Anonymous wrote:
So you support the bombings in Ireland? Dreadful.

I support the Irish who came to America and made a new life for themselves and became an integral part of American culture.

We just mourned the loss of Nelson Mandela and pretty much everyone recounted what a great man he was and the amazing changes he brought about through peaceful means. I don't know how I could be changing the goal posts when I keep saying that change took place in South Africa through world-wide non-violent commitment to change. That's how it happened.

No one should ever win a political struggle through violent means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

His the final authority. Period.

So basically, not a pacifist.

i think it incredibly presumptuous for privileged people to demand that oppressed peoples pursue their goals nonviolently. Dr. King believed in it, so did Gandhi. But it's wrong to expect it of people who are suffering. That does not condone human rights violations, but people have the right to fight for freedom.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Where should I begin? First, the discussion is about sacrificing lives for a cause. Many people -- Americans included -- honor the practice of preferring death to life without liberty. New Hampshire's license plates actually say "Live Free or Die". Gandhi entered confrontations knowing that it might result his or other deaths. Mandela, despite your apparent lack of knowledge of the topic, also practiced armed struggle. He certainly was not imprisoned for leading a sit-in. He was the leader of the ANC's armed wing.

Sacrificing your own life for a cause is not the same as killing others for your cause. That is the distinction. The Palestinians are perfectly happy to kill Israelis but cry foul when they are killed. That makes no sense to me. If you embrace violence against your enemy, don't be surprised that they are violent back.

South Africa was not changed as a result of armed struggle. It was changed as a result of a world commitment to change that did not embrace violence.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could form a world championship team of goalpost movers from DCUM posters. Also, a champion straw man debate team. Your point was not about South Africa. It was about Nelson Mandela, the leader of the ANC's armed wing, who you believe to have been a pacifist. Like many independence movements including those of the United States, Ireland, and yes, South Africa, Palestinians have embraced armed struggle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Uhm, Oh, Ok, thanks for educating me. I must have been living under a rock

You are being manipulative. You are simply proving you are spreading propaganda and preying on the empathy of those who feel, rather than think.

Thank you! I can't believe we have to sit here being lied to. Palestinians sacrifice their own family and neighbors in their zeal to lay the guilt of the murders at the feet of others they deeply, deeply desire to murder. Then they call out to the world to witness the suffering they are inflicting upon themselves. Sick. Sick. Sick.

And this is a perfect example of the type of generalization that has reduced my empathy for Israel greatly. It's all of a piece - we must be told over and over again that Palestinians do not really value human life, so that we won't react with horror and outrage when Israel decides to kill so many of them. Either they had it coming to them or it's what they really wanted all along, right?

This attitude and the accompanying rhetoric literally sickens me, and it very much makes me believe that Israel in its current state is a major threat to humanity that requires systemic and fundamental change.

Systemic change. Like the final solution?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Where should I begin? First, the discussion is about sacrificing lives for a cause. Many people -- Americans included -- honor the practice of preferring death to life without liberty. New Hampshire's license plates actually say "Live Free or Die". Gandhi entered confrontations knowing that it might result his or other deaths. Mandela, despite your apparent lack of knowledge of the topic, also practiced armed struggle. He certainly was not imprisoned for leading a sit-in. He was the leader of the ANC's armed wing.

Sacrificing your own life for a cause is not the same as killing others for your cause. That is the distinction. The Palestinians are perfectly happy to kill Israelis but cry foul when they are killed. That makes no sense to me. If you embrace violence against your enemy, don't be surprised that they are violent back.

South Africa was not changed as a result of armed struggle. It was changed as a result of a world commitment to change that did not embrace violence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

His the final authority. Period.

Anonymous wrote:^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Not true. I don't think anyone embraces violence per se, they resort to it when everything else fails:

This is a quote from Mandela during the apartheid:

On his decision to take up arms against apartheid:

“I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” -- Statement at the opening of his defense in the Rivonia treason trial, April 20, 1964.

Another one:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

I think Mandela’s peace-loving qualities are oftentimes confused with him being a pacifist, which he certainly is not.Mandela did support violence where it had a clear practical purpose, and then favored property destruction over harm to people . And it is important to note that Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

Way to go, Muslima. Try to make the change that these two men into a violent struggle to justify your own actions. It was not. They made historic changes without resorting to violence, certainly not on the scale you advocate for the Palestinians.

Change without violence is possible -- but you don't want that. You embrace it.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Where should I begin? First, the discussion is about sacrificing lives for a cause. Many people -- Americans included -- honor the practice of preferring death to life without liberty. New Hampshire's license plates actually say "Live Free or Die". Gandhi entered confrontations knowing that it might result his or other deaths. Mandela, despite your apparent lack of knowledge of the topic, also practiced armed struggle. He certainly was not imprisoned for leading a sit-in. He was the leader of the ANC's armed wing.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Not true. I don't think anyone embraces violence per se, they resort to it when everything else fails:

This is a quote from Mandela during the apartheid:

On his decision to take up arms against apartheid:

“I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” -- Statement at the opening of his defense in the Rivonia treason trial, April 20, 1964.

Another one:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

I think Mandela’s peace-loving qualities are oftentimes confused with him being a pacifist, which he certainly is not.Mandela did support violence where it had a clear practical purpose, and then favored property destruction over harm to people . And it is important to note that Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

Way to go, Muslima. Try to make the change that these two men into a violent struggle to justify your own actions. It was not. They made historic changes without resorting to violence, certainly not on the scale you advocate for the Palestinians.

Change without violence is possible -- but you don't want that. You embrace it.

Here's a link from Mandela's biography for you and the other poster. You both are partially right but Mandela has the final word on this thoughts on non-violence and violence.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

I know you would love for me to embrace violence, I don't. You said Mandela's fight was nonviolent, and I just showed you that that wasn't true. So now, you don't have anything to add to the conversation? Yes, change without violence is possible if you're not oppressing a people and keeping them caged in an open air prison. Just like Mandela said "it was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” - Hamas was created 20 years after the state Israel was created. You don't oppress people and expect them to sit down around a fire at night and tell stories & dance!