--- Gabriel de Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, when the Indian armed forces marched on to > Goa, it was the bully's way of getting "his own > way". Nehru and Menon applied brute force where an > intelligent solution and infinite patience were > demanded by Nehru's mentor, the non-violent Gandhi. > Mario asks: > Gabriel, Bully's way? What do you call Portugal's absurd sophistry that they would NOT follow Britain and France out of colonial India because it was an "overseas province"? What "intelligent" solution would YOU have used in the face of such intransigence? > Gabriel writes: > > Note that also a result of the Indian action, India lost her > goodwill with China, culminating in a war that saw India lose > a large chunk of Indian territory which has not yet been > reclaimed back for these last 43 years. > Mario asks: > Can you provide some evidence that the Chinese-Indian conflict had ANYTHING to do with Goa? > Gabriel writes: > > As Ethel da Costa succintly put it recently, violence is a > coward's way of intimidation, which does not require
> intelligence. Violence is an abherration (sic). And when > society relies on violence to resolve its issues, it marks the > beginning of the end of civilization. So 44 years on, Goa has > deteriorated from being a neat and civilized society to the > shambles it is today. > Mario observes: > I suppose you also believe that Iraq was a "neat and civilized" society before the stability of the status quo was violently disturbed. The 80% of Iraqis who are Shia or Kurds may disagree with you. > Gabriel, make up your mind. Was India a "bully" or a "coward"? BTW, "coward" is defined as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity." Cowards, by definition, do not intimidate anyone. > Tyrants throughout history would LOVE to deal with the peculiar "intelligent" concept, being advanced from the freedom and safety of Goa by Ethel and of Australia by Gabriel, that retaliation against them by the oppressed or those who sought to liberate them was considered an "aberration". > Mahatma Gandhi's commendable strategy of non-violence worked against the British conscience and Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violence worked against the American conscience, but I submit to you that non-violence would not have worked against Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Lenin and Stalin, Hitler, Imperial Japan, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, The Al Aqsa Brigades, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. > For those with short memories, Neville Chamberlain tried exactly what Gabriel is suggesting, and millions died before that genie was put back in the bottle. The "intelligent" stood idly by while Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions of their own people. It was Osama Bin Laden who unilaterally declared war against the US at the height of Bill Clinton's non-violent administration. Saddam Hussein was given 12 years to comply with 17 UN resolutions (that's UN, not US). > Similarly, the Portuguese were given 14 years of non-violence to accept the reality that the colonial era was over. Some people just don't learn, apparently hoping that "intelligence" will prevail. > Finally, imagine what our civilization would look like if no one had had the guts to retaliate against the list of implacable tyrants mentioned above? >
