Syria's protests have escalated.

[earth_as_one]

Of course Ghandi was hostile. Ghandi successfully waged non-violent resistance against British colonial rule. He didn't just politely ask the British to leave. He forced them to leave. Ghandi embarrassed and shamed the British by exposing their injustice, oppression and cruelty. He also hit them where it hurt. In their pocket books with general strikes, until staying in India cost the British more than they profited. These are all non-violent acts of hostility and aggression.

 

[CDNBear]

Of course Ghandi was hostile. Ghandi successfully waged non-violent resistance against British colonial rule. He didn't just politely ask the British to leave. He forced them to leave. Ghandi embarrassed and shamed the British by exposing their injustice, oppression and cruelty. He also hit them where it hurt. In their pocket books with general strikes, until staying in India cost the British more than they profited. These are all non-violent acts of hostility and aggression.

Your advocacy of electronic warfare, negates any moderate application of the word hostile. As it relates to pacifism and the works of Ghandi.

General strikes, sit ins, peaceful marches, and hunger strikes, are not hostile. They are passive opposition and resistance. Ghandi was the antithesis to hostility.

The only people that viewed his actions as hostile, were the British of the day.

You're still out to lunch.

These are all non-violent acts of hostility and aggression.

Using the word aggression to describe anything Ghandi did in the freeing of India, is an insult to what the man became and his very legacy.

You should be ashamed.

 

[darkbeaver]

DB,

Why would you think that because I'm against Syria's absolute dictator, that I'd be supportive of Saudi or Bahraini monarchies? Wouldn't it make more sense to expect that since I consistently favor the right of people to choose their own leader by free and fair elections, that I'd oppose these absolute governments?

BTW, I am aware of Bahrain's brutal crackdown on government protestors. I also support Bahraini anti-government protestors. However I don't support the violent overthrow of any government. I think a general strike and non-cooperation is the most effective way to achieve change without violence. Support for non-violence resistance to oppression and injustice doesn't have to be overt all the time, especially when overt help would increase the risk of government retribution. I support arming Bahrainis with smart satellite phones too, just like Syrians and Palestinians. With today's technology, oppressive governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel... should not be able to hide the truth of their cruelty from the world. In the case of Syria and Libya, the MSM is more than willing to show the images. In countries which are friendly to the West, less so.

I am aware that accused spies can be executed, even if they act non-violently. Resistance in any form against these governments can have lethal consequences. Which means that people who use non-violent methods (like documenting the violence) to overthrow their oppressive governments are taking a hell of a risk. I'm not sure I would be that brave.

We simply have a difference of perspective I bet. I think things are very much farther advanced than you do. You're thinking of conducting fair and democratic elections as a cure and the fertilizer for the incremental rise of greater equality globally I bet, while I'm thinking of suppressing the democracy suppressing agencies which to date are far ahead of the pack, and I do mean hungry desperate pack. We will never succeed using the non violent approach with the worlds ruling hierarchy of psychopaths. They will always step up to the plate and make the tough decisions.

 

[EagleSmack]

If they have to then all their promises to any Syrian is bogus and any reports coming from Syria through them would contain false information, that about cover it? For once we agree.

.

Actually... I was mocking your dumb question by use of sarcasm.

 

[MHz]

Actually... I was mocking your dumb question by use of sarcasm.

I am shocked at that revelation. For clarity, do spies lie and is there a spy handbook that promotes 'deny, deny, deny' as it's backbone theme?
One would think a spy would only have to show some vids of 'life back home' to promote a change that is wanted by the spy, if the intention 'we' are told when 'we' indirectly all the expenses for all the spies. One would think we educated them too much in that they do not know to not lie to the 'master'. I doubt the sentence is 1/2 the usual for a 'double agent'.

The proof for change would be showing Libyans and Syrians that 'we' provide a better life for all the citizens than what they were getting. Flat-out, Syria must have been toeing the line for the last 4 decades or they would have gone before Iraq and Libya. The STL is a perfect way that her enemies have subverted her even though she kept her nose out of others affairs. What was it, 5 years after the false witnesses were paraded around that the truth got exposed showing that Syria had nothing to do with the assassignation in question. That is how the side with spies likes to play yet they jump and yell and whine that those tactics should not be used against it as a form of warfare when you have 'no army'. NATO type spies go around bombing the ones they are 'said to be protecting' just to 'create' a need for 'the military to be in charge' rather than attacking the military forces directly (prior to years of sanctions). The common term is 'chicken-hawk'.

In an sarcastic way a true twist of fate would have enemies of America doing covert activities inside America to put the 'die-bold hackable voting machines' back to working in a truly accurate way so the true votes are the ones that stood at the end of the counting. As it is all that oil is going to go to China at a reduced price as they will supply all the modern upgrades that bring Iran into the 22nd century by the time it is completed. Too bad the need for upgrades every 10 years (built in obsolesce) will be part of the fine-print that is automatically built into 'treaty given to the defeated' when requesting 'state of the art supplies'. Rothschild Banks already own the 'money supply', printing with different ink hasn't sent them off into never-never-land. That should be ironic but it isn't, having the Vatican (truly) come to the rescue certainly would be once claim the money supply and then spread it out to all people and then hold up their hands and call a truce thereby stopping the Rothschild exiles from being able to mount, well anything other than the rail leaving Dodge. What is 97% of $500T as that would be the amount crossing the collection plate (in reverse as it is full when being handed to the 'flock' and empty when it comes back to the Priests and their certified-accountant wives). That would stay in permanent circulation, that is the only solution the WEST has to avert becoming the 1st 5th world nation.

The (extra) paranoia these days is from the (same) Bankers getting through their 5th century of being the 'Empire in Charge'.

We simply have a difference of perspective I bet. I think things are very much farther advanced than you do. You're thinking of conducting fair and democratic elections as a cure and the fertilizer for the incremental rise of greater equality globally I bet, while I'm thinking of suppressing the democracy suppressing agencies which to date are far ahead of the pack, and I do mean hungry desperate pack. We will never succeed using the non violent approach with the worlds ruling hierarchy of psychopaths. They will always step up to the plate and make the tough decisions.

Get a 'message' to the Bankers that makes them believe it is better to have no money in their own pockets at the end of every global fiscal year. ie Canada would get a 'rebate cheque' for $34B instead of a bill for that same amount under the title of 'usury'.
Seriously how hard would that be to type in on the 'right keyboard'?

 

[earth_as_one]

hostile
Adjective: Unfriendly; antagonistic.

CB: How would you describe Gandhi's relations with British Colonial authorities?
Friendly and cooperative?

Cyber sabotage can be non-violent provided no one is hurt or injured, just like a general strike or a boycott.

 

[MHz]

hostile
Adjective: Unfriendly; antagonistic.

CB: How would you describe Gandhi's relations with British Colonial authorities?
Friendly and cooperative?

Cyber sabotage can be non-violent provided no one is hurt or injured, just like a general strike or a boycott.

I was hoping a few minutes would give you time to re-think your post about 'the validity of spies in a democratic world'.

Democracy is supposed to be a 'transparent' Government that is 'free from subversive influence'. To 'send in spies' already means what you want is not democratic, it is demonic instead and the nation being invaded should fight you tooth and nail to the last man, woman, and child because with the need for spies come the clear message, no matter what is said ' your extermination' is the goal of the spies when they come visiting.

Hard to promote America as 'the solution' when every American/Canadian city has a slum, why should anybody bhe promoting that as being better than what Syria has been like lately (with spies being sent against them).

Now you are promoting things that affect the economy as being 'fair and legal' when only one side can apply that means and Gaza is the best example of that being applied today. Obviously we know which side of the fence you want to live on, no big surprise.
Perhaps your Gaza will be 250M instead of 1.5M and when no one cares for your plight you might want to reconsider the use of subversion in the same sentence as 'honor and truth' which is what you claim to be running on.

Why would you think that because I'm against Syria's absolute dictator, that I'd be supportive of Saudi or Bahraini monarchies?

That post was from me. Why Syria, aren't there other dictators in the world that are treating their citizens worse?(prior to recent riots) The world tolerates absolute dictators, the Shaw of Iran was accepted at the UN (no idea if he was or not really, lol), Egypt was given a bonus every year for having the same 'absolute dictator'. A level playing field means just that, if one is bad then they are all bad (to a degree, JFK would have made a great dictator if having 40 years of absolute power and he remained 'open about government conduct' and concerned that the banks did not rob the people, which they have since they killed him. Any revolt today would just be plan 'b' being implemented.

Wouldn't it make more sense to expect that since I consistently favor the right of people to choose their own leader by free and fair elections, that I'd oppose these absolute governments?

You don't see 'spies' as being a 'conflict to the implementation of "the right of people to choose their own leader by free and fair elections". Spies do not come from across the road or across the Province, they come from other Nations, if that is no longer a big deal everybody should get on the band-wagon. If everybody snitches on each other at the same time the economy will be helped, both by the rewards and by the prisoners that get to be looked after while getting 3 meals a day, ..... what memo? Sorry that is 1 meal every 3 days.

BTW, I am aware of Bahrain's brutal crackdown on government protestors. I also support Bahraini anti-government protestors.

Okay, since you didn't mention it then having another Nation 'donate tanks (and drivers) to help the 'dick-in-charge' subdue protests is quite fine for the Gov to do. So far you have just given Syria the right to pull out tanks against the protestors and you support them having the right to be be shot by those same tanks, that's pretty NATO of you.

However I don't support the violent overthrow of any government.

Even a violent Government? Seems like the UN likes giving the go-ahead for all sorts of expensive and long lasting operations in the Mid-East area. Did the UN come to Iran's rescue in the coup of 1953? If not, why not, the proper courts should have been hungry by then.

I think a general strike and non-cooperation is the most effective way to achieve change without violence.

How about adopting the attitude that it is none of their business as everybody has signed the same documents. Why has that court been almost empty for 50 years? If you want the true story on Syria today you have to at least get a preview of how they were set-up in the assassination at the center of the STL. The same players involved should not be above suspicion in the events happening theses years, that is how those players operate, that isn't saying they are any good at it or that they can see all the 'blow-back'.

Support for non-violence resistance to oppression and injustice doesn't have to be overt all the time, especially when overt help would increase the risk of government retribution.

It shouldn't be overt any of the time. As soon as you need to lie to get the truth across you lose doing that. Another bull**** term is 'have to be lied to for their own good'. Only liars would ever promote that, ask the 'intended victim' instead. The floor of the UN should be one of the noisiest places on the planet every Monday morning (international level) just a bigger version of any mayor's office with each nation being a sub-burb.

I support arming Bahrainis with smart satellite phones too, just like Syrians and Palestinians.

Who has been identified, charged, arrested and sentenced via those devices? If things are above board why not 'bug' all the Government/Military phones rather than just the protestors. It is like investigating only one side in an argument that really is a life and death struggle for some.

With today's technology, oppressive governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel... should not be able to hide the truth of their cruelty from the world.

I agree, all politicians, business owners and bankers should be tracked with a mic and location beacon 24/7. Anything said will be examined by somebody sometime somewhere. That would show us 'peons' that there is nothing to fear, a faster trial system would seem to also be needed.

In the case of Syria and Libya, the MSM is more than willing to show the images. In countries which are friendly to the West, less so.

Shouldn't that really be the task of an honest NGO group, we used to call them watch-dog societies, school students and retired professionals donating their time and being published when they did find some proof of wrong doing then the justice dept took over the prosecution. See how that doesn't work today?

I am aware that accused spies can be executed, even if they act non-violently.

Like pull the trigger themselves?

Resistance in any form against these governments can have lethal consequences.

So how should the people of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia go about getting what they want when facing tanks didn't work out so well?

Which means that people who use non-violent methods (like documenting the violence) to overthrow their oppressive governments are taking a hell of a risk.

How about the ones shoot a soldier to get it 'out of hand' where they would kill 'members of their own side' to make sure they got away from the area safely? Think they should even be there?

I'm not sure I would be that brave.

It's not like most of them had to travel to get to the riot.

 

[earth_as_one]

I support non-violent means to overthrow dictatorships. Most espionage technology and techniques are inherently non-violent. I see nothing wrong with gathering and providing selective intel to Syria's insurgents or arming them with sophisticated imaging and communication technologies. I am against arming them with weapons. But I fully support giving them the means to stay one step ahead of the government and report government atrocities to the world..

As I said repeatedly, general strikes and non-cooperation are an effective non-violent way to overthrow dictatorships.

Anyone who claims they support universal freedom and justice should not support the Syrian government.

 

[MHz]

I support non-violent means to overthrow dictatorships.

Now add, 'by members of that same nation, without outside influence'.

 

[gerryh]

Who claimed pacifists can't be hostile?

Pacifists are hostile toward war and violence and as a result, those who start wars or commit acts of violence. We just don't believe in using violence or war to achieve our objectives. We support non-violent methods, which include strikes and non-cooperation.

Conflict implies an adversarial relationship. Hostile implies an unfriendly or antagonistic relationship.

and yet you support palestinian violence against Israel.

 

[CDNBear]

hostile
Adjective: Unfriendly; antagonistic.

CB: How would you describe Gandhi's relations with British Colonial authorities?
Friendly and cooperative?

Passive.

Gandhi was always polite and friendly to the British, even as they beat him, arrested him, and so on. He never overtly antagonized them, he simply wouldn't capitulate. Just because they found that antagonizing, doesn't make it so.

Your attempt to justify your application of the label, pacifist, to yourself and your model of non violent change. By taking Gandhi's actions out context, applying the erroneous labels the British used to smear him and justify their assaults upon him and his followers. Only strengthens my opinion that your claims of pacifism and support of unilateral human rights, is fraudulent at best.

Cyber sabotage can be non-violent provided no one is hurt or injured, just like a general strike or a boycott.

It's a form of warfare. No true pacifist endorses any form of warfare.

Anyone who claims they support universal freedom and justice should not support the Syrian government.

Anyone who claims to be a pacifist, that endorse electronic warfare, is lying. Anyone that invokes the name of Gandhi and then smears it with claims of aggression, on Gandhi's part. Is not only a liar, but trying to justify their own beliefs by misrepresenting the actions of a great man.

And you should still be ashamed.

 

[earth_as_one]

Ridiculous. Gandhi used general strikes,boycotts and non-cooperation. These are forms of economic warfare. You can be polite and hostile at the same time.

For example CB... would you kindly go **** yourself.

 

[gerryh]

and yet you support palestinian aggression against Israel.

 

[CDNBear]

Ridiculous. Gandhi used general strikes,boycotts and non-cooperation. These are forms of economic warfare.

You should look up the definition of economic warfare.

Here, I'll do it for you, from a source you endorse...

Economic warfare is the term for economic policies followed as a part of military operations during wartime.
The purpose of economic warfare is to capture critical economic resources so that the military can operate at full efficiency and/or deprive the enemy forces of those resources so that they cannot fight the war properly.
The concept of economic warfare is most applicable to conflict between nation states, especially in times of total war - which involves not only the armed forces of a nation, but mobilization of the nation's entire economy towards the war effort. In such a situation, causing damage to the economy of the enemy directly damages the enemy's ability to fight the war.
Some of the types or policies followed in economic warfare include:

1. Blockade
2. Blacklisting
3. Preclusive purchasing
4. Rewards
5. Capturing of enemy assets

Clear examples of economic warfare could be seen during World War II when the Allied powers followed these policies to deprive the Axis economies of critical resources. In turn, the Axis powers attempted to damage the Allied war effort via submarine warfare, and the sinking of supply ships carrying supplies, raw materials, and war related equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare

But in the mean time, I'm going to sit back and enjoy your advocacy of economic warfare, even by your definition. Since you've railed against it, in your lengthy anti Jew diatribes, meant only to demonize Israel.

You can be polite and hostile at the same time. For example CB... would you kindly go **** yourself.

Tsk tsk, what would Gandhi say to the use of such immature and aggressive language.

Keep trying EAO, someone might actually believe you espouse any qualities Gandhi had.

But I certainly won't. I am however disgusted at your insinuation, that you do. Even in the most remote sense.

You should still be ashamed.

 

[Cannuck]

I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before anyone, even at the cost of your life. - Mahatma Gandi



BTW - What do you call an east Indian butler?




Mahatma Coat

 

[earth_as_one]

and yet you support palestinian aggression against Israel.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by aggression. I've never supported violence against Israel. .

Instead I support non-violent resistance against Israel:
bilin-village.org | Bil
http://www.bdsmovement.net/


Meanwhile back on topic:

The United States proposed an international coalition to support Syria's opposition Sunday after Russia and China blocked a U.N. attempt to end nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that violence will escalate. Rebel soldiers said force was now the only way to oust President Bashar Assad, while the regime vowed to press its military crackdown.The threat of both sides turning to greater force after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution raises the potential for Syria's turmoil to move into even a more dangerous new phase that could degenerate into outright civil war.
The uprising inspired by other Arab Spring revolts began in March with peaceful protests against Assad's regime, sparking a fierce crackdown by government forces. Soldiers who defected to join the uprising later began to protect protesters from attacks. In recent months the rebel soldiers, known as the Free Syrian Army have grown bolder, attacking regime troops and trying establish control in pro-opposition areas. That has brought a heavier government response.
Well over 5,400 people have been killed since March, according to the U.N., and now regime opponents fear that Assad will be emboldened by the feeling he is protected by his top ally Moscow and unleash even greater violence to crush protesters. If the opposition turns overtly to armed resistance, the result could be a dramatic increase in bloodshed

The Associated Press: After UN veto, US floats coalition on Syria

 

[gerryh]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by aggression. I've never supported violence against Israel. .

Instead I support non-violent resistance against Israel:
bilin-village.org | Bil
BDSmovement.net | Palestinian BDS National Committee

You're lying. I have seen you defend Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israel.

 

[CDNBear]

I've never supported violence against Israel. .

True, you simply justify and defend it.

 

[Cannuck]

You're lying. I have seen you defend Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israel.

I don't think so. I think he has said that he understands why they occur. Those are not the same things. I am not a Nazi but I understand why they rose to power in Germany.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't think, so. I think he has said that he understands why they occur.

I'm sure your admitted issues with reading comprehension are the cause of that incorrect assertion. Given the many times EAO has defended Hamas and the Hezbollah.

I am not a Nazi but I understand why they rose to power in Germany.

Hmm, not according to you. This thread made your definition of defend, especially in this type of way, quite clear.

I look forward to your predictable reply.