the Serbs, and I do not wish ill for any nation, even the ones who unknowingly spread chaos and bloodshed in the name of corporations... I would just like it for wars to stop... once and for all, for people to see through the illusion the Church propagates, through the illusion that the media and our governments serve us every day and the illusion of money. My peace is not easily attained, a revolution of thought is neccessary, with no bloodshed and will arrive long after you and I are dead.
I'm not sure what I can say anymore on the old subject. I would like to say that the world is faulty, love breeds hatred and culminates in war, and during war, love sprouts in the background, between prisoners, soldiers, the oppresed and the like. But somewhere it needs to stop, this enchanted circle that we've been trapped in for thousands of years, it is barbaric and outdated. One should realize he is not One, but All and One at the same time...My people and I have moved on from the war with
If Stalin hadn't attacked Hitler all the way to Berlin (after Hitler attacked Stalin, breaking the pact), it is doubtful that Hitler would have been defeated. You need totalitarian institutions (states: they claim a monopoly on violence) to fight a war. This is why pacifists are against organized violence. War has an internal logic and continues on easily. It's the pacifism of germans that made it possible not to have to commit genocide on them. War is totalitarian.
vis-a-vis stopping Hitler...had Germany not been wronged by Atanta, he would have never risen to power. Also, totalitarian regimes would not have happened had the people of certain countries been treated fairly. This is all guesswork, however, and war is always a failure of human communication.
@masterb8tingchipmunk Yet all wars do is make people bitter, sad and angry. This world reminds me of a child. 1 child gets hurt and he immediately reacts in the most direct way possible-violently. It is human nature, but adults should be more responsible and know how to rise above their animalistic urges.
@Bradatimrkonja It's how human nature is. We live through war. Without war, then we would been living under communist and/or Nazi rule. War actually creates technology such as radars and highly advanced technology.
Funny now the world is strongly being pacified while the U.S. is not. In the 1930s, we actually like that.
Like how Croatia was thankful of U.S. and NATO effort in Bosnia. Even when the world sat back and watched, we intervened to help stop it.
@Hperman09 How Croatia was thankful of U.S. and NATO effort in Bosnia while the rest of the world watched...srry to say this dude, but this isn't true, the US and NATO sure took their damn time during which Vukovar(which nobody outside Croatia seems to care about) was butchered, not to mention Srebrenica. Besides, the war started day after Milosevic got a visit from a us diplomat... And war isn't human nature, it's a failure to compromise and a direct consequence of man's irresponsibility.
@Bradatimrkonja If evil like Hitler and Milosevic chose to start wars for stupid and fake reasons, then they had no right. War is part of life. It's a fact we hate but we had to live with it. I know the world sat back and watched but a lot of Croatians i know are thankful of NATO and USA. But mostly it was Europe that handled the war badly so we decided to butt in. That's why i point this as an example if all diplomacy fails, then war had to be an alternative solution to end it.
@Hperman09 ...I live in Croatia, so I probably know more Croatians than you(no offense), and trust me when I say that a lot of people honestly despise the US, and the american butting into another country's affairs is just wrong... Help WAS expected, because the Serbs were the aggressors, and it WAS needed, but Croatia's own military action Oluja liberated most of our land. The only justifiable war is a defensive one, but tbh, I would sooner run than fight for my corrupted country's leaders.
@Hperman09 Also, a public vote regarding our entry into NATO was supposed to be held... it wasn't. I think that a lot of people would have voted against entry because NATO has just become a way for the US to spread its influence in oil-rich lands. Husein's wmds, Libya, do you really think America SAVED those lands? NATO cursed them to live in poverty and corruption, fighting amongst themselves while they were stealing their oil for themselves. The US is the greatest warmonger of our time.
@Bradatimrkonja LOL you claim peace yet you claim that NATO and U.S. is warmongers and stealing oil. That sums up yourself. Croatia hadn't done anything for the world expect expecting the big guy to do most of the work. You really need to understand how foreign policy works for the world and stuff. Sometimes butting in was part of our national interests righr or wrong. Because global popularity doesn't mean shit for us.
@Hperman09 I do want peace, but the fact is taht nato and the us ARE WARMONGERS. Look at the past 50 years and tell me who led the majority of international laws? Vietnam, Iraq, Libya...all were wars that the us participated in. And besides, dude, honestly, screw u, we paid our independence in blood, we didn't sit around jacking it. We had almost no weapons, yet we persevered. Now we live in a corrupt state and would be better off in Tito's Yugoslavia...ironic, ain't it?
@ReturnofMichiko This is what Im talking about, BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU CRITICIZE TITO'S GOVERNMENT??? YOU DONT LIVE HERE!! We were better off under Tito, who was one of the best politicians in recorded history, than in this shitty Republic of Croatia. Whoopdie do, we have 60 BILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT. And btw, u bombed a city, u bombed it...after the war in croatia, btw, nobody cared about that, so get down from that high throne of self rightousness please, everyone hates you for it
@ReturnofMichiko Our country is corrupt, it is debt, and nobody seems to care, not even our own damn politicans. In the end, we doomed ourselves(ofc, The US had fingers too in liberating us poor former Yugoslavs), but trust me when I say that the former Yugoslavia was simply good. Many people here will say otherwise, but a lot of my people are retarded biggots that praise the fascist Independent Republic of Croatia over Tito. In short, the sitation at home is...fucked up. cheers
@Bradatimrkonja err... srry, I meant the Independent STATE of Croatia back from the forties, that was a fascist country, the current Republic of Croatia has nothing to do with that fortunately.
@Hperman09 Also, wars are never led out of solidarity, open your eyes. NATO intervenes because it is driven by greed, not by peace. Only way peace can be achieved if global disarmament is achieved first.
@Bradatimrkonja NATO does not always intervene out of greed, it FAILS to intervene many times because their own regulations often does not allow it, which is the paradox NATO faces on many occasions, such as in the former Yugoslavia conflict. Global disarmament would be beautiful indeed, yet impossible to achieve. As long as there are humans on this earth, there will always be a power struggle. A shame indeed....
All the rights and freedom that we are enjoying right now are products of many people's blood and flesh. It is always fights and disturbance of some sort that progressed the human species. Anger and hatred are what have motivated people for revolution, independence and freedom, even though the process may involve disturbance, violence, chaos, blood and death. FFS, read fucking history.
Peace and pacifism has done, is doing, will do absolutely nothing for society.
@davidmjeong926 So, peace does nothing for a society? I wonder if you would say the same thing if you had experienced living in a warridden country (assuming that you haven't).
And (you say) rights and freedom are created by war - by blood and flesh?That sounds as mysterious as a doctrine of transubstantiation. How should any idea be created by bloodshed?Rights are ideas and of course created by philosophers and poets, by rational reflection and art. How do these fare in war? (How many (...)
@ZolotayaKoshka I'm in south korea, so I can relate to some of them.
To make it more clear, blood and flesh is not exactly the "creation" of them, but how people really achieved them. Without all the deaths and blood, these ideas would have just stayed in books, never to be utilized for people in reality. The means vastly opposite to peace and pacifism actually won people the rights we take for granted today.
Suggest you check out all the revolutions and how many people died for progress.
@davidmjeong926 PS I still don't agree with your assumption that without war "the ideas would have stayed in books". How can you know what would have happened? When the Soviet Union broke down, there was no war and hardly any bloodshed. And yet there have been major cultural and political changes in Russia and the other ex-USSR countries.
I don't personally believe that revolutions are the transformative power Marx and his followers have believed them to be. That is a myth. The (...)
@ZolotayaKoshka My argument is on what and how actually happened in history. It is more probable to say that the status quo would have not changed if people had not stood up, grabbed weapons and started fighting back. That's what happened in French revolution from Libya Civil war in this year. No bloodshed in Russia? Tell that to the people of Georgia or Chechnya. The situation has not finished there.
Revolutions are not Marxist at all nor it only belongs to particular ideology.
(...) positive changes do not need neither (violent) revolution, nor war, to take place. Nor are they really helped much by these means, because war and mass murder destroys so much that is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to rebuild.
Positive changes may often only be possible through great suffering and sacrifice, but that is another matter. They are basically hindered rather than helped by the use of aggression. This (...)
@ZolotayaKoshka What you are saying is wishful thinking. History and reality shows that blood, violence and killing has and is the ultimate way to achieve rights and justice, and stop the oppression in ample cases. Peace and pacifism has no use on the social level; these ideas just do not create change for the better, while forcing people to remain in the status quo in which they unjustifiably suffer.
Btw, may I ask what country you are from? Just out of curiosity.
@ZolotayaKoshka You mean Nobel Peace Prize winners? Well Obama won it too, but he commanded the troops to successfully KILL another person after receiving it. Do you see the paradox, or hypocrisy, here?
proud homeowner @26, paid off my home, may have a cockroach here and there , but i'm a strong woman I can take it, and at least it's mine! not the bank's or the landlords. Yeah, I live in California and I own, I don't rent. nyah, same with my older brother.
@annaslakersgirl yes I do Anna, I own my home as well, but let's focus on pacifism, I share your views on it. We need to stop letting our anger get the better of us, if we all learned to express our feelings calmly and opened up to the world, smile, maybe even hug once in a while, the world would be a better place, spiritually anyway.
yeah, an eye for an eye huh? this is why we need pacifism. Mahatma Gandhi makes a good point. What have we gained from this Iraq war? fallen soldiers. They wanted to serve the country, ha, morons! they could have gone to college or worked odd jobs like I did when I turned 18, three months out of high school I started working at a call center, washed dishes and cleaned rooms.
Hmm... He says that Stalin could not possibly have been checked without war, and that we should look at history to learn that... Well. look, then. Stalin was not checked by anyone. He died a natural death while at power, and his empire lasted 30 years longer. Then it ended... Practically without violence. If the US had followed this man's logic, they would have started a nuclear war with the USSR.
Thank God that they didn't. What this example shows is exactly that we don't need war.
IMHO those who didn't practice some form of political/military resistance have been obliterated or absorbed.The best known example would be the Silkroad Buddhists or the Byzantine/Anatolian Christians who only exerted a mild an ineffective defense against their aggressors.
and you also have to think about the lies that helped hitler come into power. war is a racket and makes money for the elite and they dont care about little people. basically what i'm saying is that for pacifism to work, everyone needs to know how it could possible work. if no one shows up to war, there isn't war. that takes emense schooling on love for eveyone to be able to understand. but instead imma go listen to justin bieber
raise of the fourth reich. i think you would need nearly as many pacifists to die as people in war during demonstrations for pacifism to work. i dont see that happening. i think the urge to stupidity and hate and anger and fighting and war is simply much stronger than the urge to love peace and understanding in this world. partially through lectures such as these that don't reach nearly enough people when mainstream media can reach all the idiots and regular ass school systems dont teach love
Pacifism does work, but you need to understand the situation. Hitler was one man who led the nation, as such, you only had to change the thinking of one person. However, because of confirmation bias, he was full of mistrust. So a more dramatic effort than 'military diplomacy' needed to be engaged, since a threat generally only confirms the paranoia that the person is already experiencing. You have to address the issues. Violence usually has a just grievance, but the target & method are wrong.
Of course violence begats violence. We are here right now in a world of violence with the sea being pumped full of fukin oil.
Many in the west now REALIZE that all around is the NAZI MENTALITY. So all that 'fighting Hitler' analogy is BS. because it never went anywhere, it just mutated into other guises.
We ARE slaves, but some people just dont realize it, and this includes many of the gullible youth who are seduced to fighting their wars!!!
pacifism is stupid, if someone wants to kill you, are you going to try and hug him? if someone wants to rape your wife, are you going to slap his arse? the fact is there are people in the world who want evil and destruction, and they will NEVER be persuaded from there evil by conversation and peaceful means. police carry guns for a reason, if the pacifists had there way society would run out of control.
that is the right question to the wrong person! If you ask a lion whether it is correct to kill a anthelope you will not get the answer you are hoping to get unless you are a muslim. A mulsim cannot imagine that pacifism as correct way to be, because all quran is telling is violence, opression, killing and murder!
One thing i agree! Because muslims do not understand peace and peacefull behaviour, it is legitimate to fight islam with force like it was fighting hitler!
It was actually over 12,000,000. Just thought I'd tell you. Stalin, on the other hand, had killed over 20,000,000. So go ahead and debate on whether or not we should kill them if they were alive today.
The answer is simple between defence and agression. No violence no agression. Those who kill for this world kill for something brief and temporary as life is short. Much better to die as a pacifist, as a peacemaker, as a peace lover than someone defending a piece of dirt, a piece of ground, a memory. Who here has the right to lay claim over any piece of our planet!!!! NOBODY!!!! Then what right have you got to kill for it!! You will not keep it. Those who kill, do not see God, but only this life
if you talking about the god of the revealed religions; judaism, christianity, and islam, and others; that deity is a blood-thirsty genocidal dictator. Atheism Rocks!
Muslim violence is against all other religions and atheists. Hitler was stpped by christians not muslims and once Hitler was stopped the agression stopped. Muslim violence will be stopped the way Hitler was.
America and its Allies are responsible for Muslim violence. Muslims are "PEACE LOVERS" and that is the foundation that ISLAM stands on. America and its war machine think it can violate Muslim sovereignty and not be contested. Wake up world. Muslims will continue to fight against American aggression and transgression until the end. We are not "COWARDS". Allah didn't design us that way. ThePlaneTruth, you are right, American violence will be stopped the way Hitler was. It will be soon.
Peace Lovers? Is that why those sand-niggers bombed the world trade center, for peace? How the fuck are WE responsible....we do not send our planes into your buildings....we don't take your people hostage. You raise your youth under the ideals that Americans should be murdered and expect us to just be cool with it? Give me a fucking break fool. You wake the fuck up.
@insaneSadcl0wn You know, with your logic I don't think the western world would have e.g equal rights for women. At the time, that must've seemed quite utopic :)
Wow people on here had the nerve to give you two thumbs down for sayin you'd shoot Hitler. WOW. I guess they'd rather Hitler massacre over 8 million innocent people instead. Evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.
@460Rowland You wrote that Hitler killed 8 million people. You are slightly mistaken. I don't think he ever killed a person. If he did, I haven't heard of it.
No - the chilling fact is that the 8 million you mention were killed by hundreds of thousands of different murderers... The thousands who were willing to kill a fellow human being with their own hands.
All Hitler actually did was write a stupid book and make hysterical speeches. But saying stupid things only becomes a problem (...)
@ZolotayaKoshka Unfortunately the healthier society you refer to doesn't exist and never will. As much I wish it did, heaven is the only place like that. Not on planet earth.
Part 2 You see, peace and pacifism takes great attentive thought, and most people are just too lazy to meditate on a different way of action. We're also very naive to think that our governments have really thought it out hard, and that they're making the best decisions for us. Bullshit! They're concerned about the MONEY, their land. You take Hitler out with one bullet, but I guess for most people, killing children during a war is out of sight, out of mind. It's laziness that kills.
The hitler argument still doesn't justify going to a full scale war. Many nations could have gotten together and had the finest spy hitmen go in there and take hitler down without destroying entire cities. Once you destroy the queen, the hive is in disorder. But America wanted a full scale war to improve the economy. The hitler excuse is a lame copout.
You'll usually find that anyone who is against pacifism has an ulterior motive or predilection for mischief.
The WW2 argument ignores the large extent of successful nonviolent struggles against the Nazi regime. The Danes were occupied by the Nazis but refused to comply in handing over Jews and managed to smuggle thousands out of the country. They also used strikes and the destruction of property as economic resistance.
I think it is very stupid to put WW2 against pacifists. WW2 was a battle of good, and evil. Not oil and money in the war in Iraq because that is the only reason we ever went to Iraq. It was not about bringing democracy or avenging the deaths of all the people on 911. Civillians in Iraq have died and so have soilders for the selfish and fascist desires of the U.S.
do you have any idea what WW1 and 2 were about? Good and Evil?? Go study your history, Stalin defeated Hitler, Does that make him good? I guess it does since Hitler was bad, and so the US who got in a fight with a good guy must have been a bad guy right? And since the US won, evil prevailed right? HAHAHA....Its kinda funny, because THE WORLD WARS WERE NOT ABOUT GOOD VS EVIL, WARS NOWDAYS ARE NOT QUITE AS SIMPLE AS THEY SEEM. Read the motives behind the wwrs and you will see...
Um i really was not trying to say that we are good, or anyone else, I was just saying that WWII should not be forced upon pacifism, as if we are hypocrites because we don't believe in unnecessary war. I am very anti-American so I really don't believe contributing to WWII made the U.S. any better. I think maybe sitting down and telling Hitler "look you really aren't helping anybody out by killing jews" might have helped rather than running around shooting like retards.
I know you mean well. We all do inshallah. But like I said read history. Do you think that the United States just got into a war with the Nazis and hitler because they did not try another way? HELL NO!!! They kept trying to appease Hitler for years and years, they gave him more land, more power, more resources, in hopes that he might stop trying to kill more jews or attack more countries, but some people just dont understand, and..........
for over 1200 years, and when the empires drifted away from Islam, and into the western/colonialism crap they too fell, This world needs justice, which is Islam, It doesnt need any hippie or pacifist crap, which stand by and watches as women get raped, murders occur, cheating/lying occur......It needs action to stop it whether the action is by law, by words, or definately by Action which can be war.
THIS WORLD NEEDS ACTION! It needs a fair and just leader, who doesnt stand for any hippy pacifist crap, and gets work done where possible, and doesnt stand for rapes, prostitution, unjust murders, cheaters, liars, and think about it? How has this been achieved in the past? Only once, and it is historically and philosophically proven, Islam has accomplished that..By a just law that was sent from God and Muhammad(s) did not stand for any crap, he enforced the law, and Islam became the best system.
like the saying goes..."Whoever said that the Pen is mightier than the sword, never encountered automatic machine guns" And another saying.." This World needs more anger, because when anger subsides, that is only when evil can prevail"This basically means that Evil will only prevail when nobody getsangry and tries to stop it, as in the case of Hitler, who trying to talk tohim, giving him land, just to try and stop the evil did not work, that is when we got angry and you can look at Europe today.
So you think that at this point the world needs MORE ANGER????? at this point the world needs joy and happiness not unjust war and blood. The saying about the pen is mightier than the sword means that you can control yourself and fight, but not with violence. I just don't think the spilling of innocent blood can accomplish anything. And yes there are innocent people that die in war, and their lives are worth way more than ours.
Oh my goodness, Did I say anything about the killing of innocent people? I don't know why you hate America and whatnot....but I dont think I said that the killing of innocents in just. And yes, I believe this world needs more anger, I mean look at statistics, 5 Murders every minute, 15 rapes every minutes, Politicians that lie and cheat for their own gains, Fornication, Adultry, LEGAL prostitution, unjust wars, ......how are you gonna stop this? By Writing a book? Are you serious....this world..
is has seen a lot of books and literature, and people but tell me has our western society gotten any better? With all the pacifism and hippy bullshit has this western country gotten any better? No, It has been put 6 feet undder. I mean when somebody says how great the Us is, they always cite stuff like the revolutionary war, WW1, WW2, Vietnam,...not the hippy movement, not times like now, not pacifists.....Because only just war and action has worked in the past.....
Also, WW2 didnt bring peace to Europe. What brought peace to Europe was economic cooperation and supranational organizations that didnt exist before the war. The EEC was created, the US used the Marshall Plan and nations were built up not just on democracy but economic and cultural cooperation. What is my proof? They didnt stay blindly in WW1 against German aggression, yet they achieved no cooperation after the war.
This is such a typical examplefor deception. The guys asks a legitimate question about pacifism instead of Jihad and violence. So the guy says "Well we needed to use violence to stop Hitler" -->So the average person thinks "Oh well if it was okay for states to fight against Hitler, violence in the name of a belief must be okay" -->Instead of having an argument he uses false moral equivalency.
epicpolyphony..cont; Although I respect personal pacifism (because I understand the virtuous intentions behind it) I think it is naive. I find it hard to believe that in a highly dangerous situation even a pacifist wouldn't defend themself because life itself is more important than ideology. In this regard,Gandhi (whilst undoughtably being an exceptional individual) was irresponsible. He encouraged vulnerable people to share his ideas regardless of the consequences it would have for them.Regards
cont... negligence. For instance in 1994, because military action was not taken and diplomatic action seemed limited, mass slaughter erupted in Rwanda killing hundreds of thousands in just a few months. Of course no one can know what would have happened if military action had occured against the militias but it would probably have more likely been war than genocide. War in that regard is sometimes a 'necessary evil' But war occurs far too much and diplomatic efforts aren't allways exhausted.
one should also consider the difference between personal pacifism and complete pacifism. I am under the opinion that, like you said, complete pacifism is a Utopian idea that cannot truly exist. However, that shouldn't stop individuals from refusing to take violent courses of action against others.
epicpolyphony- Absolutely- individuals should allways be free to both be pacifist and express why they are pacifist. Im British and in this country I believe we have progressed considerably in our psyche at societal level to the subject of pacifism. During the First World War, pacifists across Europe were branded 'cowards'. In the UK some women would hand men white feathers if they thought they were not 'doing their duty' Its much easier to be a pacifist in 2008 than it was in 1915. continued...
Every sane person would agree war is a terrible thing. But pacifism is a utopian ideology. And utopian ideologies simply cannot work because they contradict fundamentals of human nature such as anger and desire. It is why communism and anarchism are so deeply flawed. It is the naive believe that 6.7 billion people can live in peace. Despite this I respect pacifists because I believe in most cases, they are driven by good, if naive intentions. But there are times when pacifism equates to cont..
If people are capable of protecting others but refuse to take action to preserve their own sense of peace, they are being selfish. They place themselves and their sense of peace over the peace of others, and so they defend a philosophy instead of lives. In this way, they fail everyone. This is where their choice is evil.
As Gandhi put it at the first Congress meating in Pretoria: The only advantage of non-violence is that we never know which side is wrong,only history can show the truth, so by non-violence the only possible victims are ourselves. We can feel relieved that in hindsight, no wrongdoing from our side has occured and no innocent has perished.
This position very understandable.But violence only helps if nobody is left to hate u or want retribution.That's why COMPLETE German system had to be destroyed.Then it helps.Otherwise even centuries later conflcts start anew(Tutsis,Balutchis etc.)because politicians use emotions of dumb ppl.And yes,non-violence means a LOT of victims (see Holocaust),only supposed that in long run it pacifies an area/ppl as hatred is stamped out with love and respect.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principal is contemt prior to investigation."
you tube search,
Zeitgeist - The Movie: World Trade Center (Part 1 of 4)
sexdrugsRnR- Isn't that a contradiction though? The definition of pacfism is opposing ALL violence. There are times when violence has to be used as a method of self defence- so what do you mean?
I agree with him, im a pacifist, i thing its good for most things, but war is a necessary evil, sometimes, you have to take up arms for the greater good...but all evil people with an army in thier palms wont listen to reason
if u allow one eye to go blind then u jeopardise the other eye.
if u take an eye for the same reason as the aggressor then u r in fact AN AGGRESSOR. THEN the cycle continues and everyone becomes an aggressor. The whole world is then blinded.
If u amputate an infected limb IN ORDER to quarantine it, then its cool. if u like cutting your whole body for masochistic reasons ure messed up.
just because some famous guy said something and it sounds 'cool' dont just eat it
Pacifism is simply a willingness to die, and let others die, at the hands of the world's thugs,(to paraphrase an author). There is nothing noble about it. Nothing. I agree that non-violent approaches are to be sought, if tenable, but that violent reaction must always be optional. Anything else is simply madness, suicidal or worse. There is no honor or superior morality in cowardice.
I respectfully disagree with your idea. Pacifism isnt willingness to die and let others die. It is the belief that when someone takes a low blow at you you take the high road. Pacifism didn't lead to failure in the case of Jesus, Buddha, Gandi, or MLK. I believe there is honor and morality in loving all mankind (even your enemy) enought not to strike back with violence and death. Pacafist's are deffinatly not helpless. Words truly do speak louder than actions. But i can see your logic.
If it's a "NO!", on the other hand, don't bother writing me in private. The same goes for irrelevant comments that usually end-up in swearing the starters. You may want to refrain yourselves from that sort of activity.
In conclusion, would you support my action? If it's a "YES!", PM me, please. However, you should understand the fact that I need mainly ADULT people with some sense of responsibility AND clear analytical skills(!) to support me. I don't need kids. And I'd highly need some surnames, at least(!), on my Petition as co-signatories.
In this context, I dare ask you, "youtubers", this very SIMPLE (ie, not simplistic!) question: WHY doesn't YouTube has a keyword list to allow or REJECT uploading materials in real time? I don't see words like: "snuff", "fuck", "orgasm" or anything like that as their quality control keywords or something... So, it's understandable that we see so many materials with such content... on YouTube. Highly understandable, yet... highly unforgivable too.
Furthermore, I've worked for a long time in e-journalism of a social (NOT socialist!) - educational nature, and even of a sanitarian - medical one(!), thus considering myself more than able in writing a Petition to the owning company (ie, in English), in order to try coercing them via your help to be more resolute when it comes to quality control. Their portal is an utter disaster(!), for that matter, and WE must act accordingly.
I'm no fan of watching snuff and/or sexual content on such services, but I DO search for it just for seeing if these services break their own quality rules or not. And they often do... And shouldn't be YouTube a video Web service / portal for creativity? But what sort of creativity is THAT, I wonder?! It's simply... mind-boggling.
ANY kid, curious enough, CAN watch such materials! And then... what? I could tell you what happens next, but I think you already know it TOO. Let's take some FAKE snuff vids. What will they inspire some Heavy Metal / Goth Rock mind-filled kid? Murder, of course! He/she is going to KILL someone just out of curiosity, especially when under the influence of drugs and/or of alcohol!
Anyway, I don't intend in suing them (ie, YouTube and/or Google), but I DO intend in making them (ie, the YouTube's Team / Staff) LISTEN to us(!), to "youtubers", because WE've had ENOUGH of this FAKE political correctness of theirs(!) At least, I can only HOPE you've had enough of it too. And you should, mainly due to that "Confirm your birth date" / "18+" (ie, warning) sign that doesn't help us one bit.
FAKE snuff vids (I'm glad that they are fake, at least!), REAL sex and/or bullying and/or hateful content. So, I'm guessing that you already got the BIG picture. THIS is YouTube for all of you... After all, it wasn't been in vain sued by various lawyer firms ("Kill the lawyers!", right?). Now, was it? Namely, AFTER it's been acquired by Google. What a blunter on Google's behalf that deal was!..
I recommend myself as Silviu (for the time being). I come from Romania, and I LOVE this type of Web services (eg, YouTube)... up to a point. Now, what does THAT mean? Well, I hate when someone (eg, some STUPID kid, especially) abuses it. How? By uploading HIGHLY objectionable materials such as:
World War I caused World War II. Violence begat the violence of Hitler, which begat the violence against Hitler. It was the violence of Serb nationals which caused World War I, and it was the violent aggression of the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Serbia which begat the Serbian terrorism...
Need I go on? Violence begets violence; this speaker's view of history is tinged with an invalidating degree of short-sightedness.
Anti-Islamics will eventually take a step back and understand Islam is peace and Muslims are here to stay. It would be in their interest to try to get to know us rather than live in a state of fear and aggression
lol then they wouldn't be muslims. Basically you're saying, "I'd be pro-muslim if the people who aren't actually muslims but say they are were actually following the koran."
@fringeelements So you think every muslim is a terrorist, then? Just curious. For the record I said pro-islam, not pro-muslim. The difference isn't terribly complicated but important none-the-less.
What he is talking about is NOT pacifism. He is talking about apathy. There is a paramount difference between the two.
The world did not stand idle while Hitler dominated, they fought back. Now; if the world did it differently, perhaps Ghandi's way, they still would have resisted; just not violently.
When good men do nothing; evil prevails. But when evil fights evil, evil wins.
the comparison cnt be a valid one, as the british colony in india wasnt the same as hitlers regime (although still ruthless). a ghandi couldnt have stopped hitler. you should think about it more. a ghandhi also cannot stop bush's regime in iraq either.
Perhaps I did misunderstand the speaker. Perhaps Ghandi could not have stopped Hitler. Maybe it would have taken a thousand years; but one thing I hold to be true is that the only constant in this universe is change. And the only thing that can ever replace war is peace.
Pacifism is a word of belief or pratice of believing in the process for victory over war, chaos, and the state of violence. I believe this word "PACIFISM" is a delusional word for humans, why do I disagree with this word, because if Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. is STILL alive, then this word should be a faith for all humans to live in peace.
Clearly, according to this man, Islamic violence should be stopped with more violence. What are they complaining about the wars in the Middle East then?
Pacifism is the third most dangerous ideology after nazism and communism. If pacifists had ruled in Russia and Western Europe in 1939, we would live in the Third Reich today. Well, most of us (especially here, in Eastern Europe) wouldn't live at all.
And if people are forced to take these measures while the opperation and alternative is wholesale death (initiated on the behalf of on coming forces) then i choose the alternative of pickin up somthing even if it be a sling and a rock...................
every concept has its EXTREMES man thats why I chose the word ^ ^ if somebody breaks in my house and slaps my children around and threatens to kill and rape my wife while I have the means to defend my children and wife, Iam going to go with defending my childeren and wife not just sit thier and talk them to death
Pacifism, in the worlds of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, is NOT passive-ism. It implies activity and social change, for in the current status quo, peace is impossible.
The Qur'an tells Muslims to kill all unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), strive against them ruthlessly (25:52). Muhammad, barred from Mecca by threat of persecution, relocated to Medina, where he regained control through Taqiyya (fabrication, fraud), as well as by deceit and, of course, the sword. Upon his return to Mecca, he managed to gain final control through indiscriminate massacre, torture, wholesale slaughter and revenge killings.
Oh please ....Your argument argument is laughable, these same references you claim encourage incessant ravenous violence have been debunked by almost every Islamic Polemics site on the webite ...There's even Youtube vids which dicuss the verses in question and explain their context. Come back with something STRONGER
Ancient Arabic, as any language, can be translated and interpreted in a number of ways. As the Qur'an is not purely Arabic, why quibble?
"As for those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the punishment." (4:56)
"Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them at every ambush." (9:5)
If you idiots cant even translate from Greek properly which is a translation from Aramaic then how do you think you'll properly translate Arabic? And furthermore you're Doing exactly what Zakir Naik said about Verse 9:5 ..you leave out verse 9:4 and verse 9:6 because that would totally put things in context ..Such misrepresentation of doctrine is just a weak and degenerate tactic which shows the defects of your argument.
"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur'an 9:6]
Allow the enemy to surrender safely in battle. So? The previous verse is kill, kill, kill. What kind of exculpatory context is that?
You left out verse 9:4 how convenient see you cant really argue a learned Muslim about this stuff because they have read enough to know there's more to it than just selecting one verse which says "fight" or "kill" without the supplementary information.
"Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).[Al-Qur'an 9:4]
Very convenient to leave out portions of the Qur'an which invalidate your claim. LOL Next time be intellectually honest when you debate. :)
Excellent answer and good delivery. I am also pleased that muslims tend to agree with U and fight amoung themselves continuously because it helps to offset their birth rate and slow their spread throughout the world. I am sure there are many good muslims, but they sure have a bad track record for the last 1000 years! I do not believe in pacifism but I do believe in tolerance, and when it is met with intolerance I believe in violence and war.
Rational thinking people can't be radical hence I will never be radical. Extremism is tempered by rational thought. Radical Muslims are known by the WORLD t
The same defense could be made with a police officer shooting a criminal who was in the middle of a shooting spree with no end in sight.
moali68 2 months ago
I THOUGHT PRAYING TO ALLAH COULD STOP PEOPLE LIKE HITLER or do you have to kill
shoxman123 2 months ago
lol violence dosent beget violence laughable true peace is not founded by violence HISTORY shows this
shoxman123 2 months ago
the Serbs, and I do not wish ill for any nation, even the ones who unknowingly spread chaos and bloodshed in the name of corporations... I would just like it for wars to stop... once and for all, for people to see through the illusion the Church propagates, through the illusion that the media and our governments serve us every day and the illusion of money. My peace is not easily attained, a revolution of thought is neccessary, with no bloodshed and will arrive long after you and I are dead.
Bradatimrkonja 2 months ago
I'm not sure what I can say anymore on the old subject. I would like to say that the world is faulty, love breeds hatred and culminates in war, and during war, love sprouts in the background, between prisoners, soldiers, the oppresed and the like. But somewhere it needs to stop, this enchanted circle that we've been trapped in for thousands of years, it is barbaric and outdated. One should realize he is not One, but All and One at the same time...My people and I have moved on from the war with
Bradatimrkonja 2 months ago
If Stalin hadn't attacked Hitler all the way to Berlin (after Hitler attacked Stalin, breaking the pact), it is doubtful that Hitler would have been defeated. You need totalitarian institutions (states: they claim a monopoly on violence) to fight a war. This is why pacifists are against organized violence. War has an internal logic and continues on easily. It's the pacifism of germans that made it possible not to have to commit genocide on them. War is totalitarian.
ReX342 4 months ago
vis-a-vis stopping Hitler...had Germany not been wronged by Atanta, he would have never risen to power. Also, totalitarian regimes would not have happened had the people of certain countries been treated fairly. This is all guesswork, however, and war is always a failure of human communication.
Bradatimrkonja 5 months ago
@masterb8tingchipmunk Yet all wars do is make people bitter, sad and angry. This world reminds me of a child. 1 child gets hurt and he immediately reacts in the most direct way possible-violently. It is human nature, but adults should be more responsible and know how to rise above their animalistic urges.
Bradatimrkonja 5 months ago
@Bradatimrkonja It's how human nature is. We live through war. Without war, then we would been living under communist and/or Nazi rule. War actually creates technology such as radars and highly advanced technology.
Funny now the world is strongly being pacified while the U.S. is not. In the 1930s, we actually like that.
Like how Croatia was thankful of U.S. and NATO effort in Bosnia. Even when the world sat back and watched, we intervened to help stop it.
Hperman09 3 months ago
@Hperman09 How Croatia was thankful of U.S. and NATO effort in Bosnia while the rest of the world watched...srry to say this dude, but this isn't true, the US and NATO sure took their damn time during which Vukovar(which nobody outside Croatia seems to care about) was butchered, not to mention Srebrenica. Besides, the war started day after Milosevic got a visit from a us diplomat... And war isn't human nature, it's a failure to compromise and a direct consequence of man's irresponsibility.
Bradatimrkonja 3 months ago
@Bradatimrkonja If evil like Hitler and Milosevic chose to start wars for stupid and fake reasons, then they had no right. War is part of life. It's a fact we hate but we had to live with it. I know the world sat back and watched but a lot of Croatians i know are thankful of NATO and USA. But mostly it was Europe that handled the war badly so we decided to butt in. That's why i point this as an example if all diplomacy fails, then war had to be an alternative solution to end it.
Hperman09 3 months ago
@Hperman09 ...I live in Croatia, so I probably know more Croatians than you(no offense), and trust me when I say that a lot of people honestly despise the US, and the american butting into another country's affairs is just wrong... Help WAS expected, because the Serbs were the aggressors, and it WAS needed, but Croatia's own military action Oluja liberated most of our land. The only justifiable war is a defensive one, but tbh, I would sooner run than fight for my corrupted country's leaders.
Bradatimrkonja 3 months ago
@Hperman09 Also, a public vote regarding our entry into NATO was supposed to be held... it wasn't. I think that a lot of people would have voted against entry because NATO has just become a way for the US to spread its influence in oil-rich lands. Husein's wmds, Libya, do you really think America SAVED those lands? NATO cursed them to live in poverty and corruption, fighting amongst themselves while they were stealing their oil for themselves. The US is the greatest warmonger of our time.
Bradatimrkonja 3 months ago
@Bradatimrkonja LOL you claim peace yet you claim that NATO and U.S. is warmongers and stealing oil. That sums up yourself. Croatia hadn't done anything for the world expect expecting the big guy to do most of the work. You really need to understand how foreign policy works for the world and stuff. Sometimes butting in was part of our national interests righr or wrong. Because global popularity doesn't mean shit for us.
Hperman09 3 months ago
@Hperman09 I do want peace, but the fact is taht nato and the us ARE WARMONGERS. Look at the past 50 years and tell me who led the majority of international laws? Vietnam, Iraq, Libya...all were wars that the us participated in. And besides, dude, honestly, screw u, we paid our independence in blood, we didn't sit around jacking it. We had almost no weapons, yet we persevered. Now we live in a corrupt state and would be better off in Tito's Yugoslavia...ironic, ain't it?
Bradatimrkonja 3 months ago
Comment removed
ReturnofMichiko 2 months ago
@ReturnofMichiko This is what Im talking about, BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU CRITICIZE TITO'S GOVERNMENT??? YOU DONT LIVE HERE!! We were better off under Tito, who was one of the best politicians in recorded history, than in this shitty Republic of Croatia. Whoopdie do, we have 60 BILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT. And btw, u bombed a city, u bombed it...after the war in croatia, btw, nobody cared about that, so get down from that high throne of self rightousness please, everyone hates you for it
Bradatimrkonja 2 months ago
@ReturnofMichiko Our country is corrupt, it is debt, and nobody seems to care, not even our own damn politicans. In the end, we doomed ourselves(ofc, The US had fingers too in liberating us poor former Yugoslavs), but trust me when I say that the former Yugoslavia was simply good. Many people here will say otherwise, but a lot of my people are retarded biggots that praise the fascist Independent Republic of Croatia over Tito. In short, the sitation at home is...fucked up. cheers
Bradatimrkonja 2 months ago
@Bradatimrkonja err... srry, I meant the Independent STATE of Croatia back from the forties, that was a fascist country, the current Republic of Croatia has nothing to do with that fortunately.
Bradatimrkonja 2 months ago
@Hperman09 Also, wars are never led out of solidarity, open your eyes. NATO intervenes because it is driven by greed, not by peace. Only way peace can be achieved if global disarmament is achieved first.
Bradatimrkonja 3 months ago
@Bradatimrkonja NATO does not always intervene out of greed, it FAILS to intervene many times because their own regulations often does not allow it, which is the paradox NATO faces on many occasions, such as in the former Yugoslavia conflict. Global disarmament would be beautiful indeed, yet impossible to achieve. As long as there are humans on this earth, there will always be a power struggle. A shame indeed....
ReturnofMichiko 2 months ago
All the rights and freedom that we are enjoying right now are products of many people's blood and flesh. It is always fights and disturbance of some sort that progressed the human species. Anger and hatred are what have motivated people for revolution, independence and freedom, even though the process may involve disturbance, violence, chaos, blood and death. FFS, read fucking history.
Peace and pacifism has done, is doing, will do absolutely nothing for society.
davidmjeong926 9 months ago
@davidmjeong926 So, peace does nothing for a society? I wonder if you would say the same thing if you had experienced living in a warridden country (assuming that you haven't).
And (you say) rights and freedom are created by war - by blood and flesh?That sounds as mysterious as a doctrine of transubstantiation. How should any idea be created by bloodshed?Rights are ideas and of course created by philosophers and poets, by rational reflection and art. How do these fare in war? (How many (...)
ZolotayaKoshka 9 months ago
@ZolotayaKoshka I'm in south korea, so I can relate to some of them.
To make it more clear, blood and flesh is not exactly the "creation" of them, but how people really achieved them. Without all the deaths and blood, these ideas would have just stayed in books, never to be utilized for people in reality. The means vastly opposite to peace and pacifism actually won people the rights we take for granted today.
Suggest you check out all the revolutions and how many people died for progress.
davidmjeong926 9 months ago
@davidmjeong926 PS I still don't agree with your assumption that without war "the ideas would have stayed in books". How can you know what would have happened? When the Soviet Union broke down, there was no war and hardly any bloodshed. And yet there have been major cultural and political changes in Russia and the other ex-USSR countries.
I don't personally believe that revolutions are the transformative power Marx and his followers have believed them to be. That is a myth. The (...)
ZolotayaKoshka 9 months ago
@ZolotayaKoshka My argument is on what and how actually happened in history. It is more probable to say that the status quo would have not changed if people had not stood up, grabbed weapons and started fighting back. That's what happened in French revolution from Libya Civil war in this year. No bloodshed in Russia? Tell that to the people of Georgia or Chechnya. The situation has not finished there.
Revolutions are not Marxist at all nor it only belongs to particular ideology.
davidmjeong926 9 months ago
(...) positive changes do not need neither (violent) revolution, nor war, to take place. Nor are they really helped much by these means, because war and mass murder destroys so much that is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to rebuild.
Positive changes may often only be possible through great suffering and sacrifice, but that is another matter. They are basically hindered rather than helped by the use of aggression. This (...)
ZolotayaKoshka 9 months ago
@ZolotayaKoshka What you are saying is wishful thinking. History and reality shows that blood, violence and killing has and is the ultimate way to achieve rights and justice, and stop the oppression in ample cases. Peace and pacifism has no use on the social level; these ideas just do not create change for the better, while forcing people to remain in the status quo in which they unjustifiably suffer.
Btw, may I ask what country you are from? Just out of curiosity.
davidmjeong926 9 months ago
@davidmjeong926 (...) Afghan, Rwandan or Congolese Nobel prize winners recently?
ZolotayaKoshka 9 months ago
@ZolotayaKoshka You mean Nobel Peace Prize winners? Well Obama won it too, but he commanded the troops to successfully KILL another person after receiving it. Do you see the paradox, or hypocrisy, here?
davidmjeong926 9 months ago
@davidmjeong926 No, I was not referring to the peace prizes, but the ones in science, medicine and literature.
I agree that Obama is not the most meaningful candidate for a peace prize.
ZolotayaKoshka 9 months ago
proud homeowner @26, paid off my home, may have a cockroach here and there , but i'm a strong woman I can take it, and at least it's mine! not the bank's or the landlords. Yeah, I live in California and I own, I don't rent. nyah, same with my older brother.
annaslakersgirl 10 months ago
@annaslakersgirl yes I do Anna, I own my home as well, but let's focus on pacifism, I share your views on it. We need to stop letting our anger get the better of us, if we all learned to express our feelings calmly and opened up to the world, smile, maybe even hug once in a while, the world would be a better place, spiritually anyway.
lestersimmons82 10 months ago
yeah, an eye for an eye huh? this is why we need pacifism. Mahatma Gandhi makes a good point. What have we gained from this Iraq war? fallen soldiers. They wanted to serve the country, ha, morons! they could have gone to college or worked odd jobs like I did when I turned 18, three months out of high school I started working at a call center, washed dishes and cleaned rooms.
annaslakersgirl 10 months ago
Hmm... He says that Stalin could not possibly have been checked without war, and that we should look at history to learn that... Well. look, then. Stalin was not checked by anyone. He died a natural death while at power, and his empire lasted 30 years longer. Then it ended... Practically without violence. If the US had followed this man's logic, they would have started a nuclear war with the USSR.
Thank God that they didn't. What this example shows is exactly that we don't need war.
ZolotayaKoshka 10 months ago
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but two for one leaves the aggressors blinded and at the mercy of the one-eyed righteous folk.
bombkangaroo 10 months ago
IMHO those who didn't practice some form of political/military resistance have been obliterated or absorbed.The best known example would be the Silkroad Buddhists or the Byzantine/Anatolian Christians who only exerted a mild an ineffective defense against their aggressors.
4werr0n3 1 year ago
and you also have to think about the lies that helped hitler come into power. war is a racket and makes money for the elite and they dont care about little people. basically what i'm saying is that for pacifism to work, everyone needs to know how it could possible work. if no one shows up to war, there isn't war. that takes emense schooling on love for eveyone to be able to understand. but instead imma go listen to justin bieber
pictureperfect2 1 year ago
raise of the fourth reich. i think you would need nearly as many pacifists to die as people in war during demonstrations for pacifism to work. i dont see that happening. i think the urge to stupidity and hate and anger and fighting and war is simply much stronger than the urge to love peace and understanding in this world. partially through lectures such as these that don't reach nearly enough people when mainstream media can reach all the idiots and regular ass school systems dont teach love
pictureperfect2 1 year ago
Pacifism is great until somebody wants to kill you.
Renno45 1 year ago
Pacifism works when you're told by someone to go fight someone else, and you refuse to pick up arms for their benefit.
It doesn't work when people are shooting at you to kill you. Just defend yourself then.
soccom8341576 1 year ago
I agree with him. Violence is justified to destroy the barbaric totalitarian system created by muhammad.
sabilillah 1 year ago
Pacifism does work, but you need to understand the situation. Hitler was one man who led the nation, as such, you only had to change the thinking of one person. However, because of confirmation bias, he was full of mistrust. So a more dramatic effort than 'military diplomacy' needed to be engaged, since a threat generally only confirms the paranoia that the person is already experiencing. You have to address the issues. Violence usually has a just grievance, but the target & method are wrong.
SteveConsilvio 1 year ago
@SteveConsilvio Well said, friend.
crazybay46913 1 year ago
Neibuhr didn't do half as much as Bonhoeffer did to stop Hitler.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
Of course violence begats violence. We are here right now in a world of violence with the sea being pumped full of fukin oil.
Many in the west now REALIZE that all around is the NAZI MENTALITY. So all that 'fighting Hitler' analogy is BS. because it never went anywhere, it just mutated into other guises.
We ARE slaves, but some people just dont realize it, and this includes many of the gullible youth who are seduced to fighting their wars!!!
zezt 1 year ago
pacifism is stupid, if someone wants to kill you, are you going to try and hug him? if someone wants to rape your wife, are you going to slap his arse? the fact is there are people in the world who want evil and destruction, and they will NEVER be persuaded from there evil by conversation and peaceful means. police carry guns for a reason, if the pacifists had there way society would run out of control.
israelifaggot 1 year ago
@good2goski
You are rediculous!
You motherfuckers profit the best from drug traffic!
And for the WTC! I did not expect any other answer!
That is why ALL! Mulsims are terrorists! Because you do not kill but you aprove it!
You are the most primitive creatures on this planet!
Look at your fellow muslim brothers killing each other in pakistan, puting roadside bombs or carbombs everywhere! Without the west doin anything!
But stay stupid and read the most rediculous book: the quran!
malsifood 1 year ago
tell me. how did the west drive your fellow muslims to throw acid in the faces of unveiled girls?
deathstar367 1 year ago
The west has forced muslims to blow up trains ad busses ind spain and england!
The west is guilty for everything and muslims are poor victims:
The west is forcing the muslims to beat their wifes (it is not quran)
The west is forcing the muslims to kill apostates, jews and all other disbelievers!
It is simple! Mulsims are good people! They are too primitive to understand that they are missused by the west!
malsifood 1 year ago
@Wannalivelife
Oh yes verry nice way of putting it!
The west is always guilty!
Only the west has allways done terrorism!
The west has forced the muslims to fly into wtc!
The west has forced all these mulsims plane hijackers!
The west has forces mulsims into terrorism so that they can make airport securuty a mulitmillion business
The west has forced the muslims to destroy ancient bhuddist sculptures!
malsifood 1 year ago
that is the right question to the wrong person! If you ask a lion whether it is correct to kill a anthelope you will not get the answer you are hoping to get unless you are a muslim. A mulsim cannot imagine that pacifism as correct way to be, because all quran is telling is violence, opression, killing and murder!
One thing i agree! Because muslims do not understand peace and peacefull behaviour, it is legitimate to fight islam with force like it was fighting hitler!
malsifood 1 year ago
It was actually over 12,000,000. Just thought I'd tell you. Stalin, on the other hand, had killed over 20,000,000. So go ahead and debate on whether or not we should kill them if they were alive today.
watchthefaithrain 2 years ago
so are pacifists opposed to self defense too? I carry a gun for protection.
460Rowland 2 years ago
The answer is simple between defence and agression. No violence no agression. Those who kill for this world kill for something brief and temporary as life is short. Much better to die as a pacifist, as a peacemaker, as a peace lover than someone defending a piece of dirt, a piece of ground, a memory. Who here has the right to lay claim over any piece of our planet!!!! NOBODY!!!! Then what right have you got to kill for it!! You will not keep it. Those who kill, do not see God, but only this life
discreet506 2 years ago
if you talking about the god of the revealed religions; judaism, christianity, and islam, and others; that deity is a blood-thirsty genocidal dictator. Atheism Rocks!
freethinkingvegan 2 years ago
Muslim violence is against all other religions and atheists. Hitler was stpped by christians not muslims and once Hitler was stopped the agression stopped. Muslim violence will be stopped the way Hitler was.
ThePlaneTruth 2 years ago
America and its Allies are responsible for Muslim violence. Muslims are "PEACE LOVERS" and that is the foundation that ISLAM stands on. America and its war machine think it can violate Muslim sovereignty and not be contested. Wake up world. Muslims will continue to fight against American aggression and transgression until the end. We are not "COWARDS". Allah didn't design us that way. ThePlaneTruth, you are right, American violence will be stopped the way Hitler was. It will be soon.
azyiz2 2 years ago
Peace Lovers? Is that why those sand-niggers bombed the world trade center, for peace? How the fuck are WE responsible....we do not send our planes into your buildings....we don't take your people hostage. You raise your youth under the ideals that Americans should be murdered and expect us to just be cool with it? Give me a fucking break fool. You wake the fuck up.
BRavens27 1 year ago
great comment. reason is going to eradicate all of the mythical revealed religions. Atheism Rocks!
freethinkingvegan 2 years ago
I kinda agree.. but i really believe that true pacifism would only work if everyone was a pacifist. itd be uetopic.
insaneSadcl0wn 2 years ago 5
tRUE
islamicdefender 2 years ago
@insaneSadcl0wn You know, with your logic I don't think the western world would have e.g equal rights for women. At the time, that must've seemed quite utopic :)
qita0 10 months ago 5
@insaneSadcl0wn hurr
MrDonneiDarko 5 months ago
I'm a pacifist but if I was near Adolf Hitler and I knew what he was going to do I probably would have shot him.
hopkins4545 2 years ago
Wow people on here had the nerve to give you two thumbs down for sayin you'd shoot Hitler. WOW. I guess they'd rather Hitler massacre over 8 million innocent people instead. Evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.
460Rowland 2 years ago
was it really 8 million?
googleitquick 2 years ago
@460Rowland You wrote that Hitler killed 8 million people. You are slightly mistaken. I don't think he ever killed a person. If he did, I haven't heard of it.
No - the chilling fact is that the 8 million you mention were killed by hundreds of thousands of different murderers... The thousands who were willing to kill a fellow human being with their own hands.
All Hitler actually did was write a stupid book and make hysterical speeches. But saying stupid things only becomes a problem (...)
ZolotayaKoshka 10 months ago
(...) in a society full of people with an appetite for murder.
In a healthier society, Hitler would just have been the village idiot.
Evil is not overcome by killing authors and politicians. Even when they do write rather badly, and one disagrees very, very strongly with their ideas.
ZolotayaKoshka 10 months ago
@ZolotayaKoshka Authors and politicians don't typically commit genocide. Hitler on the other hand...
460Rowland 9 months ago
@ZolotayaKoshka Unfortunately the healthier society you refer to doesn't exist and never will. As much I wish it did, heaven is the only place like that. Not on planet earth.
460Rowland 9 months ago
Part 2 You see, peace and pacifism takes great attentive thought, and most people are just too lazy to meditate on a different way of action. We're also very naive to think that our governments have really thought it out hard, and that they're making the best decisions for us. Bullshit! They're concerned about the MONEY, their land. You take Hitler out with one bullet, but I guess for most people, killing children during a war is out of sight, out of mind. It's laziness that kills.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
The hitler argument still doesn't justify going to a full scale war. Many nations could have gotten together and had the finest spy hitmen go in there and take hitler down without destroying entire cities. Once you destroy the queen, the hive is in disorder. But America wanted a full scale war to improve the economy. The hitler excuse is a lame copout.
You'll usually find that anyone who is against pacifism has an ulterior motive or predilection for mischief.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
The WW2 argument ignores the large extent of successful nonviolent struggles against the Nazi regime. The Danes were occupied by the Nazis but refused to comply in handing over Jews and managed to smuggle thousands out of the country. They also used strikes and the destruction of property as economic resistance.
Prattler11 2 years ago
lol,stalin was the guy who beat hitler,the only thing was he was worse
rodney280 2 years ago
I think it is very stupid to put WW2 against pacifists. WW2 was a battle of good, and evil. Not oil and money in the war in Iraq because that is the only reason we ever went to Iraq. It was not about bringing democracy or avenging the deaths of all the people on 911. Civillians in Iraq have died and so have soilders for the selfish and fascist desires of the U.S.
pizzatay6378797 2 years ago
do you have any idea what WW1 and 2 were about? Good and Evil?? Go study your history, Stalin defeated Hitler, Does that make him good? I guess it does since Hitler was bad, and so the US who got in a fight with a good guy must have been a bad guy right? And since the US won, evil prevailed right? HAHAHA....Its kinda funny, because THE WORLD WARS WERE NOT ABOUT GOOD VS EVIL, WARS NOWDAYS ARE NOT QUITE AS SIMPLE AS THEY SEEM. Read the motives behind the wwrs and you will see...
bobjones3210 2 years ago
Um i really was not trying to say that we are good, or anyone else, I was just saying that WWII should not be forced upon pacifism, as if we are hypocrites because we don't believe in unnecessary war. I am very anti-American so I really don't believe contributing to WWII made the U.S. any better. I think maybe sitting down and telling Hitler "look you really aren't helping anybody out by killing jews" might have helped rather than running around shooting like retards.
pizzatay6378797 2 years ago
I know you mean well. We all do inshallah. But like I said read history. Do you think that the United States just got into a war with the Nazis and hitler because they did not try another way? HELL NO!!! They kept trying to appease Hitler for years and years, they gave him more land, more power, more resources, in hopes that he might stop trying to kill more jews or attack more countries, but some people just dont understand, and..........
bobjones3210 2 years ago
for over 1200 years, and when the empires drifted away from Islam, and into the western/colonialism crap they too fell, This world needs justice, which is Islam, It doesnt need any hippie or pacifist crap, which stand by and watches as women get raped, murders occur, cheating/lying occur......It needs action to stop it whether the action is by law, by words, or definately by Action which can be war.
bobjones3210 2 years ago
THIS WORLD NEEDS ACTION! It needs a fair and just leader, who doesnt stand for any hippy pacifist crap, and gets work done where possible, and doesnt stand for rapes, prostitution, unjust murders, cheaters, liars, and think about it? How has this been achieved in the past? Only once, and it is historically and philosophically proven, Islam has accomplished that..By a just law that was sent from God and Muhammad(s) did not stand for any crap, he enforced the law, and Islam became the best system.
bobjones3210 2 years ago
like the saying goes..."Whoever said that the Pen is mightier than the sword, never encountered automatic machine guns" And another saying.." This World needs more anger, because when anger subsides, that is only when evil can prevail"This basically means that Evil will only prevail when nobody getsangry and tries to stop it, as in the case of Hitler, who trying to talk tohim, giving him land, just to try and stop the evil did not work, that is when we got angry and you can look at Europe today.
bobjones3210 2 years ago
So you think that at this point the world needs MORE ANGER????? at this point the world needs joy and happiness not unjust war and blood. The saying about the pen is mightier than the sword means that you can control yourself and fight, but not with violence. I just don't think the spilling of innocent blood can accomplish anything. And yes there are innocent people that die in war, and their lives are worth way more than ours.
pizzatay6378797 2 years ago
Oh my goodness, Did I say anything about the killing of innocent people? I don't know why you hate America and whatnot....but I dont think I said that the killing of innocents in just. And yes, I believe this world needs more anger, I mean look at statistics, 5 Murders every minute, 15 rapes every minutes, Politicians that lie and cheat for their own gains, Fornication, Adultry, LEGAL prostitution, unjust wars, ......how are you gonna stop this? By Writing a book? Are you serious....this world..
bobjones3210 2 years ago
is has seen a lot of books and literature, and people but tell me has our western society gotten any better? With all the pacifism and hippy bullshit has this western country gotten any better? No, It has been put 6 feet undder. I mean when somebody says how great the Us is, they always cite stuff like the revolutionary war, WW1, WW2, Vietnam,...not the hippy movement, not times like now, not pacifists.....Because only just war and action has worked in the past.....
bobjones3210 2 years ago
Also, WW2 didnt bring peace to Europe. What brought peace to Europe was economic cooperation and supranational organizations that didnt exist before the war. The EEC was created, the US used the Marshall Plan and nations were built up not just on democracy but economic and cultural cooperation. What is my proof? They didnt stay blindly in WW1 against German aggression, yet they achieved no cooperation after the war.
zionist101 3 years ago
well said
rodney280 2 years ago
This is such a typical examplefor deception. The guys asks a legitimate question about pacifism instead of Jihad and violence. So the guy says "Well we needed to use violence to stop Hitler" -->So the average person thinks "Oh well if it was okay for states to fight against Hitler, violence in the name of a belief must be okay" -->Instead of having an argument he uses false moral equivalency.
zionist101 3 years ago 2
epicpolyphony..cont; Although I respect personal pacifism (because I understand the virtuous intentions behind it) I think it is naive. I find it hard to believe that in a highly dangerous situation even a pacifist wouldn't defend themself because life itself is more important than ideology. In this regard,Gandhi (whilst undoughtably being an exceptional individual) was irresponsible. He encouraged vulnerable people to share his ideas regardless of the consequences it would have for them.Regards
CULAVE 3 years ago
cont... negligence. For instance in 1994, because military action was not taken and diplomatic action seemed limited, mass slaughter erupted in Rwanda killing hundreds of thousands in just a few months. Of course no one can know what would have happened if military action had occured against the militias but it would probably have more likely been war than genocide. War in that regard is sometimes a 'necessary evil' But war occurs far too much and diplomatic efforts aren't allways exhausted.
CULAVE 3 years ago
one should also consider the difference between personal pacifism and complete pacifism. I am under the opinion that, like you said, complete pacifism is a Utopian idea that cannot truly exist. However, that shouldn't stop individuals from refusing to take violent courses of action against others.
epicpolyphony 3 years ago
epicpolyphony- Absolutely- individuals should allways be free to both be pacifist and express why they are pacifist. Im British and in this country I believe we have progressed considerably in our psyche at societal level to the subject of pacifism. During the First World War, pacifists across Europe were branded 'cowards'. In the UK some women would hand men white feathers if they thought they were not 'doing their duty' Its much easier to be a pacifist in 2008 than it was in 1915. continued...
CULAVE 3 years ago
and I would add to my point that Bill Clinton said he deeply regretted the world standing by during the Rwandan Genocide.
CULAVE 3 years ago
Every sane person would agree war is a terrible thing. But pacifism is a utopian ideology. And utopian ideologies simply cannot work because they contradict fundamentals of human nature such as anger and desire. It is why communism and anarchism are so deeply flawed. It is the naive believe that 6.7 billion people can live in peace. Despite this I respect pacifists because I believe in most cases, they are driven by good, if naive intentions. But there are times when pacifism equates to cont..
CULAVE 3 years ago
If people are capable of protecting others but refuse to take action to preserve their own sense of peace, they are being selfish. They place themselves and their sense of peace over the peace of others, and so they defend a philosophy instead of lives. In this way, they fail everyone. This is where their choice is evil.
argetfalcon 3 years ago
Mohammed said an "eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" words to live by, only he did not, not in the slightest.
I guess someone else must have been writing the Koran that day...
HitMeImAPacifist 3 years ago
That was Gandhi, Muhammad said cut off the heads of the infidels.
man95000 3 years ago
As Gandhi put it at the first Congress meating in Pretoria: The only advantage of non-violence is that we never know which side is wrong,only history can show the truth, so by non-violence the only possible victims are ourselves. We can feel relieved that in hindsight, no wrongdoing from our side has occured and no innocent has perished.
kailas 3 years ago
This position very understandable.But violence only helps if nobody is left to hate u or want retribution.That's why COMPLETE German system had to be destroyed.Then it helps.Otherwise even centuries later conflcts start anew(Tutsis,Balutchis etc.)because politicians use emotions of dumb ppl.And yes,non-violence means a LOT of victims (see Holocaust),only supposed that in long run it pacifies an area/ppl as hatred is stamped out with love and respect.
kailas 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give peace a chance
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principal is contemt prior to investigation."
you tube search,
Zeitgeist - The Movie: World Trade Center (Part 1 of 4)
GOOGLE>
ww w. 911rippleeffect. com
ww w. AE911Truth. org
David Icke - Freedom to Fascism part 1
mskydolphin 3 years ago
I love pacifist people. You can slap them around and they don't do anything.
DrewDawg50 3 years ago
..many pacifists believe in self defence..
sexdrugsRnR 3 years ago
sexdrugsRnR- Isn't that a contradiction though? The definition of pacfism is opposing ALL violence. There are times when violence has to be used as a method of self defence- so what do you mean?
CULAVE 3 years ago
semantics.
there are many strands of pacifsm.
sexdrugsRnR 3 years ago
sexdrugsRnR- Fair enough.
CULAVE 3 years ago
Exactly.
silentsoliloquy82 2 years ago 2
if everybody practised it.
CheeezMaster 3 years ago
Yes he left out the fact that we are supposed to already be pacifists before the start of world war II for his analogy to be correct.
But then Pacifists wouldn't have survived cannibalism so how could there of been any left to test the theory with the Nazis.
HitMeImAPacifist 3 years ago
I agree with him, im a pacifist, i thing its good for most things, but war is a necessary evil, sometimes, you have to take up arms for the greater good...but all evil people with an army in thier palms wont listen to reason
luanluan2006 3 years ago
"I agree with him, im a pacifist, i thing its good for most things, but war is a necessary evil, sometimes."
I am a pacifist and I have the same views. War can be a necessary evil, but I think it should generally be avoided.
silentsoliloquy82 2 years ago
and also
it is selfish to tell someone 'it's ok to die'.
Expecting everyone to be selfless is selfish in itself.
i love al hajj malik shabbazz and i agree with him 9000 percent
gonna meet him soon insha allah
s8820199z 3 years ago
if u allow one eye to go blind then u jeopardise the other eye.
if u take an eye for the same reason as the aggressor then u r in fact AN AGGRESSOR. THEN the cycle continues and everyone becomes an aggressor. The whole world is then blinded.
If u amputate an infected limb IN ORDER to quarantine it, then its cool. if u like cutting your whole body for masochistic reasons ure messed up.
just because some famous guy said something and it sounds 'cool' dont just eat it
s8820199z 3 years ago
Wow, I've seen my first intelligent Muslim. His cause may be wrong, but he has done his homework none-the-less.
adeadlysniper 3 years ago
Pacifism only works if everyone is a pacifists.
thunderflash82 3 years ago 2
ur right man!
if people can listen to trees, they would stop cutting them
s8820199z 3 years ago
Pacifism is simply a willingness to die, and let others die, at the hands of the world's thugs,(to paraphrase an author). There is nothing noble about it. Nothing. I agree that non-violent approaches are to be sought, if tenable, but that violent reaction must always be optional. Anything else is simply madness, suicidal or worse. There is no honor or superior morality in cowardice.
greens47 3 years ago 2
I respectfully disagree with your idea. Pacifism isnt willingness to die and let others die. It is the belief that when someone takes a low blow at you you take the high road. Pacifism didn't lead to failure in the case of Jesus, Buddha, Gandi, or MLK. I believe there is honor and morality in loving all mankind (even your enemy) enought not to strike back with violence and death. Pacafist's are deffinatly not helpless. Words truly do speak louder than actions. But i can see your logic.
someUtubeguy 3 years ago
If it's a "NO!", on the other hand, don't bother writing me in private. The same goes for irrelevant comments that usually end-up in swearing the starters. You may want to refrain yourselves from that sort of activity.
Thank you for your time.
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
In conclusion, would you support my action? If it's a "YES!", PM me, please. However, you should understand the fact that I need mainly ADULT people with some sense of responsibility AND clear analytical skills(!) to support me. I don't need kids. And I'd highly need some surnames, at least(!), on my Petition as co-signatories.
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this context, I dare ask you, "youtubers", this very SIMPLE (ie, not simplistic!) question: WHY doesn't YouTube has a keyword list to allow or REJECT uploading materials in real time? I don't see words like: "snuff", "fuck", "orgasm" or anything like that as their quality control keywords or something... So, it's understandable that we see so many materials with such content... on YouTube. Highly understandable, yet... highly unforgivable too.
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
Furthermore, I've worked for a long time in e-journalism of a social (NOT socialist!) - educational nature, and even of a sanitarian - medical one(!), thus considering myself more than able in writing a Petition to the owning company (ie, in English), in order to try coercing them via your help to be more resolute when it comes to quality control. Their portal is an utter disaster(!), for that matter, and WE must act accordingly.
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
I'm no fan of watching snuff and/or sexual content on such services, but I DO search for it just for seeing if these services break their own quality rules or not. And they often do... And shouldn't be YouTube a video Web service / portal for creativity? But what sort of creativity is THAT, I wonder?! It's simply... mind-boggling.
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
ANY kid, curious enough, CAN watch such materials! And then... what? I could tell you what happens next, but I think you already know it TOO. Let's take some FAKE snuff vids. What will they inspire some Heavy Metal / Goth Rock mind-filled kid? Murder, of course! He/she is going to KILL someone just out of curiosity, especially when under the influence of drugs and/or of alcohol!
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
Anyway, I don't intend in suing them (ie, YouTube and/or Google), but I DO intend in making them (ie, the YouTube's Team / Staff) LISTEN to us(!), to "youtubers", because WE've had ENOUGH of this FAKE political correctness of theirs(!) At least, I can only HOPE you've had enough of it too. And you should, mainly due to that "Confirm your birth date" / "18+" (ie, warning) sign that doesn't help us one bit.
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
FAKE snuff vids (I'm glad that they are fake, at least!), REAL sex and/or bullying and/or hateful content. So, I'm guessing that you already got the BIG picture. THIS is YouTube for all of you... After all, it wasn't been in vain sued by various lawyer firms ("Kill the lawyers!", right?). Now, was it? Namely, AFTER it's been acquired by Google. What a blunter on Google's behalf that deal was!..
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
Hello to all!
I recommend myself as Silviu (for the time being). I come from Romania, and I LOVE this type of Web services (eg, YouTube)... up to a point. Now, what does THAT mean? Well, I hate when someone (eg, some STUPID kid, especially) abuses it. How? By uploading HIGHLY objectionable materials such as:
Gattaca9009 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We Americans are all evil, we kill everyone we don't like. If we would kill 18 million American Indians why would you think we would not kill you?
We stop at nothing to take what we want. We will use Nukes against women and children, just because we get mad at you.
We have more nukes than any country in the world, our Presidents are all crazy.
Now Muslims seem intent on PISSING US OFF.
Are they retarded?
James92802 3 years ago
World War I caused World War II. Violence begat the violence of Hitler, which begat the violence against Hitler. It was the violence of Serb nationals which caused World War I, and it was the violent aggression of the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Serbia which begat the Serbian terrorism...
Need I go on? Violence begets violence; this speaker's view of history is tinged with an invalidating degree of short-sightedness.
NihilNominis 4 years ago
Anti-Islamics will eventually take a step back and understand Islam is peace and Muslims are here to stay. It would be in their interest to try to get to know us rather than live in a state of fear and aggression
AnaMurida 4 years ago 2
I would be more pro-Islam if people who supposedly represented Islam weren't trying to force Sharia Law on the world.
The worst enemy of Islam is the idiots who claim to be a Muslim then go and blow themselves up, taking dozens of innocent lives with them.
MCH1984 4 years ago 6
lol then they wouldn't be muslims. Basically you're saying, "I'd be pro-muslim if the people who aren't actually muslims but say they are were actually following the koran."
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements So you think every muslim is a terrorist, then? Just curious. For the record I said pro-islam, not pro-muslim. The difference isn't terribly complicated but important none-the-less.
MCH1984 1 year ago
Muntian ..please explain the "brainwashing" thats going on here?
Mahmood42978 4 years ago
imam zaid finished his drink in 3 sips ;)
i love imam zaid mA.
litlprayer 4 years ago
pacifism is idealistic but it doesnt always work
AnaMurida 4 years ago 2
What he is talking about is NOT pacifism. He is talking about apathy. There is a paramount difference between the two.
The world did not stand idle while Hitler dominated, they fought back. Now; if the world did it differently, perhaps Ghandi's way, they still would have resisted; just not violently.
When good men do nothing; evil prevails. But when evil fights evil, evil wins.
Saejinn 4 years ago
Thank you. I agree with that statement. Evil should never be allowed to assert that much influence in the first place.
Alectr0n 4 years ago
the comparison cnt be a valid one, as the british colony in india wasnt the same as hitlers regime (although still ruthless). a ghandi couldnt have stopped hitler. you should think about it more. a ghandhi also cannot stop bush's regime in iraq either.
i think u misunderstood the speaker.
AnaMurida 4 years ago 2
Perhaps I did misunderstand the speaker. Perhaps Ghandi could not have stopped Hitler. Maybe it would have taken a thousand years; but one thing I hold to be true is that the only constant in this universe is change. And the only thing that can ever replace war is peace.
Saejinn 4 years ago 2
a world filled with pacifism
america doesn't exist.the slaves were never freed.hitler's son chugs down beers with arnold swazenegger in moscow.the new world is never discovered.
rOaCh2000 4 years ago
Were the world pacifist, the injustices which lead to war would not exist.
NihilNominis 4 years ago
Pacifism is a word of belief or pratice of believing in the process for victory over war, chaos, and the state of violence. I believe this word "PACIFISM" is a delusional word for humans, why do I disagree with this word, because if Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. is STILL alive, then this word should be a faith for all humans to live in peace.
sushi81 4 years ago
Clearly, according to this man, Islamic violence should be stopped with more violence. What are they complaining about the wars in the Middle East then?
The100thAttempt 4 years ago
If you say pacifism doesn't work, you're SERIOUSLY mistaken. War ain't all that cool.
SmokescreenNinjaz 4 years ago
Pacifism is the third most dangerous ideology after nazism and communism. If pacifists had ruled in Russia and Western Europe in 1939, we would live in the Third Reich today. Well, most of us (especially here, in Eastern Europe) wouldn't live at all.
couek 4 years ago
Had pacifists reigned in 1914, there would never have been a Third Reich. My hypothetical impossibility checks yours.
NihilNominis 4 years ago
I agree
BaronRenneisen 3 years ago
And if people are forced to take these measures while the opperation and alternative is wholesale death (initiated on the behalf of on coming forces) then i choose the alternative of pickin up somthing even if it be a sling and a rock...................
8arsh 4 years ago
the extreme of pacifism is utter cowardice
and the extreme of martial art is belligerent agression. I wish it was as simple as that for some people.
8arsh 4 years ago
pacifism has no relation to cowardice. Pacifist have been slain for this principle.
Pacifism stems from respect for life.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
every concept has its EXTREMES man thats why I chose the word ^ ^ if somebody breaks in my house and slaps my children around and threatens to kill and rape my wife while I have the means to defend my children and wife, Iam going to go with defending my childeren and wife not just sit thier and talk them to death
or languish in self pitty buddy......
8arsh 4 years ago
Pacifism is another self centered method to goad yourself to believe a lie that doing nothing will make the world a better place.
heart4dominican 4 years ago
Pacifism, in the worlds of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, is NOT passive-ism. It implies activity and social change, for in the current status quo, peace is impossible.
NihilNominis 4 years ago
The Qur'an tells Muslims to kill all unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), strive against them ruthlessly (25:52). Muhammad, barred from Mecca by threat of persecution, relocated to Medina, where he regained control through Taqiyya (fabrication, fraud), as well as by deceit and, of course, the sword. Upon his return to Mecca, he managed to gain final control through indiscriminate massacre, torture, wholesale slaughter and revenge killings.
tkwtkwtkw 4 years ago
Oh please ....Your argument argument is laughable, these same references you claim encourage incessant ravenous violence have been debunked by almost every Islamic Polemics site on the webite ...There's even Youtube vids which dicuss the verses in question and explain their context. Come back with something STRONGER
Mahmood42978 4 years ago
Ancient Arabic, as any language, can be translated and interpreted in a number of ways. As the Qur'an is not purely Arabic, why quibble?
"As for those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the punishment." (4:56)
"Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them at every ambush." (9:5)
tkwtkwtkw 4 years ago
If you idiots cant even translate from Greek properly which is a translation from Aramaic then how do you think you'll properly translate Arabic? And furthermore you're Doing exactly what Zakir Naik said about Verse 9:5 ..you leave out verse 9:4 and verse 9:6 because that would totally put things in context ..Such misrepresentation of doctrine is just a weak and degenerate tactic which shows the defects of your argument.
Mahmood42978 4 years ago
"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur'an 9:6]
Allow the enemy to surrender safely in battle. So? The previous verse is kill, kill, kill. What kind of exculpatory context is that?
tkwtkwtkw 4 years ago
You left out verse 9:4 how convenient see you cant really argue a learned Muslim about this stuff because they have read enough to know there's more to it than just selecting one verse which says "fight" or "kill" without the supplementary information.
Mahmood42978 4 years ago
"Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).[Al-Qur'an 9:4]
Very convenient to leave out portions of the Qur'an which invalidate your claim. LOL Next time be intellectually honest when you debate. :)
Mahmood42978 4 years ago
Excellent answer and good delivery. I am also pleased that muslims tend to agree with U and fight amoung themselves continuously because it helps to offset their birth rate and slow their spread throughout the world. I am sure there are many good muslims, but they sure have a bad track record for the last 1000 years! I do not believe in pacifism but I do believe in tolerance, and when it is met with intolerance I believe in violence and war.
Taylos87 5 years ago
Violence will STOP the radicals! Support the multi-national troops!
yourandy 5 years ago
But what happens when YOU are the radical? Whose violence would stop you?
paulohubert 4 years ago
Rational thinking people can't be radical hence I will never be radical. Extremism is tempered by rational thought. Radical Muslims are known by the WORLD t