It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
All those who are pro peace mark and identify the enemies of peace solely by their violent behaviour, and label them as the enemies of humanity.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem is that wars have always been fought for peace...
There's no other reason to fight, other than a sincere hope for lasting peace at the end of the conflict.
The problem has always been universal adoption. If EVERYONE adopted a policy of non-violence, we would be straight, no worries. The problems arise when some groups adopt a policy of non-violence, and the rest continue on with their violent ways.
That leaves the first group at a terrible disadvantage, evolutionarily, and in order to close the gap they too must engage in violence.
It's a very nasty cycle, but its not without its merits.
It's not as easy philosophically as some would have you believe.
It's obvious that most people WANT peace.
Originally posted by mOjOm
Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
All those who are pro peace mark and identify the enemies of peace solely by their violent behaviour, and label them as the enemies of humanity.
This one here almost falls out of step with the rest of your steps toward peace. You may want to consider dropping the stuff about "marking and labeling" things, especially if it's done to brand them as "Enemies". Peacemakers don't go around finding enemies. People looking for War on the other hand do. This could very well be the seed of destruction for your whole Peace Movement if you're not careful. Identifying a situation for what it is would be fine, but once again, only if it's not with the intention of classifying someone as your enemy. Other than that I'd say you got it spot on!!
"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." - Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem is that wars have always been fought for peace...
This hasn't worked
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
There's no other reason to fight, other than a sincere hope for lasting peace at the end of the conflict.
A contradiction. A myth. Violence does not beget peace.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem has always been universal adoption. If EVERYONE adopted a policy of non-violence, we would be straight, no worries. The problems arise when some groups adopt a policy of non-violence, and the rest continue on with their violent ways. That leaves the first group at a terrible disadvantage, evolutionarily, and in order to close the gap they too must engage in violence.
The non violent people do not have to engage in violence to 'close the gap'. . . .this is another myth and is the only thing which prevents the vast majority from joining the peace movement.
Non violent people will win through sheer weight of numbers and they have one great advantage . . . . the moral highground. Having the moral highground ensures that once the movement gains momentum then most people will join it because it is truly a better way.
Originally posted by WyrdeOneIt's a very nasty cycle, but it's not without its merits.
War is a very nasty cycle and is entirely without merit
Originally posted by DeltaChaos
And what did any of that have to do with what John Lennon was saying himself? Stand on the shoulders of lesser giants and have some respect for the great and dead.
Originally posted by DeltaChaos
And what did any of that have to do with what John Lennon was saying himself? Stand on the shoulders of lesser giants and have some respect for the great and dead.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
History has shown that, indeed, the only remotely effective way to achieve peace is to make war.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
How can you deny the fact that getting killed while failing to kill your enemy puts you at a disadvantage evolutionarily speaking? If I keep breeding, and you're dead, how can you possibly have won?
This is the fallacy of non-violence. It's a moral solution to a natural problem. Of course nature couldn't care less about our manufactured morality. Nature has its own laws, and we're no less subject to them now that we were half a million years ago.
[edit on 24-7-2005 by WyrdeOne]
Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
[
Peace is always the absence of war.
War does not cause the absence of war.
Thus war cannot cause peace!
TextOptimus - your example isn't perhaps trying to allude to the recent events in London, is it? The one where a completely innocent invidivual was killed by bullets after being subdued? If we try to cure a symptom without looking for the disease, we're simply prolonging the illness. We need to find and cure the cause - not the symptom.
Originally posted by optimus fett
....the 'innocent' man as you put it, was running after being told "STOP ARMED POLICE"....he is guilty of failing to conform to a direct command from an armed police officer on a state of the highest alert british police officers have ever been on in the UK.