dub Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Point is, he knew that sending those people to protest would result in violence. KNEW. yet he did it anyhow. Thousands died Dub. His people killed over a thousand as well. If he didn't send people on peaceful protests, knowing that there would be violence, there would be no violence would there? The end, in this case, justifies the means to some. Just as Bush invading iraq. uhm. you are being ridiculous. seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 uhm.you are being ridiculous. seriously. Gandhi had many critics in the international peace movement. The Nobel Committee adviser referred to these critics in maintaining that he was not consistently pacifist, that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror. This was something that had happened during the first Non-Cooperation Campaign in 1920-1921, e.g. when a crowd in Chauri Chaura, the United Provinces, attacked a police station, killed many of the policemen and then set fire to the police station. Are you so stupid as to think he had no idea of what he was doing? Are you that stupid that he was living in la la land and didn't know violence would occur when he staged protests? Dub, sorry to burst your bubble but he was counting on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Are you so stupid as to think he had no idea of what he was doing? Are you that stupid that he was living in la la land and didn't know violence would occur when he staged protests? Dub, sorry to burst your bubble but he was counting on it. you're blaming gandhi for some protesters getting out of hand where cops were killed and then saying that gandhi and bush are the same? you are ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 So when are the Palestinians going to embrace Ghandi ? a very good question. i think the palestinians' biggest downfall in the face of injustice is that they've never had a good leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 a very good question.i think the palestinians' biggest downfall in the face of injustice is that they've never had a good leader. Tough titty for them. Other "oppressed" folks figured it out a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 a very good question.i think the palestinians' biggest downfall in the face of injustice is that they've never had a good leader. There's an understatement. The al-Husseini clan has been running the show since 1919. All Nazis and/or terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 they've never had a good leader. Finally we can agree on something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 History... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 you're blaming gandhi for some protesters getting out of hand where cops were killed and then saying that gandhi and bush are the same?you are ridiculous. Golly you have one hell of a reading problem going there Dub. Gandhi was the leader of the passive resistance movement so, if you are going o give him credit for that then you have to understand that he knew protests would result in violence towards those people he told to go and protest, including the police incident. I said he was responsible for thousands, not just one incident in which twenty some odd cops were killed. I never compared him to Bush. I siad that if you believe that deaths that Gandhi caused were fine with you as it led to independence then the end to you in this case justifies the means. Just like the invasion of Iraq led to independence and to some, that end justifies the means. Now do your homework, read up on Gandhi and why he was never given the Nobel Peace Prize, reread my posts so you actually know what I said and then, get back to me with an argument of some kind instead of asking me questions to things you should already know if you are discussing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Golly you have one hell of a reading problem going there Dub. Gandhi was the leader of the passive resistance movement so, if you are going o give him credit for that then you have to understand that he knew protests would result in violence towards those people he told to go and protest, including the police incident. I said he was responsible for thousands, not just one incident in which twenty some odd cops were killed. I never compared him to Bush. I siad that if you believe that deaths that Gandhi caused were fine with you as it led to independence then the end to you in this case justifies the means. Just like the invasion of Iraq led to independence and to some, that end justifies the means. Now do your homework, read up on Gandhi and why he was never given the Nobel Peace Prize, reread my posts so you actually know what I said and then, get back to me with an argument of some kind instead of asking me questions to things you should already know if you are discussing this. hey look. it doesn't matter how much you type, you're still ridiculous. you're still trying to compare gandhi and bush (or their tactics apparently). man. don't you have any shame? why do you need to post this garbage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 you're still trying to compare gandhi and bush (or their tactics apparently). It's rather idiotic of you to remotely make a connection between the tactics (one being passive resistance and the other an invasion with a half million men.) However, if it can be done I'm sure you could do it. man. don't you have any shame? why do you need to post this garbage? You still didn't understand the point. Gandhi purposely set forth actions that he knew would result in violence. That you revere him either overlooks this violence (most probable as you don't seem to have a shmick of what is gong on) or, you accept the violence as the end justifies the means. Taking it a step further, as the liberation of twenty five million Iraqis was a good thing, then this same 'end justifies the means' rule would apply would it not? hey look.it doesn't matter how much you type, you're still ridiculous. It doesn't matter how little you know of the subject matter, you still have lots to add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 It's rather idiotic of you to remotely make a connection between the tactics (one being passive resistance and the other an invasion with a half million men.) However, if it can be done I'm sure you could do it.You still didn't understand the point. Gandhi purposely set forth actions that he knew would result in violence. That you revere him either overlooks this violence (most probable as you don't seem to have a shmick of what is gong on) or, you accept the violence as the end justifies the means. Taking it a step further, as the liberation of twenty five million Iraqis was a good thing, then this same 'end justifies the means' rule would apply would it not? It doesn't matter how little you know of the subject matter, you still have lots to add. more babbling and scrambling. why do you think supporting gandhi is the same as supporting bush again? lols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 more babbling and scrambling.why do you think supporting gandhi is the same as supporting bush again? lols. Gandhi purposely set forth actions that he knew would result in violence. That you revere him either overlooks this violence (most probable as you don't seem to have a shmick of what is gong on) or, you accept the violence as the end justifies the means. Taking it a step further, as the liberation of twenty five million Iraqis was a good thing, then this same 'end justifies the means' rule would apply would it not? That is why, if you feel that the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions is worth it in order to be free then you more than likely would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. Need me to explain again or should we find an interpreter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Gandhi purposely set forth actions that he knew would result in violence. That you revere him either overlooks this violence (most probable as you don't seem to have a shmick of what is gong on) or, you accept the violence as the end justifies the means. Taking it a step further, as the liberation of twenty five million Iraqis was a good thing, then this same 'end justifies the means' rule would apply would it not?That is why, if you feel that the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions is worth it in order to be free then you more than likely would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. Need me to explain again or should we find an interpreter? you're weird. you know why? because you are saying that supporting gandhi is like supporting bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 dub you're really underdoing yourself this time. While obviously there are many differences between Gandhi and Bush, KrustyKidd has articulated his argument clearly several times now and it should be easily understandable to anyone capable of reading. You can refute or ignore the argument, but pretending you don't understand it is just silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 you're weird.you know why? because you are saying that supporting gandhi is like supporting bush. Can you provide a quote that states that Dub? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 dub you're really underdoing yourself this time. While obviously there are many differences between Gandhi and Bush, KrustyKidd has articulated his argument clearly several times now and it should be easily understandable to anyone capable of reading. You can refute or ignore the argument, but pretending you don't understand it is just silly. no. i'm not going to try to debate bullshit. i can't take a person who makes stupid comments, seriously enough to debate them on it. he's turning into another DoP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Dub only reads what the echo chamber tells him and has no knowledge of the deaths Gandhi caused to his own people.In order to know this he would actually have to crack a book rather than cut and paste from an anti Israel propaganda site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 Dub only reads what the echo chamber tells him and has no knowledge of the deaths Gandhi caused to his own people.In order to know this he would actually have to crack a book rather than cut and paste from an anti Israel propaganda site. i mean, seriously. who tries to convince people that support for gandhi is like support for george bush? you've turned yourself into a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 i mean, seriously. who tries to convince people that support for gandhi is like support for george bush? Apparently you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 Apparently you. eh? okay. just because you know how to press reply and type, it doesn't mean that you should all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 i mean, seriously. who tries to convince people that support for gandhi is like support for george bush?you've turned yourself into a joke. You are the only one who makes this connection as I certainly never did otherwise, you would provide some proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shraytus Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 Our Western cultures are formed on the premise that all people are created equal, remain equal, and die equal. When the USA was formed in 1776, as we all know, they were content on a country synonymous with freedom for all, in it's most raw form. The reality, however, was vastly different. Discrimination ran rampant for centuries further, with Blacks only being "decreed people" thanks to great individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. and others, and women only decades before that. I mean no disrespect, by the way, for giving a history lesson. The idea of freedom is what everyone craves, but their palate itself, however, is always vastly different. I greatly dislike blaming the Islamic faith for the oppression of women in many Middle-Eastern locales, as I detest racism in any form. After travelling to the United Arab Emirates, for example, I was finally immersed into their culture, for the unfortunately-short period of my stay, and I realized the entire concept of having more than one wife, for example, was something that, for the most part, us Westerners don't understand right now, and we condemn it. That being said, the physical oppression (and otherwise) of females in many parts of the world, is despicable, and a crime against humanity and everything we've fought for in regard to true peace and freedom. It took the western world centuries to "realize" that Blacks, and then women are "people" too. How long will it take, not for their culture, but their policy for freedom, take to change in the Middle-East? And let's please remember, when someone says "Terrorism is mostly caused by Islam." Say, "No, terrorism is always caused by fanatics." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 And let's please remember, when someone says "Terrorism is mostly caused by Islam." Say, "No, terrorism is always caused by fanatics." [/b] Yes, Muslim extremist fanatics. Actually, almost totally Qutbist Muslim extremist fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Yes, Muslim extremist fanatics. Actually, almost totally Qutbist Muslim extremist fanatics. There are christian fanatics that are terrorists to, there are also a lot of animal rights fanatics that can be called terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.