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.

 

All he was saying, was "Give Peace a Chance !"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   


TextOk, so even with that in mind, he is an "innocent man" in that he's completely innocent of terrorist activity.


yeah, an innocent man who just unfortunatley decided to act in a way typical of a person guilty of a crime, a mistake this man will unfortunatley never be able to make again. Lets just reittarate, the armed officers pursued this "innocent man" onto a tube train believing him to be carrying a bomb.....with total disregard for their own lives they pinned him down and eliminated any threat....even though it has transpired that this man was not a terrorist carrying a bomb.

lets just go ahead and bring in some laws so that any body in the uk can do as they please...perhaps the police should just let people acting highly suspiciously do what they want.....and if they turn out to be a suicide bomber and take lives, we can all rest assured that the police didnt cause them to much distress and discomfort by trying to implement the law and get them to comply with one of the most accepted verbal form of attention grabbing...."POLICE STOP"




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

All those who are pro peace lay down their arms and give up all ideology other than non violence.

All those who are pro peace refuse to accept any 'pro peace ideology' which includes violent means to achieve the end.

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.


So what do you do when you peacenicks are getting slaughtered? Do you just hold up your peace-sign and sing "give peace a chance"?

Or

Do you remove your enemies by slaughtering them before they slaughter you---and then live in peace when your enemies have been eliminated? Peace, like freedom, isn't free. It isn't given to you on a silver platter. You must FIGHT FOR IT! This is a basic fact of life as it exists throughout the animal world (of which we are a part). You are either the hunter or the prey.

WAKE UP!!!



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Do you remove your enemies by slaughtering them before they slaughter you---and then live in peace when your enemies have been eliminated? Peace, like freedom, isn't free. It isn't given to you on a silver platter. You must FIGHT FOR IT! This is a basic fact of life as it exists throughout the animal world (of which we are a part). You are either the hunter or the prey.

WAKE UP!!!


A prehistoric ideal, non?

What are you going to do...kill everyone who doesn't agree with you?

That'll work.


Anyone ever heard of compromise?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart


War and terrorism will not end until everyone refuses to use violence.




You know, why don't you stroll over to the terrorist training camps and give them a block of instruction on peace. I'll bet that in return, they'll give you a block of instruction on pieces!

Same old crap, packaged in a different struggle. I heard that crap in the 80's when starry-eyes told folks like me that we were wrong for having nukes, and that we should wrap our arms around the Soviet Union and give them a big ol' bear hug (pardon the Soviet Bear pun).
Remember Major Arthur D. Nicholson, Jr. and go fly a rainbow kite.


What's this got to do with WoT?
MODS!!!!!

[edit on 24-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
What are you going to do...kill everyone who doesn't agree with you?


Hardly tinkle. Only kill those who intend to do me harm/my family harm. Once this threat is gone--peace will exist.


Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Anyone ever heard of compromise?


In most cases, those who intend to commit unprovoked harm upon others have no interest in compromise. You are attempting to invoke "benevolent" human traits onto those who are unable to comprehend those traits. Therefore, compromise is not in the equation. Instead, remove your rose-colored glasses and see the world for what it is: a contuous fight for power, control, and real-estate.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Do you remove your enemies by slaughtering them before they slaughter you---and then live in peace when your enemies have been eliminated? Peace, like freedom, isn't free. It isn't given to you on a silver platter. You must FIGHT FOR IT!


So you go and slaughter your enemies. Then the ones you missed come back to slaughter you. Then the ones left on your side go back to slaughter your enemies again. It is a circle of death.
Wars do not end with the elimination of the enemy they end with surrenders and treaties.
Killing only causes more killing. Someone has to lay down their guns to stop the killing.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Hardly tinkle. Only kill those who intend to do me harm/my family harm. Once this threat is gone--peace will exist.



Don't you see the circular argument there? Do you think the families/communities of those you slaughter will suddenly lay down arms and stop fighting you back?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Don't you see the circular argument there? Do you think the families/communities of those you slaughter will suddenly lay down arms and stop fighting you back?


It worked in Europe and it worked in Japan. Both are now strong allies of the US. Your "circular argument" question is moot.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus fett
answer me this Roy....

worst case senario.....your trying to reason with a man carrying a bomb whos going to execute you, yor family, yor friends, your kids..etc...if you decided to let him blow every one up for the greater love of "peace and non violence" id be disgusted with what i see as a cowardly action.



Yes, the classic counterexample.

The point is that the use of counterexamples to justify 'fighting for peace' prevents peaceful behaviour.



your confusing the facts that people forced to commit violent acts must enjoy violence?......this isnt true......


I am doing nothing of the sort, I am merely pointing out that if people refuse to kill then it will stop killing.



are you the sort of person that would allow an innocent member of the public to be violentley mugged instead of having the balls to intervene?.......you make peace by fighting for it any way you have to.


If Peace was universally accepted then there wouldn't be any mugging.






posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

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!




Having said that...I can't go with the simpler definition that:

Peace is the absence of war.

This doesn't allow for terrorism, genocide or various other methods of violence present in a particular society; we know there are many countries who are not at war, but who still suffer from a violent society - this isn't peace, but merely "lack of war".



Peace is the abscence of war, genocide, and various other methods of violence"

You got it yet?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

All those who are pro peace lay down their arms and give up all ideology other than non violence.

All those who are pro peace refuse to accept any 'pro peace ideology' which includes violent means to achieve the end.

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.


So what do you do when you peacenicks are getting slaughtered? Do you just hold up your peace-sign and sing "give peace a chance"?

Or

Do you remove your enemies by slaughtering them before they slaughter you---and then live in peace when your enemies have been eliminated? Peace, like freedom, isn't free. It isn't given to you on a silver platter. You must FIGHT FOR IT! This is a basic fact of life as it exists throughout the animal world (of which we are a part). You are either the hunter or the prey.

WAKE UP!!!


Neither. . . . . you resist being slaughtered by Peaceful means.

For example: you avoid the people who seek to kill you.





posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus fett



TextOk, so even with that in mind, he is an "innocent man" in that he's completely innocent of terrorist activity.


yeah, an innocent man who just unfortunatley decided to act in a way typical of a person guilty of a crime


Wrong, he acted like a scared human being. . . . . . . and
Acting scared is only 'evidence' of criminal behaviour in a Police State.



[edit on 24-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
To those of you who deny that peaceful solutions can be used to solve problems that are more easily(?) or commonly solved by violence. I would point to the case of Gandhi. His liberation of India from the Brits was not the first time he used non-violent resistance to create change. But it was probably the finest example of non-violent resistance that I know of. He showed that when an entire nation moves together they can affect change peacefully. It can be done. But we need leaders like him.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart


War and terrorism will not end until everyone refuses to use violence.




You know, why don't you stroll over to the terrorist training camps and give them a block of instruction on peace.


That's what I am doing right now talking to you. . . . your attitude is part of the terrorist mindset and you are thus as guilty of training terrorists as any other person who believes in war.


Same old crap, packaged in a different struggle. I heard that crap in the 80's when starry-eyes told folks like me that we were wrong for having nukes, and that we should wrap our arms around the Soviet Union and give them a big ol' bear hug (pardon the Soviet Bear pun).


Of course you will never know what the result would have been because it hasn't been tried! !

Keeping your Nukes and continuing to wage war does not prove that you are correct.




What's this got to do with WoT?

MODS!!!!!


Calling for the mind police?

Needing reinforcement?

Scared of something called Peace?




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So what do you do when you peacenicks are getting slaughtered?


You do the only thing you can do which is what you should have been doing from the begining. Maintain your Integrity toward what is True.

(Don't start asking anyone about "What is True" or to prove "What the Truth is" and all that either because if that's where you're headed you're still not getting it. Trying to argue "What is Truth" all day long is not going to help anything.)


Do you just hold up your peace-sign and sing "give peace a chance"?


I'm sure the answer to what others do is only to be found by asking each of them individually so if I were you I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out what everyone else's game plan is supposed to be. Why not concentrate more on what YOUR gameplan is and what purpose it serves??? At that point you'll be on your way to "Maintaining your Integrity toward Truth" which is all you should be concerned about.


or

Do you remove your enemies by slaughtering them before they slaughter you---and then live in peace when your enemies have been eliminated?


If your goal is to kill them before they kill you, then that is your choice. However, that is the same as choosing to be exactly like those you're trying to kill. Both of you are out to get the other supported by the fact that you are both out to get each other. Ironicly, since both sides are exactly the same it would be quicker if both sides would just kill themselves and let everyone else live in peace without having to becoming the victims of someone else's choice to wage War.


Peace, like freedom, isn't free. It isn't given to you on a silver platter. You must FIGHT FOR IT! This is a basic fact of life as it exists throughout the animal world (of which we are a part). You are either the hunter or the prey.

WAKE UP!!!


Peace and Freedom are both concepts of the mind and are actually found within. This does make them free for all, but free in this case doesn't mean it is gained without earning it. This is why Freedom for one is sometimes Prison for another. A King how rules everyone with nobody above his authory may find himself a prisoner of his own power. While a peasant who has authority over nobody may find freedom in his anonymity and liberty from the guilt of living a life filled with conscious brutal acts toward his fellow man in the name of Lawfullness and Order.

Nature regards everything the same. The animal that hunts today is tomorrows prey. Nothing is one thing alone and all things living must die. Sometimes living things can become too obsessed with dying however and forget about the importance of living.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Hello mOjOm,

I just realised that I seem to only post in reply when I disagree with someone, so I am posting just to agree with you as a reprogramming move.

After being brought up with the culture of war it feels strange not to take sides in wars. . . . sort of quiet like something is missing, but hopefully that's good.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Ok first thing alot of people are seeming to forget is that without pain there is no happiness, without war there is no peace.
Secondly i use to be a person who believed war served no purpose in society, and it was just used as a tool of greed by countries to make more money...but through out time of studying especialy ww2 i have come to realise that these events that we say are great atrocities etc. are actualy the time that our race has developed at huge strides. Without these huge strides in acheivement throughout history we would probably be stuck in the dark ages.
In times of war, we seem to be able to push ourselves much harder than we do in peace. Now im not trying to advocate war as the only source of our technological acheivement, but it has been a PRIMARY source. Most technologies are first developed by military agencies, then these technologies get filterd down the industrial marktet, untill it reaches your home. I believe the next world war might push us into space.
As to say if war never happend in our soceity EVER. You would not be here stating your point, you probably would be milking the cows and feeding the chooks everyday. You wouldnt know what anti-biotics, penacilan, morphene, as well as pretty much all of medical technology would not exist. Hence causing alot of people to live much shorter lives, killing people at a early age just like war would do....

My main point is that there are two sides to every coin, where there is darkness their is light and in light their is darkness.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
It doesn't follow from the fact that there are technological advances during wars that therefore without war there would be no advances.

War is not the only possible way to stimulate creativity.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem is that wars have always been fought for peace...


This hasn't worked


Wrong, take WW2 for example, that conflict was fought to BRING ABOUT peace. It worked



Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

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.


Wrong again, look what happened after the end of WW2. The creation of the U.N which unified nations on a scale never seen before, that fact that we have an entity (yes imperfect but whose perfect?) that could settle disputes and lay down international laws that are followed by all member nations. Perhaps it's one reason why we haven't seen any major wars again.


Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

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.


That's pretty idealistic, naiive and asinine in some regards. To wish for peace is noble and a just cause, however to expect it in todays climate is rather fool hardy. I'm sure many Tribes, Communities, Nations and Civilisations have fallen due to welcoming invaders with open arms, a bunch of roses and a bottle of rose wine. It doesn't work like that, you're underestimating Man's psyche, the way we work and how instinct plays a part in our survival and existence.

I'm afraid having the moral highground and sheer number of people is no protection against a hail of bullets. Violence is almost a function of Humanity, it's a part of who we were, who we are and who we will be. It's inescapable, but as we've seen with the gradual 'civilising' of humanity we can curb violent tendencies and at least try and live together more 'harmoniously'.


Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It's a very nasty cycle, but its not without its merits.


War is a very nasty cycle and is entirely without merit


Disagree, with War we've been able to expunge such unpleasant regimes such as the Taliban, which would not have been done otherwise. Look how Women are treated better there, how they now have more freedoms.


Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It's not as easy philosophically as some would have you believe.


Yes it is. . . . just give up violence and shun those who use it.


That's fairly naiive, do you expect that if one group gives up violence others would follow suit? Other groups may see it as a 'weakness' or opportunity to be exploited and strike. Then by voluntarily disarming you'd be wide open to attack. I'm sorry but it's not as easy or simple as you're making it out to be, otherwise we'd be in an age of global peace.



Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It's obvious that most people WANT peace.


Then they can have it, by giving up violence.

Give Peace a chance!

Give up violence!

Refuse to fight!

Shun all murderers!




Unfortunately peace has to be ENFORCED sometimes, there's no other way around it. War will persist so long as all Mankind is unequal and we have those who thirst for power, control and greed.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
Neither. . . . . you resist being slaughtered by Peaceful means.

For example: you avoid the people who seek to kill you.


OK; let's see if I understand your position....Instead of standing my ground against intruders/invaders who wish to separate me from my land or country, family, freedom, etc, through violence and death, I simply avoid them by leaving? Thereby avoiding war/violence? Is this what you mean Roy?!?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join