Hora, you are a Moron. The US have the ultimate deterrent, as do Israel and they are more than happy to dish out consequences as when they see fit, however they are still involved in Wars, so your argument is not only stupid its also uneducated.

You do realize that the life isn't like a computer game? There isn't a set sequences of events and actions that determine how things play out.

Hora you are the embodiment of the statement 'The problem with arguing with idiots is, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

You lost any moral or superior high-ground when you used the term window-licker at the start of the argument. I recommend you back away from wikipedia (just for a little while).

Truth hurts eh.

? who are you arguing with ?

PMSL! @ Hora!

You lost any moral or superior high-ground when you used the term window-licker at the start of the argument

Classic!

Ghandi also said that the jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson.

eat_the_pudding, when did he say that and in what context?

Ghandi also said that the jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson.

eat_the_pudding, when did he say that and in what context?

I would be interested also however I understand from a reliable secondary source that this was indeed Ghandis's stance.

This is probably refering to it

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OThjMmNkZWYwMjI4OTc2YmVkZTcyZWRjNzMzMDRhOTU=

more complicated than that single statement, he's the quote:

According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.

As I understand it, his point was, if you are going to be murdered anyway. Why allow it to happen in dribs and drabs out of sight of the world hidden away, where people (and more specifically world leaders, who knew about the murder of the Jews) can ignore it.

Whereas if thousands of Jews who were going to die anyway committed suicide on mass, it would be impossible to cover up and hide, and the world would have to pay attention and try and see why they did it? thus exposing the horror of the Nazi's, clinical and systematic annihilation of their people.

I do not understand much of what hora has written here, but:

– the bombing of Pan-Am 103 was probably committed by a Palestinian group commissioned by Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of Iran Air 655.

– The blame was eventually pinned on Libya for, among other things, their refusal to support the US during the first gulf war.

– Libya let Al-Megrahi take the fall for it eventually, to ease their reintegration back into normal trade relations with Europe.

Given that Megrahi, although probably an asshat, probably didn't blow up Pan-Am 103, there is no cogent reason for taking much interest in his death.

That said, the fact that he is going to die at home is an improvement over dying in prison, given that he shouldn't have been in the prison in the first place.

…..the tactics of the celebrated Hindu pacifist who successfully led the movement for Indian independence from Britain.

Why does this myth persist that the Indian road to independence was a peaceful and non-violent one ? It wasn't.
It included wars, rebellions, massacres, and mutinies. Britain granted India independence for all manner of reasons, but I'm not sure how much weight Ghandi's argument that the British "weren't being very nice" held sway.

The reasons included, that there was an understanding if India helped the British Empire to defeat the Japanese Empire, independence would follow after the war. India (no thanks to Ghandi) rose up to the challenge and provided the largest volunteer army of World War Two.

Another reason was that the USA (which was vital to Britain's post-war reconstruction/recovery) put enormous pressure on Britain to dismantle her Empire – India paved the way for other Commonwealth countries.

Also there was a left-wing government in power in Westminster, which was highly hostile of imperialist strategies – the moral argument in favour of Empires had been seriously weaken as result of Britain fighting tooth and nail for her own independence.

And of course Britain fully realised that she could no longer afford to provide the huge military required to suppress rebellion, mutiny, and insurrection in her Empire.

Indian independence all down to Ghandi's non-violent campaign ? ….. Nah, it was all down to war, bloodshed, and violence.

Unfortunately.

Indian independence all down to Ghandi's non-violent campaign ? ….. Nah, it was all down to war, bloodshed, and violence.

Unfortunately.

No it was down to war, bloodshed, violence, Gandhi and many others, a lot of which was very unfortunate.

Regarding the comment about "Jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson" or the suggestive quotes in the link above, I suspect are not expressing the correct meaning in what was said or are not taking into account what was said and when.

Gandhi was amongst many things a lawyer and a political speaker. He was very aware that he could hint and suggest in one area in order to get a reaction in another. He was a pacifist and believed very strongly in protecting life but this does include ones own life too.

Without more info on the "quote" it is hard to see what was said.

has the thread drifted a bit or is it just me?

@roper
Google is your friend, as you already "suspect [that I am] not expressing the correct meaning" I won't elaborate.

To the extension of the quote that their suicide would have meant they "died significantly"….

Well, I'd love to know .. significantly to whom?
In a world of (Ghandi inspired) pacifists, facing the nazis, who would have thought the deaths, by any means, of every jew in europe 'significant' when the history of german victory weas written,?

Ghandi did some good things but he was still a nob.

Ghandi did some good things but he was still a nob.

Brilliant quote 😀

Fantastic exchange of opinions from the usual suspects. 😆

Oh and Hora, you are a moron perhaps you should go back to licking windows, and leave the grown ups to talk.

Window licking? Are you also a homophobe?

You lost any moral or superior high-ground when you used the term window-licker at the start of the argument

I think theres more shades of grey to this that meets the eye.

I do not understand much of what hora has written here

has the thread drifted a bit or is it just me?

lol @ eat_the_pudding
I had a quick look in google but all I could find was a few examples of people saying he said that. No details, a bit like your post. To be honest though I didn't look for very long. I asked you as you paraphrased it and I presumed you knew what you were saying. Sorry if that was too hopeful.

@roper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi
Got lots there on his opinions and statements.
I recall I came across the quote first in Sam Harris "the end of faith".
(maybe)

Sam Harris was also my source.

I see wiki was probably oversourced by alot of the usual suspects above as well 🙄

err is he dead yet?

i dont really care that he has been released to die…with this sort of terrorism…prevention is always more important…the people that do these things dont care about what happens to them…all they care about is killing and destruction…the fact that most terrorists that try to attack the uk and usa atm are getting cought isnt stopping them, it never will…just got to hope that we keep catching them.

The definition of Terrorist. I dont think it applies to this lad. If he is the guilty one, he acted on behalf of a state. Not an ideal, for freedom etc.