Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:49:31 -0400 From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There is NO need to join the 'violentes' and 'anarchists' by behaving like them. There also is NO need to inflame those who might then go on to do unfortunate acts of violence. > Self-defence is one thing BUT Violence always begets More Violence. > Mario asks: > Violence does not always beget more violence. World War - II showed us that. Neville Chamberlain tried non-violence. It did not work. After the Axis were violently defeated and forced to surrender there was no more violence among the previous antagonists for decades. Many of them are friends and allies today. > Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. succeeded in using non-violence because they were essentially opposing civilized adversaries who knew deep down that they were wrong. None of these heroes of non-violence would have succeeded against the Nazis or the Communists, who would have been only too pleased to eliminate them without compunction. > Arun Gandhi, who preaches non-violence without his grandfather's keen strategic perspicacity, has failed to bring peace to the middle-east. In my opinion this is because he uses non-violence selectively and unevenly, by directing his opprobrium at only the Israelis while turning a blind eye to their radical opponents who use terrorist tactics and have gone so far as to include the destruction of Israel in their founding charters. > Is it "joining" the "violentes" and "anarchists" by using violence to stop them, when all else fails? I don't think so. This would be making a moral equivalence where there is none. > Violence can beget more violence, if the original perpetrators refuse to see reason and continue their violence. Violence, especially when directed at innocent civilians, must always be opposed, initially by peaceful means, but, if the peaceful means only serve to embolden the perpetrators and escalate their violence, then violence can justifiably be used to stop them. Unless, of course, the victims are too weak to feasibly use violence to stop the violence against them. In that case, if there is no one else to help them, their only choice is to accept defeat and move on. This, too, has happened frequently throughout history. >
