Skip to comments.Stop the Killing [ gag alert]
Posted on 06/17/2011 2:50:31 PM PDT by LeoWindhorse
Love your enemies! Dont execute anyone!
(Excerpt) Read more at malu-aina.org ...
What happened to separation of church and state?
“Can’t we just all get along?” ~~~sob~~~
” Oppose all discrimination, anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, etc.”
and for those in Muslim countries : anti-Jew , anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist , anti-Hindu , anti- Western , anti-infidel of any flavor , anti sex-slavery ....
How to we ourselves come to tolerate those that have open tolerance for the activities of Satan himself ? ie: the molly-coddling of the likes of Islamist terrorists .
America needs a new parameter towards the traitors and appeasers among us . The sooner the better .
While Jesus would have forgiven Bin Laden...I doubt that Bin Laden ever gave Jesus the chance to be his savior.
I can live without the death penalty, if the alternative makes the criminal wish he were dead...see my FReeper profile for details.
I would loved to have seen this guy try all of his hoo-hah with oh, say, the Japanese of WWII.
Volunteers at Malu Aina receive room and board along with valuable experience in organic farming, aquaculture, and peace and justice advocacy. Life on the farm involves physical labor, simple living, and community engagement on issues of justice and peace. A wide variety of fruits and vegetables are grown to share freely with people in need, and we are also a regional food bank pantry.
Malu Aina founder Jim Albertini has made a home of this land, and has dedicated himself for the last twenty-five years to managing and caring for it. He is an advocate of simple living and anti-militarism. Jim is an active supporter of the movement for a nuclear-free and independent Pacific region.
As someone else once pointed out, if the IJA had made it as far as India, Gandhi’s headless, bayoneted corpse would have last been seen floating down the Ganges.
Stalin would have ground his cigarette out in Ghandi’s eyeball just before he had his skull made into an ashtray.
the really disgusting thing is that the State of Hawaii , while under the governorship of Republican Linda Lingle , gave this man a $250,000+ grant to purchase the vacant ,unused farmland contiguous to his little Commie commune .
Tax payers dollars , under the radar , Zero response or action from the Repub Admin , or anyone else , when his actual status as a former convicted Federal felon and ex con. The fact that he leads the hate Military loonies was never looked at . Could it be because he was known to have helped current dem Gov , Neil Abercrombie burn flags and throw blood on buses of wounded warriors exiting Tripler , years ago ? It’s a travesty ....another example of utter Republican failure
That’s the truth. Ghandi was luckier than he knew, in that he dealt with men at whose civilization he sneered. I suspect that deep down, he understood this.
The Imperial Japanese Army didn't make it because the Imperial Indian Army held them back at Kohima and Imphal. The Japanese were not viewed as friends by most indians -- even the INA formed by Bose was made up of POWs mostly and never exceeded 43,000 in strength (hey, if you had a choice of living like "Bridge on the River Kwai" and as a soldier in roughly decent surrounding and getting food, most would choose the latter)
Actually, no. Ghandi was the right person to fight against the right enemy
Gandhi was a "a smart operator" -- he realised that India, truly speaking is not a country but a collection of countries with multiple cultures, histories, languages and religions.
He was a lawyer by trade and part of the Gujarati business community -- if India had a violent uprising, the next step would be balkanisation
Also, he knew that the English prided themselves on being law-abiding and "following human rights", so he played the colonizer in the right way
jmc: Gandhi had the good fortune of making his civil disobedience against a leader with a conscience. If he had tried his non-violence against Hitler or Stalin, he would have been obliterated. -- but you forget that it was precisely NOT Hitler or Stalin nor Churchill (who would have done something a lot more violent than the other Brit PMs).
how did the BRitish get to rule India? They started off in the 1600s as a very minor trading company, very minor even compared to the Portuguese, French and Dutch. The Mughals under their tolerant rulers (until Augrangzeb) were too powerful for any European power or combination of powers to oppose in any way, so they were peaceful
By 1757, they had a couple of trading areas in Madras, Bombay (given to them as dowry for the Portuguese wife of Charles II), Calcutta
The Marathas who replaced the Mughals came from a different stock -- Aurangzeb was the last great Mughal Emperor, but he started off by overthrowing and imprisoning his father (the guy who built the taj mahal) and then went basically on jihad. Aurangzebs ancestors had been very tolerant -- one, Akbar even wanted to create a syncretic religion, and they had Hindu war ministers, etc.
But Aurangzeb was a fanatical Moslem who tried to forcibly convert his population
And that had an adverse reaction with the Rajputs and especially the Marathas
The Maratha CONFEDERATION replced the Mughal empire -- but it was a very loose confederation.
The English played it well, playing off one side against the other
The best example I like to give is that in 1810 they defeated the Sikhs after many wars, yet 50 years later, the Sikhs were fighting FOR the English against North Indians.
Smart, very smart -- the English never could have stood up militarily if all the Indians arose militarily and they did not seek to do so, they realised their needs were served best by letting people rule for them, police for them and share with them
They educated the locals to become pukka englishmen -- both Nehru and Jinnah were for all purposes upper-class Englishmen --> Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan smoked, drank, danced, ate pork, dressed in a suit and tie and married a non-Moslem. Most likely he never practised Islam or believed it
The only way to defeat the English was to make them think twice -- a war would mean that many Indians would have fought on the side of the English
though note the one major incident that convinced the British they had to leave was when the Indian navy went on strike -- the Brits realised that without the support of the millions of Indian military men, they would not be able to keep the subcontinent, so they wisely left (wisely -- compare this to the French or Dutch) and remained friends with the sub-continent
you talk of Hitler, but remember that his empire basically last only from 1938 (conquering Czechia) to 1945. He was brutal against the locals and the locals were brutal too. In the end the Germans who had been living in Eastern Europe for centuries were thrown out. Hitler destroyed the German nation as much as he destroyed Poland.
Against Hitler, civil disobedience would not work, but more importantly it would not work against the Germans who since the conquering by Prussia were not really democratic. Force was the only means
Stalin's case was different -- this was ideological, so he could call on greater cross-national resources.
In either case, remember that India had a guy called Subhas chandra Bose who wanted to fight the Brits -- most Indians disregarded him
To fight the Brits who in the 1900s prided themselves on being morally upright, you had to hit them on that. To fight the communist you had to fight (see Piłsudski in 1920 when Poland saved Western Europe from becoming communist)