i personally learned, that sometimes violence is the answer
---------------------------
that is how violent people marks the difference with non-violent
people.
it stopped ww2
--------------------
1) Japan and Germany started the war, your country was not violent as
you are now.
2) Governments asked for help at that time. Now, nobody asks for such
sort of help. What you suggest is called agression.
so if the uk takes honkkong back against the will of the citizens
-------------------------
agression is a crime, self defense is a right.
On Mar 31, 10:03=A0pm, diarrhetics <implantol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:12:44 -0700, xi wrote:
> > when freedom gets taken away from people who don't harm anyone, then
tha=
t
> > is imho a good reason to stop the oppressor. even with violence, if
> > everything else doesn't help.
> > -------------------------
> > No, then you become the oppressor. Have you westerners not learnt that
> > yet??? You have "saved" enough countries and have killed millions in
nam=
e
>
> i personally learned, that sometimes violence is the answer. it stopped
> ww2. and freed my country from a totalitarian regime.
> there is no evidence, that hitler could have been removed without
> destroying the german army.
>
> i don't think that war is the answer for tibet though.
>
> > of democracy or freedom or human rights or whatever your cor****ations
> > wanted you to die for. That is enough. No more crimes in the name of
> > freedom, stop. More compassion and less politics. More peace and
respect=
> > and less people who force others in the name of their own freedom.
>
> so if the uk takes honkkong back against the will of the citizens, you
> won't use violence? no more crimes in the name of freedom, stop?
|
