Politics and Religion

View: Tree | Flat

Not always, but this is

Posted 6/7/2012 at 2:36:05 PM

Send message
Reviews: 16

I never said all violence is bad. I am not a pacifist.

HOWEVER, this call to violence is terrible.  

It was one thing to fight to defeat Hitler, but I think you might be able to see the difference between defeating a mad man who creates death camps in his desire to conquor the world and calling for an elected representative to be killed because you lost the election.

That might be a distinction that Libs can't understand.


Posted By: willywonka4u
Wouldn't we still be under British authority without violence? Wouldn't blacks still be slaves without violence? Should we have renounced violence in World War 2, or would it have been better to let more Jews die? Would Civil Rights have ever been won without violence? Would the Vietnam War have ever ended without violence?

Before the Iraq War began, some 11 million people world wide protested that war. It was the biggest protest in all of human history. Every protest was peaceful. The war happened anyway, and as a result as many as a million people were killed, not including the 4,500 American soldiers who died, and the 33,000 who were wounded.

One has to wonder, if those protests on Feb. 15th, 2003 had been less than peaceful, if it would have made a difference.

There is right and there is wrong. Fighting for what is right is not wrong.  


Current Thread