. When Democrats let Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade, Al Queda clawed its way up to hero status in the Muslim world and fortified their footing. Al Queda will now never be fully possible to destroy.

Peace is usually not the answer, war is.

I think liberals deserve a special round of applause from all of us for creating the incredibly dangerous world we now live in. I sure am glad we have people who are too good to have to read those pesky history books and avoid repeating history by retreating from and appeasing the enemy. :2wave:
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
"The terrible act of revenge perpetrated against thousands of innocent Americans during the attack on The World Trade Towers, is an act of terrorism which those who have been victims of American violence justify as appropriate revenge." Kal El


We have protected ourselves and our allies against bloodthirsty Muslim psychos for generations upon generations. They would do the same. There is nothing controversial about it. "Victims of American violence" is nauseating spin. Nazi Germany was a "victim" of American violence. So was Saddam, the Taliban, the Kaiser, and a whole bunch of others who more than earned it. Spinning it as America being a Disney Villain out to pick on innocent sovereign states is dishonest and I will call you out on it every time.

And as Democrats have proven repeatedly, it is not violence that needs to be avoided to prevent violence. When Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter appeased North Korea, it emboldened them, and they demanded more. Now they are nuclear. When Democrats let Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade, Al Queda clawed its way up to hero status in the Muslim world and fortified their footing. Al Queda will now never be fully possible to destroy.

Peace is usually not the answer, war is.

I think liberals deserve a special round of applause from all of us for creating the incredibly dangerous world we now live in. I sure am glad we have people who are too good to have to read those pesky history books and avoid repeating history by retreating from and appeasing the enemy. :2wave:
O man, you seriously need help if you believe this diatribe. I'll admit, sometimes war is necessary, but those times are far and few. War is not the answer. It's drastically clear that violence only brings more violence, and this situation in Iraq sadly proves it. "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" Violence has a snowball effect to it, once it starts it dosen't stop, and when we (the US) step in and get involved, we are obligated to carry on even more.

You talk about reading history books, well if they've been written right, they would include chapters upon chapters of pacifists like Jesus and Gandhi, and only give a few pages to violent villans like Hitler and Napolean.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
O man, you seriously need help if you believe this diatribe. I'll admit, sometimes war is necessary, but those times are far and few. War is not the answer. It's drastically clear that violence only brings more violence, and this situation in Iraq sadly proves it. "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" Violence has a snowball effect to it, once it starts it dosen't stop, and when we (the US) step in and get involved, we are obligated to carry on even more.

You talk about reading history books, well if they've been written right, they would include chapters upon chapters of pacifists like Jesus and Gandhi, and only give a few pages to violent villans like Hitler and Napolean.
Violence begets violence is very disturbingly asymetrical.

This world isnt even asymetrical. Humans arent even perfectly asymetrical. So to say that a human action to another human is going to be asymetrical is wrong. For instance, there are people that bully young kids now do they have the same symetrical response? Nope. So that concludes it as not being asymetrical and therefore violence doesnt beget violence. When someone threatens Ghandi would ghandi treat that individual the same way he just got treated? No, so again violence doesnt always beget violence.

Also every action sometimes doesnt have a equally oppostie reaction. Terrorists ran planes into 2 buildings that eneded up collapsing and we ended up dropping enough ordinance on places that made Hiroshima look like kindergarden color day.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
Violence begets violence is very disturbingly asymetrical.
Huh?

This world isnt even asymetrical. Humans arent even perfectly asymetrical. So to say that a human action to another human is going to be asymetrical is wrong. For instance, there are people that bully young kids now do they have the same symetrical response? Nope. So that concludes it as not being asymetrical and therefore violence doesnt beget violence. When someone threatens Ghandi would ghandi treat that individual the same way he just got treated? No, so again violence doesnt always beget violence.
Actually, the kids that are being bullied, do show violent behavior. They might not retaliate violently, but the act of being bullied will in turn, start a vicious cycle. Because Gandhi was above reproach. He was a total pacifist. He would turn the other cheek. Much like Jesus.

Also every action sometimes doesnt have a equally oppostie reaction. Terrorists ran planes into 2 buildings that eneded up collapsing and we ended up dropping enough ordinance on places that made Hiroshima look like kindergarden color day.
My point exactly. Violence leads to even more violence.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Huh?



Actually, the kids that are being bullied, do show violent behavior. They might not retaliate violently, but the act of being bullied will in turn, start a vicious cycle. Because Gandhi was above reproach. He was a total pacifist. He would turn the other cheek. Much like Jesus.



My point exactly. Violence leads to even more violence.
Well I got punked very much when I was growing up you dont see me going everywhere killing people. How do you explain people like Manson and Domer? Both had estute upbringings.

My point exactly. Violence leads to even more violence.
No I beleive your point was violence begets violence which is asymetrical. When it is asymetrical both outcomes are congruent to each other. In this case it is not congruant.

Also violence doesnt always beget itself. Voilence is much like any other action. And actions are always controlled by its emitter. Thus human beings. You also didnt awknolwdge the Ghandi scenario. I wonder why? Is it becasue it makes that argument go right down the toilet? I guess it does. Next argument please. ;) :2wave:
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
Well I got punked very much when I was growing up you dont see me going everywhere killing people. How do you explain people like Manson and Domer? Both had estute upbringings.
I'm sure Manson and Daumer were belittled alot during their childhoods.

No I beleive your point was violence begets violence which is asymetrical. When it is asymetrical both outcomes are congruent to each other. In this case it is not congruant.
Both outcomes are not "congruent" or identical of eachother. On 9/11, if terrorists wouldn't have skyjacked boeing 747's and crashed them into buildings, we wouldn't have waged a war against Afghanistan and Iraq. A perfect example of violence leads to more violence. Every action isn't the same, but the concept of violenceis the same.

Also violence doesnt always beget itself. Voilence is much like any other action. And actions are always controlled by its emitter. Thus human beings. You also didnt awknolwdge the Ghandi scenario. I wonder why? Is it becasue it makes that argument go right down the toilet? I guess it does. Next argument please. ;) :2wave:
I aknowledged the Gandhi scenario, I said Gandhi was above reproach; he would "turn the other cheek". Violence isn't necessarily equivelent to every other action. Let's use the insult. If someone lunges an insult at you, you could replicate with another, which most likely, would end up in a fight. Or you could listen without wanting to reply, but since you cannot help but hear it, tension will still overcome you. However, ideally, you should completely disregard the insult, it's just hot air, just a sound that the person is making with his mouth, as steen would say, hyperbole, blending in with the background. Nobody can physically enter our brains to make us beligerent. There is no button someone pushes to make us violent, violence is a reaction to violence. It's just we have to discipline ourselves to overcome it.
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WARNING! PEDANTIC RANT!

Both had estute upbringings.
First of all, its "astute"; second of all it shouldnt be in the sentence. Unless you are trying to say they had "clever upbringings" I think you have the wrong word.

END PEDANTIC RANT!
Whew!
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sure Manson and Daumer were belittled alot during their childhoods.
Can you please submit a link for your sureness? Now remember what we've learned. Here's your chance to get a win here. Perfect opportunity. Now lets see it.

Both outcomes are not "congruent" or identical of eachother.
Halelujah!!! Now someones getting it. You are on a roll tonight.

I aknowledged the Gandhi scenario, I said Gandhi was above reproach; he would "turn the other cheek". Violence isn't necessarily equivelent to every other action.
Bingo! Which in your own admission violence doesnt always beget violence now does it? Thanks for being on a roll tonight. You have seriosuly done very well. I now :applaud you.



First of all, its "astute"; second of all it shouldnt be in the sentence. Unless you are trying to say they had "clever upbringings" I think you have the wrong word.
I am very happy to have this member on this forum. For 1) he is the master Webster and 2) he makes sure that all the pedantic rants are held in contempt.

I also must thank you. :2wave:

e all can use a Webster around here. Especially me. I am horrible at typing.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
Can you please submit a link for your sureness? Now remember what we've learned. Here's your chance to get a win here. Perfect opportunity. Now lets see it.
Childhood abuse may not be the sole excuse for serial killers, but it is an undeniable factor in many of their backgrounds.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/abuse_3.html


Halelujah!!! Now someones getting it. You are on a roll tonight.
:lol: Every outcome is not identical. For example, if we feel sick or fatigued, it is because we didn't get proper rest, and we have gone past our threshold of tolerance and our nerves can't take it anymore. Our body reached the end of it's tether and it makes this apparent to us in sending fatigue signals.


Bingo! Which in your own admission violence doesnt always beget violence now does it? Thanks for being on a roll tonight. You have seriosuly done very well. I now :applaud you.
Not in all circumstances. Some people are above violent behavior. Over 2,000 years ago, Jesus overturned merchants stalls in the temple, right? And I dare anyone to say that Jesus was violent, yet he did chase out the merchants. I think Muhammed was exiled from his arab country, but he returned with a sword, although non-violent, but he got respect, didn't he? Everyone needs to act, with energy, but non-violent and assertive. Time, non-violence will always win over dictators without the need for beligerent behavior. Gandhi proved it, the principle is sound, it actually works!:2razz: But violence and war will forever haunt us as long as we refuse to accept to offer our left cheek when hit on the right one.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Every outcome is not identical.
This is exactly what I am saying.

Not in all circumstances. Some people are above violent behavior. Over 2,000 years ago, Jesus overturned merchants stalls in the temple, right? And I dare anyone to say that Jesus was violent, yet he did chase out the merchants. I think Muhammed was exiled from his arab country, but he returned with a sword, although non-violent, but he got respect, didn't he?
This is exactly what I am talking about. Every action doesnt beget itself. So this violence begets violence thing is a sham all in itself and by your own admissions.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
This is exactly what I am saying.
Ahh, we agree on something.:2razz:


This is exactly what I am talking about. Every action doesnt beget itself. So this violence begets violence thing is a sham all in itself and by your own admissions.
Violence begets violence 9 times out of 10. Everytime, it does have a reaction,( as every action has a reaction), sometimes violent, sometimes, non-violent, depending on the circumstances and the said person.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Violence begets violence 9 times out of 10. Everytime, it does have a reaction,( as every action has a reaction), sometimes violent, sometimes, non-violent, depending on the circumstances and the said person.
Awwe there we go. Music to my ears. Now you understand. Violence doesnt always beget violence. You forget people have a choice and they aren't destined for this outcome.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
Awwe there we go. Music to my ears. Now you understand. Violence doesnt always beget violence. You forget people have a choice and they aren't destined for this outcome.
Yes people have a choice, but as has shown, wisdom doesn't rule the earth.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kal-el said:
I think there is certainly a relationship between the word “Terrorism” being in the following three quotes and its relationship to violence begetting violence:

“Terrorism and takfir (declaring someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all.”

“We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined — men and women, old and young — to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.”

“Terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and takfir are banned, as is the ‘Saddamist Ba’ath Party‘.”

I wonder what the propagandist thinks of that nation building in light of their propaganda with regard to America’s failures “to see to it that the displaced persons were treated with respect, compensated, and provided with new homes and quality lives?”

The clearly ignorant propagandist said; “Some of the violence which America and Americans have been responsible for either directly or indirectly are as follows…4. When the Nation of Israel was established in what had been the Nation of Palestine we failed to see to it…”

And that really irks me is that the propagandist thinks that America was responsible for securing “the establishment of the Jewish national home.”

What is really funny about the propaganda is that “The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968” says in Article 2 that “Palestine” only had boundaries “during the British Mandate:”

“Article 2:
Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

What I really like is the fact that the territory of Palestine formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire and was no “Nation” prior to the British Mandate:

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd , 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,…”

The British “Mandatory” simply did not dissolve or create a “Nation of Palestine” as is clear in article one and two:

“ARTICLE 1.
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

I am sure that the propagandist would deliberately word their history books right so as to keep their kind of people ignorant, and we have all seen such proof in this topic.
 
Top Bottom