OK, so I had an idea shortly after we began the campaign in Afghanistan. It might be a bad idea but I'd like to try it out here and perhaps get an opinion or two. Here goes...

What if our tactic for reacting to the WTC bombimgs was to do absolutely nothing? I don't think there is any way to avoid the changes we are seeing within our own borders, but I mean what if we did not declare any kind of campaign or retaliatory action globally?

I am a pacifist. Not because I am convinced that war is intrinsically wrong; on this points I am uncertain. I am a pacifist because it is the most effective fighting tactic I know.

In my experience, when someone hits you they give you the upper hand. It is a loss of control that gives you all kinds of power over them, if you can control your own emotions. Many of you have been hit at one time or another... imagine your attacker's reaction when they strike out and hit you, and you simply stand there and do nothing... as if it did not happen. What would they do? Thety are assuming you will hit back, but what if you don't?

If you hit back you do two things: validate the other person's use of violence and reveal your own limitations. Hitting someone is sort like telling someone you love them; unless they reciprocate you will feel like an ass. The moment after they hit you, the moment before you retaliate, you hold all the cards. You have a moral upper hand, because you have been wronged and people will support your cause unless you do wrong also. You have an emotional upper hand over your attacker, who is angry and confused. You also have the mental edge because they have no idea how powerful you are or what you are capable of.

Immediately following the WTC bombings we held these advantages. One might argue that we have lost all of them since we started fighting, and that we are using propaganda to reestablish some of that which we lost.

I am not being idealistic here. If it were my own decision, I would take this into serious consideration. However, I do not think I would make it my policy in the end, because I believe that such as policy would not be accepted by the people. Hell, there'd be a revolution if the government didn't drop some bombs. But if it were my own personal fight, I would win it without a single strike.

Spread the peace, brothers and sisters, and you will prevail. :)

... imagine your attacker's reaction when they strike out and hit you, and you simply stand there and do nothing... as if it did not happen. What would they do? Don't have to imagine it.

If they don't knock you down, they hit you again.

If they knock you down, they kick the s**t out of you.

Welcome to the real world!

If they don't knock you down, they hit you again.
Only true if they are bigger, stronger or more in number then you.
Have u never taken a punch or slap off a woman?
Do you punch her back?

If they don't knock you down, they hit you again.

Have you ever tried it? Be honest. Think it through.

If you want to convince me give me an example from your own personal experience, or at least something more specific than this. Come one - prove me wrong.

Bowser
True, but there was nothing I could do about my being White. :)

Benji
Took a slap, splapped back (backhanded). End of argument. :)

my-notebook
Read what I said: "I don't have to imagine it" ... What do you think I meant by that statement? :rolleyes:

Oh well ...

Aren't the women pacifly taking their beatings in Afganistan already?

Pacifism is intended to be used to try to show the wicked how wicked they are so they stop out of guilt. In this case, it's obviously not working. They have no conscious.

And once again, reason only works with reasonable people.

We're not dealing with such people.

So yes, it's idealistic and it'll just encourage them to do more.

Ben

All that the terrorists are is bullies, I'm not sure about everyone else but I had to deal with my share. And I'm sorry My_notebook but they want domination over you thay want you to feel like nothing, and it doesn't matter how many times they have to hit you to do it. Bullies only get one chance to hit me and normally they leave me alone afterwards because I stand up for myself and teach them a painful lesson about being a bully. If you want to intimidate and conquer someone, you better be damn sure you can back up your fists with some good defense. Bullies, like the terrorists and the Taliban are really good at the first punch obviously but they have no defense when they are hit back just as hard.

Aren't the women pacifly taking their beatings in Afganistan already?

Excellent point. Ouch!

Pacifism is intended to be used to try to show the wicked how wicked they are so they stop out of guilt. In this case, it's obviously not working. They have no conscious.

I do not propose to use pacifism with the purpose of rationalizing. It went beyond rationalization on 9/11. It is about maintaining a specific advantage over the enemy.

Think about this: If this conflict were about brute force, we would win it hands down. We detonate a few nuclear warheads and call it a day. Why don't we do that? Because it would hurt us more than it would help us. We would lose the moral authority with which we carry out any actions we take. Maintaining the moral authority is of vital importance to us. With it we defend the Constitution and the institution of Democracy as a whole. Communism will never be looked upon favorably because of the way it was handled by the USSR, China, and others. If you perform atrocities in the name of your cause your cause loses luster. That is why we don't drop nuclear bombs on Afghanistan.

Maintaining moral authority already dictates how we exercise military force. I am simply proposing a better way of managing the same tactic.

my_notebook

What do you do when you never saw the punch coming? Don't know who did it? But none the less you wake up a bloody swollen mess! Been there did that would definitely advise against it. No matter what you do you just can't look cool after a beating like that.

Rather than pacifism, pursue defense only, and patience. A weakness will eventually form out of the roiling chaos and you are free and morally right to exploit that, with a better success and likely the bully's respect.

All that the terrorists are is bullies... they want domination over you

I disagree. They are far weaker than us, less privileged and less popular. The bully is the big guy with low self esteem who tries to conquer his territory. The Nazis were bullies. The Mongols were bullies. These guys have no desire to conquer us. They simply don't want us anywhere near them.

Many people fantasize about what they would like to do to people who hit them, and these fantasies usually involve deep regret on the part of the attacker and great triumph on the part of the attackee. Violent conflicts in the real world rarely follow this paradigm, although I don't doubt your toughness in the playground.

The reality of war is that you kill people. It is murder, and no matter how just your cause, you lose moral authority when you kill people. I am not saying we are unjustified in using violence against our enemy. I am questioning the effectiveness of it.

I think that what the US really wants is democracy worldwide. We would like nothing more than to see free, democratic societies all over the globe. It would be more peaceful and more economically viable. If we want that we have to sell the idea of democaracy to the many people who have never experienced it. If all they see of America is violence and bloodshed, then how can we expect them to follow our lead in the movement towards democracy? If we win the people over we win the war. That is why we spend so much money on propaganda. That is why the White House voices fears over Bin Laden launching a nuclear offensive when they know full well that far more advanced organizations are incapable of such an effort.

No matter what you do you just can't look cool after a beating like that.

I fully agree. Yet for a few weeks there we looked like the golden child in the eyes of almost everyone worldwide. Remember? We didn't look cool but noone cared, because everyone knew we were right and they were wrong. That is no longer the case.

Took a slap, slapped back (backhanded). End of argument.

This was a woman? If so this doesn't really help your cause, Chagur.

The US, in our way of sticking our heads into other peoples' business, and as a superpower compared to those people, is the bully.

All you need to launch a nuclear attack is the will to do it and the money to buy it. Most of the people who have the will to do it don't have the money to buy it. And the large countries who can afford it know that the US would retaliate and wipe them out as well. Bin Laden Has the will and the resources so I think that it's good that the gov't is more than a little paranoid about it.
And you don't have to actually be the stronger one to be the bully, you only have to think you are. Bin Laden thinks that we are a weak country. Yes we have the fire power, and more people to fight. But he was bargaining that we wouldn't retaliate, that we would just "turn the other cheek."

"He's not crazy, he's an idiot." -Cartman on the latest episode of South Park:D

Yah... as long as we're a free society, without warplanes patrolling our city skies, and FEMA groups at our post offices, those responsible for the attacks are the bullies.

But he was bargaining that we wouldn't retaliate, that we would just "turn the other cheek."

No way. He knew we would retaliate. He had to. When have we ever failed to retailiate? There is no chance he planned on destroying downtown Manhattan on the gamble that we wouldn't go after him. I think he was trying to initiate an American vs. Islam conflict. If he can do that then he has a whole lot more people on his side- people who would otherwise never take up arms for him.

To detonate a nuclear bomb you need more than just money and a bad case of camel-itch. You need a level of training and technology that I seriously doubt Al Queda has. These people have cheap weapons, smart, committed and dangerous members, and a big chip on their shoulder. But they live in caves. Many of them cannot read. But if we can convince the world that they pose a nuclear threat, it tilts global opinion in our favor, right?

eek. I'm sorry but the thought of someone that cannot read just pains me and blurs my vision.

Nuclear technology isn't stopping the Al Quida from hitting us with a nuke. It's the distance. They don't have the technology to make the shot over such a long distance without it being shot down in the ocean.

The only way they're going to hit us with a nuke is if they bring it over to our soil by plane or something which considering security, is pretty unlikely.

Until the war is being faught on our soil (as in their men occupying our cities) we're pretty safe.

Ben

Sorry, maybe I will read all the other posts some other time. But I applause you my_notebook, that you are engaging yourself in trying to convince these warmongers :D of the benefits of pacifism. I have been trying for a while now, with no results, so good luck! :D

First off, I was replying to Benji's question, "Have u never taken a punch or slap off a woman? Do you punch her back?" and, I thought, clearly indicated as much.

As to your question: "This was a woman?"
Hell yes. Had it not been a woman, I wouldn't have backhanded her.

As to your comment: "If so this doesn't really help your cause, Chagur."
I wasn't aware that I was pleading a 'cause'. As far as I was concerned I was merely stating that, based on my life experience, pacifism is great on paper.

Gandhi read this poem of Shelley to a congregation in India:

"Stand ye calm and resolute
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks which are
Weapons of unvanquished war.

And if then the tyrants dare,
Let them ride among you there,
Slash, and stab, and maim and hew, -
What they like, that let them do.

With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise,
Look upon them as they slay,
Till their rage has died away."

Then will they return with shame
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek.

Rise like lions after slumber
In unvaquished number -
Shake then your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep has fallen on you.

Ye are many, they are few."

As I said, pacifism is great ... on paper. :cool:

Originally posted by my_notebook
All that the terrorists are is bullies... they want domination over you

I disagree. They are far weaker than us, less privileged and less popular. The bully is the big guy with low self esteem who tries to conquer his territory. The Nazis were bullies. The Mongols were bullies. These guys have no desire to conquer us. They simply don't want us anywhere near them.


my_notebook,

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of their cause. They do not want to "conquer" us, they want to eliminate the western influence in their culture and given the way the globe has shrunk today, the only way to do that is to eliminate the "west".

There is no compromise with these people, they do not want our land, they do not want our prosperity, they want to wipe anyone who does not believe exactly as they do off of the face of the earth.

Look at their recent retoric, they are now claiming the leaders of the more progressive Muslim countries are traitors to Islam. Just because they aren't backing them in their Jihad.

Pacifism will not work in this case because to them, we must all die or convert. No compromise.

Pacifism is both a strength and a weakness and can be used in some instances but is a disaster elsewhere. Like most tasks a single tool is rarely able to do everything.

When confronting simple emotional anger, pacifism is the best answer. Emotions do subside. If the anger is met with retaliation then the dispute escalates. Pacifism here is a superb response.

However, pacifism is a disaster if the attacker believes that you represent a threat to his way of life. His desire is to destroy you. If you only offer pacifism then you will cease to exist. No matter how much you do not want to fight your very existence depends on being able to defend yourself. So despite your distaste you really have no choice but to destroy your enemy if you want to survive.

The ultimate answer is a world where we all share the same objectives and the means to achieve them.

Cris

Being a pacifist to some extent is a good thing but the nature demands the balance, a balance in each and every walk of life.
Its absouletly correct that if some stupid person is causing a harm to you in your personal life, you may ignored it as if nothing has happend.On other hand when it comes to national or international terror one can't stay out leaveing all the sense of patriotism and humainty.We just can't leave all the innocents lives in the hands of this hard hearted killers.We must try to protect the human civiligation for our future genration come in much more prospurs world then us.

I just wanted to thank everyone for their open and honest responses to my posting. I am new to this forum, but I always enjoy listening to the opinions of others, especially when they disagree with me, because that's when I learn the most.

Thanks!

:)

They do not want to "conquer" us, they want to eliminate the western influence in their culture and given the way the globe has shrunk today, the only way to do that is to eliminate the "west".


I agree with this, except for the last part. They do want us out of their lives; that is why they differ from a conquerer, who wants to expand their own interests outward. But you are making an assumption that they believe the only way to eliminate our influence in their homeland is by 'destroy(ing) the West'. Do you think that a majority of Muslims in the Middle East really believe that?

I believe that Bin Laden might believe this; he believes that Allah dissolved the Soviet Union, and that the same will happen to the U.S. We will never change his mind, or the minds of any extremists. That said, the opinions of the majority of the Middle Eastern population should be of concern to us, because it is those people amongst whom Bin Laden hopes to gain support. My point is that a violent retaliation from the U.S. was almost as predictable as the disenchanted reaction from the Middle East to those actions, and I think Bin Laden knew both of these would happen. I think that was his plan.

However, I think his plan is fu**ed because of our influence on the state level. The one thing he does need to survive is state sponsorship, and although it may seem he has proven able to hang on without it, I think Al Queda are already in serious trouble and will eventually be eliminated. He is hiding in a cave. The actions of the U.S. have, I think, been effective in this instance, although I do have lingering doubts about the long term effects of those actions as well as our continued dependence on Middle Eastern resources. I digress.

Perhaps pacifism is not the best approach in this situation, but I don't think we should ever eliminate it from our minds as a possibility. Humans have been historically violent, yet all of us seem to have a problem with that on some level. We know it is not the right thing to do, yet we do it anyway because it works. Perhaps there is a better way. Perhaps we are not there yet. We will not know unless we try.

"I think it would be a good idea."

- Ghandi, on Western civilization.

Originally posted by my_notebook


They do want us out of their lives; that is why they differ from a conquerer, who wants to expand their own interests outward. But you are making an assumption that they believe the only way to eliminate our influence in their homeland is by 'destroy(ing) the West'.

Absolutely, he has stated that.



Do you think that a majority of Muslims in the Middle East really believe that?



No I don't, but we were talking about Bin Laden and his Al Queda network, not Muslims in general.


I believe that Bin Laden might believe this; he believes that Allah dissolved the Soviet Union, and that the same will happen to the U.S. We will never change his mind, or the minds of any extremists. That said, the opinions of the majority of the Middle Eastern population should be of concern to us, because it is those people amongst whom Bin Laden hopes to gain support. My point is that a violent retaliation from the U.S. was almost as predictable as the disenchanted reaction from the Middle East to those actions, and I think Bin Laden knew both of these would happen. I think that was his plan.



Agreed




However, I think his plan is fu**ed because of our influence on the state level. The one thing he does need to survive is state sponsorship, and although it may seem he has proven able to hang on without it, I think Al Queda are already in serious trouble and will eventually be eliminated. He is hiding in a cave. The actions of the U.S. have, I think, been effective in this instance, although I do have lingering doubts about the long term effects of those actions as well as our continued dependence on Middle Eastern resources. I digress.



Also Agreed



Perhaps pacifism is not the best approach in this situation, but I don't think we should ever eliminate it from our minds as a possibility. Humans have been historically violent, yet all of us seem to have a problem with that on some level. We know it is not the right thing to do, yet we do it anyway because it works. Perhaps there is a better way. Perhaps we are not there yet. We will not know unless we try.

[I]"I think it would be a good idea."

- Ghandi, on Western civilization.

Absolutely agreed.

First off, I was replying to Benji's question, "Have u never taken a punch or slap off a woman? Do you punch her back?" and, I thought, clearly indicated as much.

I just wanted to make sure. Hitting a woman, in my opinion, is a strong accusation to make, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting your post. As it turns out you did hit a woman and you are damn proud of it.

Whether or not you are pleading a cause does not change the fact that you are making an argument in public. Your argument is that pacifism is not a viable option, and that is a respectable case. However, your example, in which your hitting a woman ended the argument, is going to reflect poorly on any argument you make.

That, my friend, is not a minority opinion.

Every situation is different. You cannot judge someone on hitting a woman unless you were there yourself. To judge him on that is sexism pure and simple. Maybe she deserved it, have you even thought of that, or were you too hung up on the fact that it was a woman. At some point in everyone's life they deserve a good hard smack for one reason or another, and they should get it, even if they're female.

OK. How about this:

Chagur has the opportunity in this thread to tell us exactly what happened, and explain why it was justified. I want to stress that this is not because I think Chagur needs to defend himself, but because it will be a viable contribution to the discussion at hand.

If Chagur explains, I promise to read the post with an open mind, and reassess my opinion on the issue. My opinion aside, the facts would be in the open, and people can make up their own minds.

Sound fair?

Your comment, "As it turns out you did hit a woman and you are damn proud of it." intrigues me insofar as reading over the prior related posts does not, as far as I'm concerned, warrant the comment you made. That is, unless you are an ardent feminist ... of either sex.

Although, from the tone of your posts, I would suspect that you are a female; possibly one who has experienced physical abuse. If that were to be the case, accept my sympathy. If not, you are too emotionally dedicated to a cause to understand what you read.

1. I clearly stated that I had responded to a slap from a female in response to Benji's question. No "As it turns out ... about it. It was a simple statement of fact. Would you prefer that I had lied?

2. I do not believe that I, in any way, indicated I was, to use your words, " ... damn proud of it." Apparently you equate my ability to openly, and without shame, admit to having done so as being 'proud' of what I had done. The situation occurred, I responded in a way I considered appropriate, 'mission accomplished', so to speak.

I have done, in your apparent frame of reference, far worse things in my life and feel neither pride or shame for having done them: They had to be done, I did them. Period, full stop. It is a mind-set that I doubt you could ever understand.

PS Just read your latest post ... Sorry, one doesn't 'explain', 'justify', or 'apologize' (unless accidental) for what one has done, at least not in my world.

Sound fair?

~~~

Sounds like a slick invitation designed to get someone to defend themselves.

But I wonder: Defend themselves to whom?

~~~

Chagur,

Don't know the circumstances involved in the incident, don't need to know, and don't care.

Why would I not care?

Because I realize that there is always more to the story and rarely is anything truly understood (or accomplished) by jumping to conclusions.

Other than that, it's not supposed to be the main topic here.

Oh, and... nice reply, Chagur.

~~~

Counterbalance

I can understand there are occations where you might have to hit a woman but in genral its not done, i personally have never hit a woman but iv come very damm close.

Chagur i dont think your a woman beater for givin some dosy mare a slap (backhanded) the line is drawn when its done multiple times and for no reason.

It is a mind-set that I doubt you could ever understand

Try me. I can be shockingly open-minded at times.

Sorry, one doesn't 'explain'

In my world, if you use a personal experience to make a point it is fair game to ask what that experience was. I am not asking for a defense, Chagur, just an account.

If you prefer not to, then I suggest we just agree that we disagree and move on, b/c this is getting a bit silly.

WAR ANYONE?

The flames burn brightly, brightly as the sun.
A constant reminder of the battle unwon.
A new world order which never arrived.
The dream along with the leaders all have died.

Crimes against humanity?
Temporary insanity?

For those who dare there's glory.
For those who don't we're sorry.
For those who care there's sorrow.
For the time they have they borrow.

Bullet's fly, bodies fall!
People scream, hear their call?
For god and country stand alone.
Kill them all before you get home!

Some are heroes, all are fools.
Fight for your life, there are no rules.
Jungle, desert, sea, or air.
Kill for democracy anywhere!

Just something I wrote awhile ago thought it fit the situation.

Patrick

nice poem

Hey that's pretty good! Did you write that as a poem or a song?

In this case the only way to end the fight is to get rid of the agressor. Of course we could stop helping other people because that is what Bin Laden is mad about in the first place. He, and others, think that the US is getting into other people's business by helping others so he is bringing the fight to us. We can either kill them or allow our friends to be killed. Why would it be the right thing to do to allow others to die? OK, maybe we don't have to be the self appointed police but who else would answer the call? No one with enough power has enough compassion.

Benji

Thanx

my_notebook

Thanx. It was written as a song like a lot of the things I wrote. But lyrics to a song are just poems with cool back ground music.:D:

The anniversary of the Shah's departure and the fall of the monarchy was approaching. To mark the occasion, the television showed dozens of films about the revolution. In many ways they were all alike. The same pictures and situations recurrred. Scenes of an enormous processon alwas made up Act One. It's difficult to convey the dimensions of such a procession. It is a human river, broad and boiling, flowing endlessly, rolling through the main street from dawn till dusk. A fload, a violent flood that ina moment will engulf and drown everything. A forest of upraised, rhythmically menacing fists, portentous forest. A clamoring throng chanting, Death to the Shah! Very few close-ups of faces. The cameramen are fascinated by the sight of this incipient avalanche; they are stricken by the dimensions of what they see, as if they found themselves at the foot of Everest. Over the last months of the revolution these surging millions marched through the streets of every city. They carried no weapons; their strength lay in their numbers and their ardent, unshakeable determination.

Kapuscinski, Ryszard. Shah of Shahs. Trans. by Katarzyna Mroczkowska-Brand. New York, Vintage, 1992.

___________
* It is possible to win with solidarity.

* It is possible, with the third most advanced army on the planet, to lose the nation to your own people.

* Pacifists fight with solidarity. The number of people mowed down by soldiers when solidarity walks over them will still be considerably less than the number of casualties in a ten-year, backwater, decimating war.

* Soldiers against their people: some will run out of mettle, some will run out of bullets. Tyranny cannot destroy everyone, lest it have nobody to rule. In that paradox, it eats itself or burns away.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

When we can get the millions of Aganstians to stop running away and stage a peaceful March on the Taliban and terrorists I'll be more than happy to advocate we stop fighting.

So who do you suggest we get to lead these people to take back what's their's?

Considering all we have is the northern alliance, a good old fasioned ass kicking is really the only option we have. And by doing so the NA should be clued in to the fact we could kick their ass too so they don't do what the Taliban did 15 years from now.

Ben