Nonviolence as a Tactic for Change
By Dan Tow • Feb 5th, 2008 • Category: Pakistan Vote'08, Worth A Second Look • 22 CommentsI have recently finished reading the excellent biography Benjamin Franklin, by Edmund S. Morgan. Franklin is my personal favorite among the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, an inspirational example, and, by all accounts, a delightful and brilliant human being. I can’t presume to speak for what Franklin, dead more than 200 years, would say on current events, but I found profound inspiration from this fine book, nonetheless, and let it be to Franklin’s credit if anything I say here rings true, and to my own discredit if it does not.
Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. argued magnificently for the moral case for nonviolence as a way of life and as the moral path to bring change. Gandhi and King both lost their lives following that moral path faithfully. I commend their morality-based arguments, but I am utterly unqualified to add anything of value to the powerful moral case for nonviolence that they already have made. Franklin pursued a non-violent path for more than a decade, largely as a colonial envoy to England, searching for peaceful compromise that would preserve the union of England and America, so he clearly saw hope in nonviolence, but in the end, he chose to advocate independence for America, and the war that he knew that declaration of independence would bring. Therefore, he clearly saw value and hope for nonviolence as a tactic, but did not see a necessity for nonviolence as a moral absolute. For those who see the necessity for nonviolence as a moral absolute, there is little need to argue the point. For those who, like Franklin, see the necessity for change as the absolute, and who are more flexible about the means of accomplishing that change, there is still a tactical question:
“What is the most practical, best path to the change I desire, and is nonviolence a part of that path to change?” Even for those, like myself (and, it seems, Franklin), who in spite of the marvelous moral arguments do not subscribe to nonviolence as an absolute moral necessity, it may be possible to conclude that non-violent resistance is nonetheless the best path forward, at least for now.
First, a few words on what I mean by “nonviolence”:
Nonviolence is not the same thing as obedience! Thoreau’s important early work on the subject was titled “Civil Disobedience” [my italics], so nonviolence as a tactic is frequently disobedient to the laws and customs of the society and government that the individual wishes to change, frequently causing enormous difficulties for that society and government, deliberately, and by design.
Nonviolence means avoiding physical harm to those who disagree and who work to uphold the current state of things, but it does not prevent those who work to uphold the current state of things from physically and possibly grievously harming you or others who join you in nonviolent resistance! The idea, here, is that you can, with effort, control your own actions, but you cannot possibly control the actions of those who oppose you, so your responsibility, if you choose nonviolence, is for nonviolence on your own side, only. I believe Gandhi said he would willingly give his life for his people’s freedom, but he would never take another’s life or in any way do physical harm to another, and this exemplifies the non-violent approach at its absolute, a willingness potentially to take huge personal risk, knowing that you may be violently attacked, but an absolute unwillingness to do harm, yourself, even in direct self-defense.
(I am not sure whether nonviolence as an ideal prevents doing damage to objects, so long as this destruction is absolutely safely guaranteed not to harm people, but perhaps this is a topic for debate among the nonviolence advocates. In 1773, in the “Boston Tea Party,” rebellious colonists dumped overboard large amounts of tea taken from ships in Boston harbor in protest against English taxation of tea purchased in America, without American representation in the English Parliament (“taxation without representation,” a major sore point with the American colonists). Assuming no person was harmed or threatened in this protest, was it an example of nonviolence? Much more recently was a sort of “fish war” between Iceland and Britain, mainly, when Iceland declared control over fishing rights in waters that were previously considered international. I had the pleasure on a business trip to visit Iceland’s National Museum, where I saw what was described as “the only weapon ever invented by the Icelandic military” – a sort of sharpened hook on the end of a long cable, used by the Icelandic Coast Guard (the only military force Iceland has!) to cut the net lines from unauthorized fishing trawlers – this was as near to violence as the Icelanders came, or, apparently, were willing to come, in this fight!)
Franklin apparently placed little emphasis in his life on moral absolutes – he was more interested in what works, and what doesn’t, in achieving desired ends at acceptable cost. In this spirit, let’s look at what makes nonviolence effective, and when it does not work so well:
Franklin stated that all governments, even tyrannical ones, have good, practical reason to pay close attention to prevailing public opinion – even a tyranny needs the obedience of its soldiers and police to carry out its tyrannical control, and even a tyranny will find it more expensive and difficult to control a population almost universally opposed to it than to control a population largely, even if reluctantly, consenting to the current government control. Even tyrannical governments likely care about international opinion, too, if only so that their leaders may enjoy more prestige abroad, and may feel secure against foreign-sponsored coup attempts or even outright wars of conquest, which are made easier when the invaders are seen as potential liberators. Franklin made every effort to explain this principle to the English, and to explain where their actions offended American opinion. He explained how they might amend those actions at little cost to preserve the political union of Britain and America, and to build through that union the greatest empire the world had ever seen, which Franklin fervently desired. England’s inattention to that public opinion, Franklin believed, cost them that empire.
As a tactic, nonviolent protest is all about making your opinion known, and placing that opinion in a sympathetic, favorable light to the public. To make my point, I’m going to risk a discussion involving your own history, which you undoubtedly know better than I do, so feel free to correct me (as I know you will!) if I get it entirely wrong! Even if I get it wrong, or simply restate what you already knowvery well, perhaps it will give you insight, at least, into the Western view of a part of your own history: Gandhi wanted the British, specifically, to know very clearly that the “Indians” (I am using the term in the sense of the time, when what the British called “India” included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, I realize) passionately desired independence from Britain. He knew the British had a free press and a democratic government that was necessarily responsive to the opinion of the British public. As long as the British public could tell itself that British control of India was useful to the Indians, and that the Indians who opposed that control were ignorant and uncivilized, the British voters were likely to favor their government continuing to control India. However, it is very hard for such a people to hold onto their view of themselves as superior to those they control, when their government uses violence to suppress dissent, and those who protest that government steadfastly refuse to use violence in return, even in self-defense! It is very hard to place a non-violent protester in the “ignorant savage” category, or the “evil terrorist” category – at worst, he or she is simply misinformed about what is best, but surely it is just as possible that the one’s own side is misinformed, as well, and there is no shame in considering that alternative! The circumstances Gandhi faced were nearly ideal for nonviolent protest:
- The oppressive government was a democracy, responsive to the public opinion of its people.
- The oppressive government had a free press, with vigorous internal debate.
- The British people had a self-image of being morally in the right, and of being compassionate to the feelings of others, not a self-image of being conquerors, with no concern or duty to the conquered. (Self-image is important, even when it is wrong!)
- When the British gave up India, in so doing they could feel noble and selfless, patting themselves on the back for making the proper choice, even when no violence forced that choice.
Where one or more of these elements are missing, for example, if the government you wish to persuade is not a democracy, nonviolence faces more of an uphill battle, though it may well still be the best tactic. This is not, of course, to say that what Gandhi (and many others, I realize!) achieved was easy – surely not, only to say that what he achieved could not have been achieved more easily, or at lower cost (to either side) by any other means. Consider the alternative, in 1930s and 1940s India: If resistance had been violent, primarily, the British could have portrayed the resistors as a minority intent only on taking control for their own selfish, evil purposes. Fighting such a minority would likely feel noble, would leave the British public with their illusion of taking the “high road.” Losing such a fight would not feel noble and selfless; it would feel like an ignominious defeat, a source of lasting shame, so they would likely fight long after the point where fighting made no sense, simply to avoid or at least postpone that mental pain. When resistance to a government is primarily violent, the new government, when the resistance succeeds, is usually at least as tyrannical as the government it replaces, because violent resistance tends to be led by the most violent and ruthless elements. (As far as I can see, the American government, following the War of Independence formally begun in 1776, is almost the only exception to this rule – almost all other free governments have either evolved their greater freedom gradually or have followed largely nonviolent revolutions.) Therefore, if the objective is change for the better, not simply change, it seems that nonviolent change, as hard and as slow as it is, is the better, safer bet.
In the 1960s, in America, Martin Luther King, Jr. faced a similar struggle against racist forces, which he, too, fought using nonviolent means. The white racists enjoyed a feeling of superiority over the African Americans, defending formal segregation of the races and discrimination against African Americans as tradition, and as necessary and proper institutions for defense of the culture of the Southern states. As African American protesters stoically, nonviolently accepted abuse from police and others, being knocked down with fire-hoses, or attacked by large police dogs, on film shown on the evening news, it became harder and harder for the white racists to claim the moral high ground, and they ultimately lost. Today, there are still all too many racists in America, deep in their hearts, but few are proud of their racism, and few would openly claim the moral high ground, and as a result, racist laws and formally racist institutions have been thoroughly expunged. If the civil rights movement, on the other hand, had simply met violence with violence, the racists might have held to their defense of the moral rightness of racism for decades, claiming (wrongly) the necessity of white self-defense as a basis for racial oppression.
There is much comment, in the pages of The Pakistani Spectator and elsewhere, about Americans controlling the world. (See my earlier post on this subject, if you missed it.) The idea seems to be that if America would simply back away from manipulating the rest of the world, wonderful things would result, and I quite agree that America has stuck its nose into more than we ought to, much to my personal regret. For those who want to change American intentions and actions, I would humbly suggest, however, that the tactic of nonviolence is especially attractive: Americans hate to be beaten in a fight! They hate the idea of backing off a course that was morally right, simply because it proved too costly. Take away Americans’ notion that their course is right and noble, however, and make us feel ashamed of our leaders’ choices, and our stubbornness is altogether undermined. There is an American saying: “Never hit a man when he is down!” The American public, and the American press, will eagerly rally behind American soldiers in a two-way fight, with violence on both sides, but we have no stomach at all for wholly one-sided oppression that is obviously unfair to the oppressed. (This is not to say that such one-sided oppression by America never happens, when it can be hidden, but it tends to be corrected when it becomes widely, publicly known.)
In less than a year, thank heavens, we will have a new American president. That president will almost surely be either Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, or John McCain. Clinton and Obama have no love of the current mess in Iraq, or of other such American-sponsored adventures, and they have committed to an orderly withdrawal. McCain is more ambiguous about the virtue of the Iraq war, although he agrees that it has been horribly mishandled by Bush in its execution. He is evidently a man of honor, though, who, however misguided, wants to do the right thing for both America, and for Iraq. Like Clinton and Obama, I think, McCain has no wish to oppress for selfish American benefit, and even he would very happily leave Iraq if the Iraqis expressed the wish clearly and nonviolently. All three, however, will find it hardest to leave Iraq if the fighting there goes really badly – the pro-war “hawks” will call them wimps, cowards, and worse, if they leave Iraq in a mess, retreating from heavy, active fighting, even where that is the right choice, regardless, but all will call them wise if they leave an Iraq that simply and clearly requests our departure on nonviolent terms. Do I expect the violent resistance in Iraq or other places currently undergoing violence to suddenly “see the light” and embrace nonviolence because of the feeble influence of my blogging, and because of my little argument that doing so would likely achieve their objectives faster than continued violence? No, surely, sadly, I do not expect this! Even if every fighter read a far more eloquent argument than my best, I wouldn’t realistically expect more than a fraction to change their minds, and unfortunately while it takes great numbers to agree on an objective to achieve nonviolent change (and this is one of the virtues of nonviolence!), it only takes a small minority of bloody-minded fanatics to maintain a counter-productive, violent movement that hurts everyone, and even harms its own cause. My hope is that the next president of the US will manage to leave Iraq in spite of, not because of, the violence that will likely continue, there, violence that will make it harder, politically, to leave, not easier.
Still, as a soldier in the war of ideas, I hope to do some feeble good with my little argument – if I persuade just one person of the fact that violence is simply a poor tactic, even if it is defensible morally, when nonviolence would achieve some political objective more effectively, I would consider my time very well spent.
Trackback URL
|
|
|
Goodness me, either you are very naive or you are telling a blatant lie, or you are simply living in a cave. When you say that US public only rally behind two-way war, then what do you think is happening in Palestine?
Don’t you feel anything for those people, who spilled over in Egypt when Israel closed down every avenue of life over them?
What really is it that compels that smug American public to rally behind Israel?
Ok, all of you living in Iraq and Afghanistan, just sit their on your asses like ducks and smile, as Uncle Sam pounds tons and tons of daisy cutters over you.
I often wonder how we make contradictory statements like ‘Destroy evildoers’ when a famous quote says that non-violence is the greatest virtue.
Issues in India that often result in violence, such as caste-based discrimination, poverty, religious intolerance and ethnic conflicts, cannot be sorted out in a vacuum. These issues must be placed at the center of any government that is interested in promoting India as a rapidly developing nation. For these issues to become the focal point of a political agenda, the government of India must honestly seek to create an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, two basic values that promote non-violence. It is only a country that promotes non-violence within its boundaries that can advocate the same beyond its borders. I am glad you mentioned Gandhi, he is needed at this time in India.
Dan, first time after reading your article, I have mixed feelings. I wholeheartedly agree with your notion that non-violence is the best tactics. I agree. You tell us about US pubic and how it supports their troops if they are combating some evil terrorists. I agree.
The thing which irks me is that you never mentioned the name of “Mohammad Ali Jinnah”, the founder of Pakistan, whose contribution was equal if not more than Gandhi, and who also believed in non-violence, and very tactfully tackled the British. I am sad, you didnt do your homework in that regard.
I don’t intend to undermine Gandhi, as he was a leader of nation, and I do respect the leaders of people, but Gandhi had also his moment of violence and utter embarrassments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance
Is nonviolence effective at ending systems of oppression? Does nonviolence protect the State?
I believe that nonviolence is the method that can achieve the ideals and goals and principles of the new age.
Here we have Doctor King reincarnated.
I always believe that suffering is the most powerful force. Unmerited suffering is always redemptive. Just suffer and you will get the reward.
Do you think if Taliban just stay there and dont retaliate, then US would at last go back?
I agree with the prof that you failed to mention Mr Jinnah.
But one more point, I can’t seem to fathom the idea of nonviolence, at a time when someone knocks at your door for help, and when he becomes better with your caring, this same person turns you out of your own house, and if you want to resist this…you are called a terrorist…
that is exactly what is happening in Palestine. I don’t see any talk of going back to pre 1940 boundaries.
I see young children whirling stones against the armored vehicles of the army (which is by the way one of the very best in the world) after they finish shooting some muslim terrorists.
I just fail to understand this idea in this situation, just try and imagine this happening, in your own country, or city, or neighborhood.
I know that your intent( in your article) is good. But pre-emptive strike against innocent civilians…yesterday there was news of 9 iraqis MISTAKENLY killed by the US troops in Iraq in a raid.
What of the wives of those innocent civilians…what of the children…what of the mothers???
my friend, do you really think they will love the people who have come to invade them in operation rescue iraq? Violence only begets violence.
Lets just hope that nothing like that happens to us.
And all those who are suffering, May God give them patience.
peace
Prof. Khan,
You are quite right to point out my poor homework job regarding my failure to learn and speak of the role of Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the independence of Pakistan. It was uncouth of me to speak of my own nation’s founding fathers without learning something of yours! I was also a bit crazy to think I might use your own history to illustrate a point, without simply revealing my vast comparative ignorance of that history. For what it is worth, my limited knowledge of that history is probably representative of the view held by most westerners, where they are even partially informed, partly perhaps because of the popular, inspiring, academy-award-winning 1982 movie about Gandhi’s life, a movie that obviously presented this history with a focus on his role in independence from the British. Surely, no disrespect was meant toward your nation’s founder – this simply reveals my own former ignorance and failure to do my homework, which you have kindly corrected. It is good luck that, as you point out, the lesson of nonviolence is no less valid when your nation’s founder’s own role in independence from Britain is taken into account.
Other remarks: Please note that when I spoke of Americans being reluctant to back down from a two-way fight, I never meant that the fight was *fair,* or balanced, only that it has violence on both sides. Also, yes, I *do* sympathize, deeply, with the plight of the Palestinians, and with all who find themselves without basic human rights, and I *do* recognize that answering that injustice with restraint and nonviolence would be *extraordinarily* hard, and generally a huge challenge to basic human nature, but, no, that does not change my belief that nonviolence would *still* be their best tactic, if it could be managed. Surely, if you look at what violent opposition for over fifty years, against a much-better-armed opponent, has brought the Palestinians, history is a poor argument for the alternative of violent resistance, especially against a vastly-better-armed opponent.
On further thought, taking into account many of the comments to this article, I believe I should add a few remarks to my original post, and to my comment, above. Some of the remarks seem driven by a view of violent resistance as defensible justice on the part of the oppressed, so I’d like to discuss that point of view directly. Let’s consider several alternative cases:
1) With no proper reason, Henry deliberately attacks John or his family, with deadly force; does John have a right to kill Henry, if that is the most likely way to stop the attack? This is simple, direct self-defense, and few systems of ethics would blame John for defending himself or his family. I am not so saintly, or foolish, or cowardly, depending on your point of view, that I would fail to defend myself or my family from direct attack, and I would not ask anyone else to resist such self-defense, either.
2) With no proper reason, Henry deliberately kills a member of John’s family; does John have a right to kill Henry *after the fact,* when it is now too late to prevent the death of John’s family member? This is really two questions; should Henry be killed (is the death penalty right for such a case?), and should John have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner, killing Henry personally, without a legal trial? I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind about the virtue or evil of the death penalty, but I would say that if any real system of justice is available, justice through a fair trial is better than personal vengeance, being far less likely to result in *further* injustice, if, for example, John should happen to be *wrong* about who killed his family member.
3) Henry *accidentally* kills an innocent member of John’s family; does John have a right to kill Henry after the fact, when it is now too late to prevent the death of John’s family member, and when it was never Henry’s intent to do anything wrong? Members of the US armed forces realize that they can face very serious legal charges if they knowingly kill innocent civilians, or if they issue improper orders that lead to such innocent deaths. Soldiers and military leaders have very much to lose, and nothing to gain, by such actions, so I expect that the recent tragedy involving the 9 Iraqis, mentioned above, was a case such as this, a tragic, unintended mistake. In response to Mr. Zuberi, I would say that of course, I do not expect such a mistake to be rewarded with love from the victim’s families. As it happens, I am not entirely unfamiliar with how such family members must feel, because my own father was killed, in 1986, by another person’s mistake. No, I did not love the individual responsible, but I also did not seek revenge. The person responsible faced significant consequences for her negligence, as was proper, but she did not face death. I do realize, though, that in my situation the tragedy was likely easier to handle rationally than it would be in the midst of armed occupation of my country.
4) Henry kills an innocent member of John’s family. John cannot get anywhere near Henry, and in fact has no idea of exactly which individual is to blame for his family member’s death; does John have the right to find and kill someone who works in the same organization as Henry, or who shares Henry’s nationality, or who wears a similar uniform? Here, I hope you agree, all possibility of personal justice has vanished! John’s unfortunate victim, if John takes such revenge, is personally as innocent as John’s family member was! John’s victim is *also* someone’s family member, and, as Mr. Zuberi puts it, (and here I surely agree!): “Violence only begets violence.” In the case of the US in Iraq, all I am saying is this: America is far, far better armed. If we are purely, heartlessly evil, and have purely evil motives, with no concern for international opinion, Iraq has no chance at all. If we are not purely evil (as I submit), America must eventually withdraw, and since (I agree!) “Violence only begets violence,” violent resistance only makes it *harder* for America to withdraw, as Americans, too, seek misguided “justice” for their *own* fallen sons and daughters. (In fact, the whole Iraq mess can be described as a giant example of this Case #4, as Bush sought vengeance for the fallen sons and daughters of 9/11, but Bush was unable to locate those responsible, so instead he went after Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government and military, because he saw them as belonging to the same general *group* as the murderers of 9/11!) I hope with all my heart that the next president of the US has the wisdom and strength to withdraw *whether or not* violence diminishes in Iraq, proving that occasionally the cycle of violence *can* be broken; I am simply saying that such violence, while understandable surely in cases where someone has tragically, personally lost a loved one, does not help *either side* at all, and leads to no sort of personal justice, only more murder of more innocents!
Now I admit that there is really a tragic fifth case, where two sides are truly at war, and justice is simply a luxury that neither side chooses or can afford. When the French resistance fought the Nazis, in occupied France, it was such a case. Defeating the Nazis at any cost, including the murder of millions of poor German soldiers who likely bore no personal responsibility for the war, was necessary. The Nazis had no self-image as merciful bringers of justice, only as the master race taking the world that was rightfully theirs to take. Except in the narrowest tactical sense, they had no concern for their international image. They surely had no free press and no democracy, only ruthlessly false, calculated propaganda. Nonviolent resistance would not have changed their minds, as apparently even Gandhi acknowledged. It is also true that the French resistance was not a futile gesture against an overwhelming enemy force; the resistors were backed up by allied force that was strong enough to beat the Nazis in the end. Even if you believe (as I do *not*) that the Iraqi government that does *not* favor resistance is completely illegitimate, and that Iraqis have some moral right to violently resist as an act of ongoing war, as the French resisted the Nazis, is it a sensible tactic, or just pointless, counterproductive bloodshed in a battle that can only be won in the hearts and minds of international and American publics, a battle that could be better fought with nonviolent resistance?
Dear Daniel (I assume Dan is short for that), come on, you are my favorite writer here on TPS, and you need not to get somewhat dejected by it. Actually we Pakistanis are very touchy about certain things (or perhaps all things
), I beg your pardon, If I made you feel bad. Please accept my apologies, and please please dont stop writing. I admit I went overboard, and your subsequent comments have endorsed my view that you are one good man with clarity of vision.
If we apply your logic on the current Iran-US confrontation, then what would happen? Iran persistently is claiming that its nuclear program is just for power purposes and not to make nukes, while US is hell bent on threatening Iran and insisting on Iran’s nefarious designs, so what should Iran do?
If Iran keeps on saying that no Uncle Sam we will not make atomic bomb, and will just produce energy, and Uncle gets more and more enraged and then attack Iran, then will US public rally behind innocent people of Iran?
I have read the whole article two times, and then comments, and I am mesmerized as how well you have put your point across Mr. Tow. That’s amazing. Yes, you do missed Jinnah, but then you werent discussing who did what in independence of subcontinent. We should be giving more room for the arguments. Cheers everyone.
This article compelled me to read your other works here, and I am, yes, mesmerized by the depths of these blog posts. They are the best.
regards
Lt. Gen (retd) Qazi Ashraf
Let them attack us, they attacked us on 9/11, and see how we have crushed them and still crushing them. Violence or no violence, evil is evil, and it should be dealt with Iron hands. No more philosophy is needed.
While liberal and progressive leaders generally remained mum, waiting for the facts to emerge, conservative leaders, pundits and bloggers rattled sabers; threatened various ethnic groups, religions and countries; promised more of the same US/British military surges, while doves in them tells the poor victims to suffer in silence.
Mr. Tow,
first of all, I am really extremely sorry to hear/read of your father. I can perfectly well imagine how an incident like this may have affected you emotionally.
Secondly, in favour of intellectual dialogue, I am willing to answer your response.
“Some of the remarks seem driven by a view of violent resistance as defensible justice on the part of the oppressed, so I’d like to discuss that point of view directly.”
I don’t know about the others, but what of this view, that instead of talking about the options of the oppressed, why not talk of why in the world are they oppressed?
Mr. Bush as you yourself say that
“Bush sought vengeance for the fallen sons and daughters of 9/11, but Bush was unable to locate those responsible, so instead he went after Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government and military, because he saw them as belonging to the same general *group* as the murderers of 9/11!)”
I am just saying that it is but natural for these people to react. Nonviolence can be started, but what will it acheive. If they (US) were not right in coming to the Iraqi soil in the first place, then the thinking in the minds of affectees won’t be as simple as simply henry killed john’s family member deliberately.
Then, the scenarios you gave
that if Henry killed John’s brother deliberately…..then John would be justified in killing Henry ?
I think he should be given to the proper authorities. But in the US - IRAQ case which authorities?
Secondly, by mistake: well even then he is responsible for the consequences after a fair trial. But, I don’t see that being carried out in the above mentioned case.
Thirdly, if he doesnt know who henry is and cant go near him, takes vengeance on an innocent individual. The facts here do not correlate, how; i shall tell you
Fact 1: Firstly they are wrong to have come to iraq.
Fact 2: Secondly, it is not an individual who is targeting, but a whole force of allies.
Fact 3: Thirdly, the targeted is not one single entity, they are a group of people, who are not civilians.
Fact 4: Fourthly, the mistakes have not just occurred once or twice, they are numerous.
When there is no justification of an occupation, and still there are mistakes being made, I dont think there is any point in carrying out any kind of movement, regardless of violence or not.
In my opinion, these are barberous acts, and there is no reason for continuing them whatsoever.
killing of innocent civilians is condemnable by all means, but saying this that they should just stop reacting to another barberous act which took place first and is still continuing , i don’t quite swallow this, and I am quite sure you agree with me .
If you have seen the documentary on 9/11 by a few physics teachers, I am sure you have doubts in your mind as I have as how could these things have happend with so much precision. I have not as yet heard of any fair trial taking place for that….as the prime suspects turned to terrorists and now the term is joining with extremist and fundamentalists, are nowhere to be found.
I am in favour of non violence movment, but isn’t it asking a bit too much from those oppressed?
the first rule to a peaceful arguement is to agree to disagree.
No hard feelings I hope.
peace
Mr. Dave’s comments are …well beyond my comprehension in light of the ongoing topic.