Non-violence: A tactic or a principle?

Non-violence: A tactic or a principle?

Tom Usher wrote or added | Well, I have an answer for Max Ajl. If violence is right, then the Turks could just as well have used submachine guns on the IDF dropping onto the ship. If violence is right, then someone can do all the things to the Zionists that they've done to everyone else and worse. Of course, that's the Zionists' excuse. They are only doing back to the world what it has done to them. So, Max Ajl, when does it all end? No doubt you'll say that the Turks didn't start it. However, that doesn't answer when it ends. Vengeance can have an infinite memory. People taking offense can continue on out into the future indefinitely. Sensitivities can increase, and violent reactions can result and have.

When it all stops is when everyone finally rises to the level Mathew Taylor is suggesting. It will never occur with people, such as you, holding back.

The problem isn't in non-violence. It's in violence, per se. Your position is rife with hypocrisy.

Also, the destructive anarchists smashed windows in Seattle. The Police State was vastly strengthened as a result, not weakened. If those against the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, etc., had stuck with the King approach, that really came from Jesus taking it on the cross, those institutions would have been gone by now.

Unanimity in peace is the only way to have it. Everyone who holds out against that is, in the final analysis, the enemy of it.

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.