Defeat your enemy with pacifism

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by my_notebook, Nov 9, 2001.

  1. my_notebook wild hamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    my_notebook ...

    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!
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Benji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    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?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. my_notebook wild hamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  8. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Oh well ...

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh well ...
     
  9. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    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
     
  10. Pzzaboy Sales Slave Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    119
    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.
     
  11. my_notebook wild hamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  12. Patman just one of the lost Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    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.
     
  13. spankyface Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    80
    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.
     
  14. my_notebook wild hamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2001
  15. spankyface Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    80
    The US, in our way of sticking our heads into other peoples' business, and as a superpower compared to those people, is the bully.
     
  16. Pzzaboy Sales Slave Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    119
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. spankyface Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    80
    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.
     
  18. my_notebook wild hamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    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?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2001
  19. spankyface Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    80
    eek. I'm sorry but the thought of someone that cannot read just pains me and blurs my vision.
     
  20. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    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
     
  21. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Yes, pacifism!

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    of the benefits of pacifism. I have been trying for a while now, with no results, so good luck!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    my_notebook ...

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2001
  23. SeekerOfTruth Unemployed, but Looking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    358
    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.
     

Share This Page