how to end the war on terror and terrorism at the same time

H

highflite1977

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
here's how you end the war on terror and terrorism at the same time. What is required is an alliance between muslims and western left wingers and peace activists. They would use the strategy of non-violent direct action (this is essentially impeding important systems in society without using violence) as a means to force the western governments of satan to adopt a peaceful resolution to world problems. Non-violent direct action has been used by gandhi and greenpeace to great success. How does this stop terrorism? Well as muslims see the power to destabilise that non-violent direct action provides (you can shut down a subway system without violence) then they will stop using terrorism. also bush can't respond to non-violent direct action through invading. it would be unheard of. the union of muslims and the left wingers would need to have the objective of bringing peace to the world and also social justice (more money for the poor). email me if you want in on this.
 
well, it is certainly obvious that violence does not work - it only leads to more violence. so i agree about the use of non-violence as a strategy.
a uniting of the left with religious people is very difficult, but it is not impossible because it has been done before - the left working with religious catholics in central america.
but there is one problem - you are making as assumption that people like bush interested in social justice instead of making more money for their rich buddies.
however, a use of non-violence would make this apparent to everyone.
 
Depends upon what your demands are.

Letting Israel get crushed isnt going to be responded to.
Abandoning Iraq will happen soon enough regardless.

However, I'm totally in favor of non-violent protests. The police and army do have the right to break up such gatherings that are preventing vital services, by the way.
 
thing is violence doesn't work. all that happens is the killing goes right on. what does a palestinian accomplish by a bombing? the israelis retaliate by destroying people's houses and killing more palestinians, which also accompishes absulutely nothing and only inccreases the death and suffering.
if the circle of violence was broken, and the israelis kept right on killing and destroying houses don't you think it would change world opinion? the world could no longer dismiss palestinians and their struggle for justice as a bunch of terrorist fanatics. i think they would have to listen....
but as i mentioned, this depends on the assumption that the bad guys are motivated by a wish for peace and social justice and i'm not sure if it is there in the minds of the world's bushes.
is the "war on terrorism" really about terrorism, or is it a bit more complex than that?
 
this may be true, but what has the use of violence done for the palestinians? it has not helped either side.
 
snakelegs said:
this may be true, but what has the use of violence done for the palestinians? it has not helped either side.
Click to expand...

Well the Palestinians are still upset that their land has been taken away and many of their close relatives have died in combat by the IDF. I know Hamas doesnt make things better, but I think we need to be in their shoes to understand the situation better?? What is China came over and occupied America, bulldozed your house, moved all your people to Arizona, killed your family etc??
 
my point is not that the palestinians are wrong - it i simply that vioence has achieved nothing except more violent reprisals. since it is not working, why stick with it?
 
Philosopher said:
Well the Palestinians are still upset that their land has been taken away and many of their close relatives have died in combat by the IDF. I know Hamas doesnt make things better, but I think we need to be in their shoes to understand the situation better?? What is China came over and occupied America, bulldozed your house, moved all your people to Arizona, killed your family etc??
Click to expand...

That is exactly what happend when the so called forefaothers of this land did when they came over and took this land from the natives. I always ask people who support Israel how they would like it if the natives had an uprising and demanded their land back. Would they freely give it back? I usually don't get an answer.

Another way to stop terrorism is for peopl to mind their own business and stop telling everyone how they should live - like the USA does.
 
north_malaysian said:
ETA, Tamil Tigers, Pattani Insurgents, Moro Insurgents - all these groups have nothing to do with Israel.
Click to expand...

I have a question for you. You are a Malay. So tell me what is your own opinion about muslim rebels in southern Thailand and southern Philipinnes. Do you think that theey should fight on for the anatomy or independence? Or that they shouldnt use terrorism? What is the opinion of average Malays about it? DO Malays support those rebels?
 
highflite1977 said:
here's how you end the war on terror and terrorism at the same time. What is required is an alliance between muslims and western left wingers and peace activists. They would use the strategy of non-violent direct action (this is essentially impeding important systems in society without using violence) as a means to force the western governments of satan to adopt a peaceful resolution to world problems. Non-violent direct action has been used by gandhi and greenpeace to great success. How does this stop terrorism? Well as muslims see the power to destabilise that non-violent direct action provides (you can shut down a subway system without violence) then they will stop using terrorism. also bush can't respond to non-violent direct action through invading. it would be unheard of. the union of muslims and the left wingers would need to have the objective of bringing peace to the world and also social justice (more money for the poor). email me if you want in on this.
Click to expand...

:sl: great ideology:D
 
snakelegs said:
well, it is certainly obvious that violence does not work - it only leads to more violence..
Click to expand...

i 100% disagree with this.

I think for everything good to come out there must be hard work and sacrifice.

in the Quran it is stated Inna ma'al usri yusra, we must go through hardship to come to ease. A great thinker stated that "for evil to prevail all it requires is for the good people to do nothing".

If violence is done with peace as the ultimate priority then i believe by subdueing every transgressor on this planet we can achieve peace...

however if we leave the transgressors then they will continue to opress, if we try to reason then their hearts are so perverted that they will lie and cheat to their own benefit..
 
OK.

i have probably read 20 to 30 times the work "terrorism" in the pervious comments. When you have writen such word, do you possible have a true and agreeable meaning for it? well most likely not because nobody does. The term is more like rebels (as stated above) in our minds because of TV/media translation of the term.

My view: No-violence will not solve anything, BECAUSE, when there is no violence, there is always negotiation between the two or more parties and that doesn't look like it will happen BECAUSE the government (party in power) want to do everything to get raid of the opposide side as soon as possible to completely wipe out their claims whether true or false. In the other side the Opposide party know that and will do anything to not reveal itself and itself number to the government and mostly likely will not stop trying to either get the flaws of the current government visible to the people and also gain more right and pass on their believed view of whatever it maybe.

SO bottom line... Negotiations and non-violence talks are out of the question, the violence is the only thing *right now* suitable for the opposite party and we don't know how long will this continue... lastly Allah knows best!
 
Non-violence is obviously a good thing, but sometimes it simply does not work. How many lives are worth a non-violent resolution? Are you willing to allow 5,000 to die without retaliation?....10,000? This is a general question, not related to a specific situation. Should a government allow its civilians to be bombed without reprisal? All of this sounds really great philosophically, but realistically it can only work with the right conditions in place. Terrorism is not a non-violent approach, and any reaction to it will not be non-violent. A non-violent reaction to terrorism only invites more terrorism.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top