an argument for a nonviolent action in the Middle East

[kalamu]

just read this and respond if you want.

I was thinking today about Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and even Sudan and I was thinking about two things that are the main problems... land and power. Some have the land and power and others want it. In some cases everyone has to share the land and only a few have the power.

Like others I was thinking about the possibility of splitting up Iraq and letting each group have their own part of the land... and of course this is something that has been the subject of much fighting in Israel and Palestine. The case with Iran vs Israel is all about power imo.

So I was thinking about the splitting up of Iraq and it reminded me a lot of racial segregation in America. You know.. blacks and whites couldn't tolerate each other, they hated each other... so why not just split them up and each has their own area and that'll solve the problem. But blacks quickly found out that it doesn't work because seperate but equal is a figment of our imagination. It doesn't exist. It's either together and equal or seperate and unequal... or you can have together and unequal... but you really should focus on the fact that there is no seperate but equal. So if you split Iraq up you will have a part that is "better" and another part that isn't. It didn't work with segregation because African-Americans knew that they only way they would ever be treated equal is if we were all together and a distinction wasn't made between the races. That is what Martin Luther King knew and he fought nonviolently for civil rights for African-Americans. If you split up Iraqis, it won't be long before they will start fighting again... fighting for resources, fighting for power, fighting for whatever it is they don't think they have that they used to have... or just fighting for something they want that they don't have period. So splitting up won't work. It won't work in Israel/Palestine either. There is a problem with resources... and then of course you have to throw in the whole religious power problem. Everyone wants the religious power. Iran wants the religious power which is why they want to eradicate Israel.

So you have Muslims fighting Muslims over land and in order to get religious power. You can't seperate them because it doesn't work, there isn't enough resources and there isn't enough power to go around.

The only solution is to teach tolerance. It's the only way... it's the only way that worked in America and it's the only way that'll work anywhere else. All the different groups with their different religious ideas must learn to share the same land and the same resources... and they must live to, in some cases, live under the same government that must be void of any religious affiliation. The best way to teach tolerance is through nonviolence. Gandhi did it in India... that is why the Gandhi reference is so useful. He took all different groups in India and had them work together for their independence from Britain.... and now Iraq needs to do something similar.

and even if the end solution isn't for everyone to share the land... even if there is going to be a splitting up of the land... religious and racial tolerance is absolutely the most crucial thing that the area needs. without that then nothing else is going to work, you will continue to have fighting.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

So I was thinking about the splitting up of Iraq and it reminded me a lot of racial segregation in America. You know.. blacks and whites couldn't tolerate each other, they hated each other... so why not just split them up and each has their own area and that'll solve the problem. But blacks quickly found out that it doesn't work because seperate but equal is a figment of our imagination. It doesn't exist.

But:

1) Sunni, Shia, and Kurd is not the same as Black vs White - the Kurd part is most similar but still not the same

2) The Plessy Doctrine was an internal construct whereas the notion of a federation in Iraq (or 3 state solution) would be external and exclusive.

I understand the generality you're going for but I don't think it holds. We're talking about 3 distinct cultural groups who may wish their own states not 1 cultural group vs all others within a single state.

Originally Posted by kalamu

It's either together and equal or seperate and unequal... or you can have together and unequal... but you really should focus on the fact that there is no seperate but equal. So if you split Iraq up you will have a part that is "better" and another part that isn't.

Better is pretty subjective. You'll have 3 states with varying strengths and weaknesses.

You'll have a pissed off Turkey on the verge of invading the new Kurdistan. You'll have an agressive Suni population that could well seek to dominate the Shi'a who may be forced to turn to the Iranians for aid - - even though the Shi'a of Iraq are the cats who fought a nasty war with Iran.

Originally Posted by kalamu

If you split up Iraqis, it won't be long before they will start fighting again... fighting for resources, fighting for power, fighting for whatever it is they don't think they have that they used to have... or just fighting for something they want that they don't have period.

Yes, this is what people do when alternative means of accomplishing one's goals fail and one feels them sufficiently worth fighting for.

Originally Posted by kalamu

So splitting up won't work. It won't work in Israel/Palestine either.

Well, that's factually unsupportable. The wall has, with recent notable exceptions, ended the suicide bombings. So, separation has been successful. North Korea v Soth Korea another example. There are plenty of others.

Originally Posted by kalamu

The only solution is to teach tolerance. It's the only way... it's the only way that worked in America and it's the only way that'll work anywhere else.

One thing, not uniquely Islamic but they do excell in it, is their near absolute rejection of tolerance. Islam = submission it does not mean tolerating your neighbor it means bending him to the will of Allah.

Originally Posted by kalamu

All the different groups with their different religious ideas must learn to share the same land and the same resources...

I agree that this is necessary for a successful state in the Western sense of Liberal Democracy. I have come to accept that the peoples of Iraq are not ready or willing to step up and make these concessions in the name of peace and liberty.

Originally Posted by kalamu

and they must live to, in some cases, live under the same government that must be void of any religious affiliation. The best way to teach tolerance is through nonviolence. Gandhi did it in India... that is why the Gandhi reference is so useful. He took all different groups in India and had them work together for their independence from Britain.... and now Iraq needs to do something similar.

And India was a mess - their was massive Muslim v Hindu v Sikh violence associated with the partition of India and there was massive dislocation of peoples. Do not forget that very important fact.

Originally Posted by kalamu

and even if the end solution isn't for everyone to share the land... even if there is going to be a splitting up of the land... religious and racial tolerance is absolutely the most crucial thing that the area needs. without that then nothing else is going to work, you will continue to have fighting.

You're absolutely right. But that simply identifies what we already know. The question is how do we make them knock it off. I believed toppling a dictator and gving the people a chance to form their own government would permit their inner strength and will to emerge such that they'd shun the mullahs and terrorists, then I thought, "OK - so they need to establish a sectarian form of democracy (odd thing to say to be sure)" and still they permit the petty squabbles and interference of those bent on preventing the estblishment of a tolerant society to prevent them from establishing a sense of order and government. The opportunities that appear to be lost are deeply saddening - not just for Iraq but the entire region. I still hold a glimmer of hope but its not based on any evidence or factual support - its based on a lament for the alternative.



I understand your point even if I disagree with your analogy - and I agree that you're right. But we understand the problem is that the people there don't tolerate dissent. What the culture in that region does seem to understand and uses as political currency is exactly what you speak out against; violence. Up close, personal nasty head chopping violence. How do you fix that? Not sure you do and I seem to find more and more each day that they're welcome to their own private Idaho of hell if that's what they want. Pretty fucking sad.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

1) Sunni, Shia, and Kurd is not the same as Black vs White - the Kurd part is most similar but still not the same

2) The Plessy Doctrine was an internal construct whereas the notion of a federation in Iraq (or 3 state solution) would be external and exclusive.

I understand the generality you're going for but I don't think it holds. We're talking about 3 distinct cultural groups who may wish their own states not 1 cultural group vs all others within a single state.

I still think you can use the example of segregation. Yes it's not one side vs. another side... it'll be a triangle all fighting for themselves. It still doesn't work.

Better is pretty subjective. You'll have 3 states with varying strengths and weaknesses.

can you explain this a bit more? because my understanding of the situation was that the resources couldn't be split up three ways... which meant to me that the oil revenues couldn't be split up three ways. if one split off area doesn't have any revenue coming in then the fighting will continue

how do you see that they will each have enough of a strength (ie. money) in order to make the splitting off idea work?

Yes, this is what people do when alternative means of accomplishing one's goals fail and one feels them sufficiently worth fighting for.

which is why i said it wouldn't work.

Well, that's factually unsupportable. The wall has, with recent notable exceptions, ended the suicide bombings. So, separation has been successful. North Korea v Soth Korea another example. There are plenty of others.

wha? ending suicide bombs isn't the big goal. the big goal is to have a group of people, the Palestinians, happy and able to live a good life at the same time that Israelis are doing the same. the wall prevents them from doing so. and the recent notable exceptions you speak of tell us all why the wall doesn't work.

One thing, not uniquely Islamic but they do excell in it, is their near absolute rejection of tolerance. Islam = submission it does not mean tolerating your neighbor it means bending him to the will of Allah.

exactly. this is what needs to change. Islam does not have to be that way, that's just the way it is in that culture with their extremist tendencies. I know it doesn't have to be that way because I have over a dozen Muslim friends who tell me that the teachings of Islam do not have to be be carried out in that violent manner. This is something that I think needs to be talked about within the Muslim community and it needs to change from within.

I agree that this is necessary for a successful state in the Western sense of Liberal Democracy. I have come to accept that the peoples of Iraq are not ready or willing to step up and make these concessions in the name of peace and liberty.

this is interesting to me. so in your opinion, do you think that time needs to pass until they are ready to make those concessions... OR do you think another model needs to emerge for that area of the world? if the latter, what ideas do you have on what that model might be?

And India was a mess - their was massive Muslim v Hindu v Sikh violence associated with the partition of India and there was massive dislocation of peoples. Do not forget that very important fact.

but wasn't Gandhi able to unify them for a time?

You're absolutely right. But that simply identifies what we already know. The question is how do we make them knock it off.

well, for one by keeping our military away. second, we should be encouraging nonviolence and peaceful means to resolve differences. because religious and racial tolerance is the most important thing that that area needs in order to be stable, you cannot accomplish that through war and you cannot accomplish that with a gun. Imagine if MLK had encouraged African-Americans to kill white people in order to get their civil rights... imagine if Gandhi encouraged Indians to pick up rocks and any other weapons available and use them against the British soldiers. It just doesn't work. No nonviolent leaders in these countries have emerged that I'm aware of but this is the kind of action we need to be encouraging. It's the kind of action the UN and every other country in the world needs to be encouraging. We do not need to continue to put logs on the fire.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

I'm saying that the 3 cultural groups are relatively easily identifiable on a map making geographic segregation by culture easy in an anbstract - drawing lines on a map sense.

However, having drawn those lines will leave very disparate resource alocation.

so basically, in support of the splitting off idea you are saying that instead of someone else drawing the lines in the sand... this time "we" will let the actual inhabitants of the land draw their own lines?

but then you agree with me that "you're spot on that the relative intolerance for each other (between the 3 major groups) is the major motivating factor in the violenec and failure to establish a government."

and thus the splitting off idea won't work. because the intolerance and hatred will continue to exist... just there will be some extra lines in the sand. and for icing on that cake there will be a lack of resources for whoever draws the short stick.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

I still think you can use the example of segregation. Yes it's not one side vs. another side... it'll be a triangle all fighting for themselves. It still doesn't work.

The issue isn't a duality v a triad

The issue is that Plessy didn't create a seprate state for African Americans whereas the Iraqi solutions suggested does. They are readily distinguishable situations.... but this is really a tangential issue Joel. you're spot on that the relative intolerance for each other (between the 3 major groups) is the major motivating factor in the violenec and failure to establish a government.

Originally Posted by kalamu

can you explain this a bit more? because my understanding of the situation was that the resources couldn't be split up three ways... which meant to me that the oil revenues couldn't be split up three ways. if one split off area doesn't have any revenue coming in then the fighting will continue

I'm saying that the 3 cultural groups are relatively easily identifiable on a map making geographic segregation by culture easy in an anbstract - drawing lines on a map sense.

However, having drawn those lines will leave very disparate resource alocation.

Originally Posted by kalamu

how do you see that they will each have enough of a strength (ie. money) in order to make the splitting off idea work?

Have no answer and would suggest that the Shi'a state (shoud a tripartite state solution come about) is doomed to be absorbed by either the Suni or Iran... see the partitions of Poland by Russian, Prussia and Austria for relevant historical perspective and example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_poland

Originally Posted by kalamu

wha? ending suicide bombs isn't the big goal. the big goal is to have a group of people, the Palestinians, happy and able to live a good life at the same time that Israelis are doing the same. the wall prevents them from doing so. and the recent notable exceptions you speak of tell us all why the wall doesn't work.

You're getting the cart before the horse. lets let Israelies shop in peace at the grocery store and listen to Infect Mushroom in Tel Aviv clubs in oeace before we worry about Palestinian Muslims marrying Israelie Jews shall we

Originally Posted by kalamu

exactly. this is what needs to change. Islam does not have to be that way, that's just the way it is in that culture with their extremist tendencies. I know it doesn't have to be that way because I have over a dozen Muslim friends who tell me that the teachings of Islam do not have to be be carried out in that violent manner. This is something that I think needs to be talked about within the Muslim community and it needs to change from within.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by kalamu

this is interesting to me. so in your opinion, do you think that time needs to pass until they are ready to make those concessions... OR do you think another model needs to emerge for that area of the world? if the latter, what ideas do you have on what that model might be?

I don't Joel (have any ideas). One that's been suggested is the notion of "Organic Democracy" - recognizing the cultural divide and creating a council that represents those disparate cultures - - which is a kind of federalism. I think it may have merit - it is certainly worth exploring. The current options semm to provide little hope. And, again, I need to express how goddamn sad that is - there was so much fucking opprtunity squandered..grrr...mutherfucking grrr!!!

Originally Posted by kalamu

but wasn't Gandhi able to unify them for a time?

not really - excepting the sense that the US and USSR were united until the reason for unity was gone

Originally Posted by kalamu

second, we should be encouraging nonviolence and peaceful means to resolve differences.

A foreign and unintelligible language to the current situation - those with political power hod it at the edge of a sword. They're interesting in power not liberty and freedom for the people.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

so basically, in support of the splitting off idea you are saying that instead of someone else drawing the lines in the sand... this time "we" will let the actual inhabitants of the land draw their own lines?

No. I'm saying the the lines would be based on the three major cultural distinctions. Where they would be, physically - on a map, and who would draft them I am not commenting on.

Originally Posted by kalamu

but then you agree with me that "you're spot on that the relative intolerance for each other (between the 3 major groups) is the major motivating factor in the violenec and failure to establish a government."

and thus the splitting off idea won't work. because the intolerance and hatred will continue to exist... just there will be some extra lines in the sand. and for icing on that cake there will be a lack of resources for whoever draws the short stick.

There is a theory of warfare. It says that war ends when one side is demolished or both sides are demolished. It accepts that occassionally peace will break out for one sied or both to catch their breath but it will eventually recommence. Intervention merely lengthens the "catch one's breath period."

I don't agree with this theory in so far as it isn't a law. it is a collarary however. But, those fringe instances wher the law does not hold are worth pursuing. In short, a cooling off period may permit a sufficient period of undertanding that tolerance could sink it roots and the three groups could learn to co-exist peacefully. I see no other alternative other than letting them beat each other senseless until on group has the will and ability to hold sway over the other two. Real Politik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_politik) cannot be denied. States behave in ways that people do not. Do not confuse the two. My advice to you.... Recognize and accept that fact and look to find a way for the interests to coincide.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

You're getting the cart before the horse. lets let Israelies shop in peace at the grocery store and listen to Infect Mushroom in Tel Aviv clubs in oeace before we worry about Palestinian Muslims marrying Israelie Jews shall we

hey i agree... this whole thing needs a huge helping of time. but during that time we need less violence and the way to that less violence imo is stressing tolerance... and in the case of Israel/Palestine working on breaking that wall down. Of course I mean that the Israelis and Palestinians need to break that wall down, not Americans or anyone besides them.

Good luck with that.

well it's not something i'm going to do... because i'm not Muslim. Muslims need to do this. Muslims need to tell other Muslims that it's not okay to be hateful towards other Muslims and people of other faiths. It won't do any good for Christians or anyone else to be telling Muslims that.

I don't Joel (have any ideas). One that's been suggested is the notion of "Organic Democracy" - recognizing the cultural divide and creating a council that represents those disparate cultures - - which is a kind of federalism. I think it may have merit - it is certainly worth exploring. The current options semm to provide little hope. And, again, I need to express how goddamn sad that is - there was so much fucking opprtunity squandered..grrr...mutherfucking grrr!!!

well i think it's a damn interesting subject and i'm going to think about it quite a bit.

A foreign and unintelligible language to the current situation - those with political power hod it at the edge of a sword. They're interesting in power not liberty and freedom for the people.

see, i don't think so. at least not to the extent that you might. nonviolence and peace isn't a foreign language. it may not be something that's on everyones tongue... but everyone has an idea of what peace is. if you ask an Israeli want peace is to him/her, they will tell you. same with an Iraqi or a Palestinian or a Sudanese man. they all know what it is... and if you ask them how to get it you will probably hear a violent answer from a good majority of them... but if you give them time they will realize the answer.

you know i tell people about this all the time when i talk to them about this subject... there are groups of people that bring Israeli and Palestinian men and women together to talk through their differences and it works. My favorite example is Thich Nhat Hanh's workshops... obviously he can't do a workshop for every single person in those areas... but those feelings spread once the people leave. There are others as well, I don't have the info right here in front of me or else I'd post it but they are all religious groups of some sort which kind of has me torn... I'd rather everyone leave religion out of it personally but whatever works.

if you get two groups that hate each other and you bring them together and make them look at each other in the eyes... they cannot hate each other for very long. they will talk to each other and realize they have things in common as we all do. they will realize what the root of their problems are and they will find ways to negotiate as long as they have a good mediator.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

No. I'm saying the the lines would be based on the three major cultural distinctions. Where they would be, physically - on a map, and who would draft them I am not commenting on.

well i can say one thing that i believe right now and that's if someone draws the line in the sand and the group that has to obey that line disagrees then it won't solve anything.

There is a theory of warfare. It says that war ends when one side is demolished or both sides are demolished. It accepts that occassionally peace will break out for one sied or both to catch their breath but it will eventually recommence. Intervention merely lengthens the "catch one's breath period."

I don't agree with this theory in so far as it isn't a law. it is a collarary however. But, those fringe instances wher the law does not hold are worth pursuing. In short, a cooling off period may permit a sufficient period of undertanding that tolerance could sink it roots and the three groups could learn to co-exist peacefully. I see no other alternative other than letting them beat each other senseless until on group has the will and ability to hold sway over the other two. Real Politik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_politik) cannot be denied. States behave in ways that people do not. Do not confuse the two. My advice to you.... Recognize and accept that fact and look to find a way for the interests to coincide.

you know what i call that? violence begets violence. of course war never ends because if someone doesn't stop the violence then you just have a circle of revenge. in our twisted view that means you must completely annihilate the other person because both of you are so damn stubborn that you can't possibly just stop and breathe and realize the fighting is getting you nowhere. that's why i don't think fighting should start in the first place.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

well it's not something i'm going to do... because i'm not Muslim. Muslims need to do this. Muslims need to tell other Muslims that it's not okay to be hateful towards other Muslims and people of other faiths. It won't do any good for Christians or anyone else to be telling Muslims that.

indeed - good luck with that too

Originally Posted by kalamu

see, i don't think so. at least not to the extent that you might. nonviolence and peace isn't a foreign language. it may not be something that's on everyones tongue... but everyone has an idea of what peace is.

Sure and the Islamic terrorists think its everyone submitting to an absolutist and rigid form of Islam.

I'll take war and LIBERTY over peace and submission every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Liberty is a heretical concept to Islamo-Fascists....

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

Sure and the Islamic terrorists think its everyone submitting to an absolutist and rigid form of Islam.

and Muslims need to speak out against the ideology of the terrorists. We need to not provoke the terrorists while encouraging the Muslims to do so.

I'll take war and LIBERTY over peace and submission every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

tell me why you think you can't have liberty AND peace? why is it one or the other? peace is not simply the opposite of war.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

and Muslims need to speak out against the ideology of the terrorists.

You're absolutely right. Where is this speaking out to be witnessed though?

Originally Posted by kalamu

We need to not provoke the terrorists while encouraging the Muslims to do so.

We need to kill as many as possible.

Originally Posted by kalamu

tell me why you think you can't have liberty AND peace?

That's not what I said. I said I'd take war and liberty over peace and submission. Peace and liberty would be the goal.

But, I'd be perfectly willing to fight to throw off shackles in peace time rather than not fight and have peace in servitude.

In short - China has peace. North Korea has peace. WE have liberty.

Originally Posted by kalamu

why is it one or the other? peace is not simply the opposite of war.

you're adopting a new political definition. Peace is, and has been, defined for millenia as the absence of war. That you and others wish to redefine it makes the traditional definition no less well understood.

You, in using the word "peace," suggest a kind of Utopia - and that's just unrealistic to most of us Joel.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

You're absolutely right. Where is this speaking out to be witnessed though?

in the Muslim countries?

We need to kill as many as possible.

wrong. wrong. wrong. that is the exact thing we SHOULDN'T be doing.

That's not what I said. I said I'd take war and liberty over peace and submission. Peace and liberty would be the goal.

But, I'd be perfectly willing to fight to throw off shackles in peace time rather than not fight and have peace in servitude.

In short - China has peace. North Korea has peace. WE have liberty.

okay... how did we get liberty? through the actions of our government which is based on a model that you say cannot work in the Middle East?

and how can they possibly have liberty and this religious extremism at the same time? i say it cannot happen. I say the only reason our country works is because our founding fathers had the insight to shackle religion in this country and keep it from becoming such an important issue.

like i said before, we need our leaders, if they insist on speaking about things beyond our borders, to talk about religious tolerance and how important that is to having a peaceful nation.

all this fighting throughout the world, from Iraq to Sudan is all based on religion and race... religion and race... religion and race. America has been through that and come out on the other side... we need to testify to that fact imo. all of the other issues: land, power, etc.. is all based on religion and race.

you're adopting a new political definition. Peace is, and has been, defined for millenia as the absence of war. That you and others wish to redefine it makes the traditional definition no less well understood.

You, in using the word "peace," suggest a kind of Utopia - and that's just unrealistic to most of us Joel.

that is wrong. erase all that nonsense from your head. Utopia doesn't exist, it's some fantasy. It doesn't exist and it won't ever exist. That is not what I'm talking about. Peace is NOT the absence of war, anyone who says so is mistaken... this is not a changing of definition, it is a misunderstanding of definition. When you, or others, call me an idealist because I use words like peace and nonviolence, it is insulting to me and to the idea of peace and nonviolence. These aren't pretend things that don't exist and that are unobtainable. Peace and nonviolence is not the "world peace" you hear Miss America contestants talking about nor are they just empty words to be thrown around. There is a whole philosophy behind them with a proven history behind them. You being a Christian I would think you would know something of the history of nonviolence since it began with Christians here in America. To have peace is not to have a Utopia. I mentioned it in another thread but you can read a book called Is There No Other Way? which can give you several examples of nonviolence worked and none of them were utopian in nature. It also makes a very strong case for why nonviolence is the best way to go about dissolving conflict and avoiding it altogether. You are always urging me to research this or that... I urge you to read that book and to further learn about nonviolence.

You don't have to resign yourself to the way things are or the way things appear to be right now. You don't have to resign yourself to the fact that you must threaten people to control them nor must you resort to war when diplomacy doesn't get you your way. Think outside the box a little bit and realize that war only exists because the people in power are too weak to do anything else. The power that this country has, it's military power, is nothing compared to the power of peace that one person has within themselves. If you are a spiritual person and believe that once you die you will go to heaven then you most certainly shouldn't disagree with that statement because then you'd realize that your time here on earth is just a short passage way to where you truly belong which is next to God in heaven, no? If you have peace within yourself then you are "enlightened" and that's the best state that you can be in. You should hope that everyone can be so enlightened as to feel peace within themselves. It's obvious to me that if you are a religious extremist then you cannot be enlightened because you are holding onto your ideals so tight that you don't realize that they aren't the answer to everything... and you become consumed with hatred and often you will have thoughts of revenge.

That's why I think it's a good idea to detach yourself a bit from your religious ideals because the very idea of religion and faith is to encourage extremism. You cannot question faith, it's the only thing in life that you can never question. A Muslim person cannot question the word of Allah, a Christian cannot question the word of God. But is that how Muslims and Christians feel in America or in other areas of the world that are not so consumed with religious extremism? I don't find that to be the case at all. You can call it religious moderatism (is that a word?) or whatever you want... but I think that's a step in the right direction if it teaches people to not get so attached to their religious ideals that they are driven to hatred and violence in order to defend them. I think it's absolutely important to not attach yourself to ideas so much so that you are willing to kill for them. That is what Gandhi said. Gandhi said that he was willing to die for his beliefs but he was not willing to kill for them. Wiser words have never been spoken. Thich Nhat Hanh and many other wise men have said similar things about not becoming attached to beliefs so much so that you are willing to kill for them as well.

These are the things that this country should be talking about.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

wrong. wrong. wrong. that is the exact thing we SHOULDN'T be doing.

we should be encouraging terrorsits to kill us then? why does this make sense?

when some one tells you they wish to kill you - and is a groupd that does such things - believe them - and try to kill them first

Originally Posted by kalamu

okay... how did we get liberty? through the actions of our government which is based on a model that you say cannot work in the Middle East?

I've said that the culture of the ME is incompatible with Anglo notions of Liberty and substantial justice - I think that a fair comment.

we got liberty by fighting for it and being willing to accept war as a cost of throwing off oppression.

Originally Posted by kalamu

and how can they possibly have liberty and this religious extremism at the same time? i say it cannot happen.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by kalamu

I say the only reason our country works is because our founding fathers had the insight to shackle religion in this country and keep it from becoming such an important issue.

oversimplified - but - yes - in principle.

Originally Posted by kalamu

that is wrong. erase all that nonsense from your head.

Indeed Eliminate the notion that the overwhelming majority of the world accepts as the definition of peace today and has accepted as the definition for the entirety of human existence because of a small cadre of "Peace Studdies" tree huggers at a few Universtities in the US and Europe. "Hippy Please." Recognize that you're trying to force a bullshit definition on the rest of us. And we know you're trying to foist a bullshit definition on us. Come up with a new word and go ahead and use it - don'tr co-opt a well understood one that's just fucking annoying.

Originally Posted by kalamu

Utopia doesn't exist, it's some fantasy.

lol - that would in fact describe the word etymologically.

Originally Posted by kalamu

It doesn't exist and it won't ever exist. That is not what I'm talking about. Peace is NOT the absence of war, anyone who says so is mistaken... this is not a changing of definition, it is a misunderstanding of definition.

Goddammit Joel - you wanting a new definition doesn't making it any less a changing of a definition. Knock it off. Peace has been defined for nearly 10,000 years (since 8000 bc - earlist origins of cities assailed - - or of city walls) as the absence of war. Its only been since some tree hugging hippy peaceniks decided to co-opt the word that peace has been argued to mean other.

http://webster.com/dictionary/peace

Originally Posted by webster

Main Entry: 1peace http://webster.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: 'pEs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Old French pais, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree -- more at PACT
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell

Originally Posted by kalamu

When you, or others, call me an idealist because I use words like peace and nonviolence, it is insulting to me and to the idea of peace and nonviolence.

Well that's silly. You should wear the cloak of idealist with pride. that's what you are. There is no shame in that.

Originally Posted by kalamu

These aren't pretend things that don't exist and that are unobtainable.

But you want Utopia and you said it doesn't exist. reconcile these past two notions for me won't you?

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

we should be encouraging terrorsits to kill us then? why does this make sense?

when some one tells you they wish to kill you - and is a groupd that does such things - believe them - and try to kill them first

i know that is how you think but that isn't the only way to think and i don't think it's the best way.

I've said that the culture of the ME is incompatible with Anglo notions of Liberty and substantial justice - I think that a fair comment.

that's fine, but what i said still holds true. how else are they going to have liberty except if they have a stable democratic government which you say they cannot?

all the rest of what you said in your reply is nonsense and i'm not even going to respond to it. i'm not a hippy nor is anyone i associate with.

[Nyteshade]

[quote=kalamu]if you get two groups that hate each other and you bring them together and make them look at each other in the eyes... they cannot hate each other for very long.[quote]

That's because they would probably be dead. You may want to try viewing the situation through THEIR eyes instead of an idealist.