@ marcfrans
 
Between you and me, I'm not quite sure whether I'm currently debating kappert or the cat.However,assuming it's kappert 'itself',I am now prepared to,(how shall I say?), "smoke the peace pipe","bury the hatchet" and "let sleeping dogs lie".Hence...
 
@ kappert
 
In a previous thread you suggested that "vivid discussions" would eventually lead to a "Compromise/Agreement".Well,here's your chance to prove me wrong and yourself right.
 
Kappert,do you now agree with me that while wars of aggression (eg you might cite: Paleface Wars) are morally "wrong",defensive wars (you might cite: American native wars) are sometimes necessary and morally "right"?  

@ Atlanticist

Do not underestimate kappert's 'smarts'.  Assume for a moment that he was informed about reality, and that he got a choice between living in a democracy, where paleface-values are dominant (say the US or Canada) and a caudillo-culture (say Bolivia) where "native"-values dominate today.  Do you doubt that he would choose paleface-values?  I do not doubt it.  So, his 'pose' is just uninformed parroting (of perverse western self-hatred), or it is deliberate contrarianess.  Either way, it is nonsense.  

Have you noticed that he is a 'racist' too?  After all, on what grounds does he deny the Tibetan people their right to self-determination?  Would it be on principled 'moral' grounds (like free will or free choice, democracy, etc...) or would it be on 'looks'  or on 'might'?   What do you think is the underlying principle guiding him in justifying the brutal occupation of Tibet by a totalitarian neighbo(u)r?  Enough said.

Before the arrival of "palefaces" on the scene the only threat to the "natives" were other "natives",or are you going to tell me you fall for the old "Noble Savage" theory?

If,as you say,"palefaces" were the biggest threat to native Americans then two things are immediately apparent:
 
1 The "natives" chose to fight the palefaces and lost.
 
2 Had the "natives" chosen to adopt your philosophy of pacifistic surrender and the palefaces had chosen to ignore their olive branch,the "natives" would still haver lost.
 
btw
If war is ALWAYS wrong, why do you fail to criticize  the "natives" for choosing (their) option #1 in preference to (your) option #2.

I'm worried, are you getting pervert? Please, seek help. In all Tibetan history, the region was independent about 40 years, when China was dominated by Western imperialism. freetibet.org is British, the chairman is British, not the Dalai Lama.
The migration of palefaces was the biggest threat for native Americans. That's history.

"The pattern of migration into Tibet thus has historical parallels with traditional Chinese mechanisms for expansion,and must be regarded as the biggest threat to the integrity of Tibet".
 
http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact2.html
 
Meaow! (Sheh-sheh) Did I hear you say?
 
Oh, (Boo sheh),don't mention it.

Oh right, Kofi Annan sure knows what he's talking about. /sarc.

In the US, homicide rates include manslaughter, which is not murder. Those stats are useless in this argument. Secondly, homicide also can include killing by car, or other "weapons", not necessarily guns.

Back to the drawing board, kappert.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@ marcfrans re: absurd moral relativism
 
Since I posted details about that "Free Tibet" propaganda website, I have stumbled across another website which gives a totally different picture of a "different reality" and appears to debunk all that Chinese "occupation" of Tibet nonsense.I'm racked with guilt over this and wonder if I should seek forgiveness from kappert's cat,but I still don't know the little moggy's name.What should I do?
 
Oh,sorry,nearly forgot.The name of that new website is:
 
http://users.metronet.co.uk/cultv/champions.htm
 
 

kappert: " Large-scale and uncontrolled urbanization appears to be associated with increased rates of armed violence."

More exactly, immigration from the third-world (except China) appears to be associated with increased rates of armed violence.

" In Brazil, firearm homicide is correlated to urbanization and social inequality."

In Brazil, (as in any other country) firearm homicide is correlated to the number of armed Blacks in the streets.

For example, in Iceland, the absence of firearm homicide is correlated to the absence of armed Blacks in the streets.

US homicide rates by city population, 1985–2004 (per 100,000)

Big cities (1million+) 19.04
Small cities 7.21

Fire arms per 100 people (examples)
USA 90, Yemen 61, Finland 56, Switzerland 46, Iraq 39, Serbia 38, France 32, Canada 31, Germany 30, Saudi-Arabia 26, Angola 21, Mexico 15, South Africa 13, Turkey 13, Russia 9, Brazil 9, UK 6, Iran 5, India 4, China 3, Nigeria 1
Civilians own about 650 million firearms worldwide, roughly 75 per cent of the known total. US citizens alone own some 270 million of these. States that originally own technology are easily outnumbered by those that acquire it. The Russian Federation (notably firearms producer Izhmash), Germany (mainly Heckler & Koch), and Belgium (FN Herstal) are the technology owners most frequently involved in licensed or unlicensed production of small arms. China (Norinco) and Bulgaria (mainly Arsenal JSC) most frequently engage in technology acquisition.
Large-scale and uncontrolled urbanization appears to be associated with increased rates of armed violence. Guns and the City studies the violence associated with urbanization in a number of settings. Brazil’s firearm homicide rate surpasses that of some countries at war, with a firearm death rate that grew threefold from 7 to 21 deaths per 100,000 in the period 1982–2002. In Brazil, firearm homicide is correlated to urbanization and social inequality.
Markets for handguns have expanded in many wealthy urban markets. In the Czech Republic—an extreme example—the proportion of handguns rose from three per cent of all registered guns in 1991 to 37 per cent by 2000, due partially to legal reforms facilitating legal handgun ownership.

Source:smallarmssurvey 2007

kappert comes across to me as the Margaret Atwood of the BJ.
 
Atwood: "I hope that people will finally come to realize that there is only one 'race' - the human race - and that we are all members of it".
 
Atwood: "War is what happens when language fails".
 
Atwood: "This above all,to refuse to be a victim".
 
note: No Atwood quote or kappert explanation tackling the tricky question as to how one "above all", "refuses" to be a victim,after "language fails",WITHOUT finally and reluctantly resorting to war.
 
Pure kappert,poor kappert.

There's a lot of phony quotes attributed to Chief Seattle, one of which is kappert's citation. I think it has something to do with the Left's romance with the "noble savage".

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact1.html
 
 

Hanson article:
 
"Another attempt to justify Israel's occupation..."
 
Really?  I mean,really! I don't think so.Read it again and you'll discover that what it does is to highlight the total absurdity of Gandhi-ism,past and present.But if "occupation" is your pet hate,here's a thought.You appear so smitten by all things Far Eastern so it would do much for your Karma (and keep me a lot calmer) if you chose to read a little more about THIS occupation. see: http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/facts1.html and to paraphrase Hanson,"Clearly,kappert could do far more for world peace by leaving his/her teaching post in Europe and proselytizing against violence in the field,perhaps either Waziristan,Tehran or Tibet".
 
Chief Seattle:
 
We are talking about the same Chief Seattle who gave that famous speech,right? Or are we?
 
The speech which was " reputedly delivered in the 1850's to Isaac Stevens,the govenor of Washington Territory,(which) took on a life of its own in the late 20th century when SEVERAL DIFFERENT VERSIONS,many with an emphasis on the environment,surfaced".The speech that was "first published in a Seattle newspaper in 1887 by a pioneer who CLAIMED he had heard Seattle (or Sealth) deliver it in the 1850's.NO OTHER RECORD OF THE SPEECH HAS BEEN FOUND,and Isaac Steven's writing DO NOT MENTION IT".***
 
You mean THAT Chief Seattle,do you?
 
*** excerpted from a web synopsis of the book,"Answering Chief Seattle" by Albert Furtwangler.
 
 
Kappert's  cat:
 
Are we allowed to know the cat's name?
 

....and my condolences at being rendered unable to protect yourself in whatever EU socialist paradise you are residing.

Never trust a government that fears armed citizens as they say.

I haven't got time to Google this fact, but, violent crime in Toronto and London is much worse than NYC. Thugs aren't stupid, they understand the odds of encountering an armed victim.

peterakiss said:

"I would prefer to go out fighting, rather than meekly, like sheep."

Same here. It seems that Europeans have no will to fight for anything. I recall receiving an email from a friend titled "Europe Died at Auschwitz". At first I dismissed it. Now I will go back and read it.

Are there any rams among the sheep in Europe?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@kappert:

How else am I to present information to you regarding your question? Out of my hat? Off the top of my head? From my imagination - like you?

I gave you information. You dismiss it, as you do with anything that contradicts your ideology. Facts don't matter to people like you, so it is futile to debate anything. Like onecent said previously, it's like nailing jello to a tree. Jello being your mind, that is.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"That's nonsense."

No. Just poor composition. I should have said: "I am an American, but at the moment I live in Europe, in one of the former workers' paradises."

Peter Kiss

"...firearms are dangerous things..."

Sure. You have to learn to use them. Like driving a car or operating a chain-saw (now THOSE things scare me, man!)

"And I doubt that 'half a dozen of thugs' can be stopped by a gun,..."

Perhaps not. But they sure as hell cannot be stopped without one. And I do know a little about these things (I used to be in the violence-business at one time). You present your piece and nail the first two. No warning, no threats. Just get it out and doubletap - takes maybe three seconds. Get the one closest, and try to get the leader, if you can pick him out. The rest will back off - or at leat pause - to reconsider, giving you the opportunity to get two more. The remainder will most likely run. You have to be quick to nail them before they are out of range.

Will it always work? Probably not. Can you die? You sure can. But you do have a better chance with, than without. You don't want it - fine, I don't care. But I would prefer to go out fighting, rather than meekly, like sheep.

Peter Kiss

"I am an American, but at the moment I live in a thoroughly disarmed country. Only the cops and the criminals have guns."

That's nonsense. You must live in a different America than me. The Second Amendment is alive and well here. You are free to purchase a gun if you don't have a criminal background and you are free to use it if someone breaks into your house. As of this survey of US firearms owned privately in 2004 "38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm."

Thanks for your answer. Yet, firearms are dangerous things, as you say, shot by accident, committing suicide, without an revolver that's harder to do. I'm living in a big city and my housedoor is not locked, often the window's open for the cat to leave. There have been break-ins in the neighbourhood, cars were stolen, not by foreigners by the way. Still, I do not have any weapon, nor pepper spray. And I doubt that 'half a dozen of thugs' can be stopped by a gun, it's likely you kill one before the others are getting you.

"How many persons are shot in the U.S. each year?"

Something like 10 or 11 per 100,000 are shot dead. How many more are wounded - no idea. How many obey the gun-owner's instructions without a shot being fired - again, no idea.

None of this is very meaningful, anyway. First of all, they are not all innocent victims - far from it. Some are shot by police. Some are shot by accident. Some commit suicide. Many others are the result of successful self-defense. Remember Anne-Lorraine Schmitt? She was the girl murdered on the Paris metro last November. If she had had a pistol, the Turkish rapist would have been in the news (and the stats), not her. Garry Newlove, who was beaten to death in front of his house by three young thugs las August in Warrington? If he had had a gun it would have been the three thugs in autopsy, not Garry.

I am an American, but at the moment I live in a thoroughly disarmed country. Only the cops and the criminals have guns. If you are attacked on the street (it happens quite frequently), you cannot defend yourself legally; if someone breaks into your home, you cannot defend yourself or your family. And dont't tell me about karate and pepper-spray. A man in his fifties has no chance without a gun against half a dozen young and fit thugs.

"But please don't answer with crappy statistics."

Then what kind of answer do you want?

Peter Kiss

How could any response of Hitler change the nature of Gandhi?
Fact is, that he had no answer, as well as Bush didn't had an answer on the Ahmadinajad letter, nor the governor to Dr King. In fact, they lived in different realities, just like you and me. So beware yourself of the forces of ignorance and hide in your atomic-proof shelter. Still not answer on the shooting issue in the U.S.

@ Kappert

The essential point of the Hanson article is NOT about 'who did not respond to whose letters', but rather that one must consider the NATURE of the opposing forces or persons.  Ghandi's pleading with Hitler was of course useless in stopping the holocaust and world war 2.  Because those 'events' resulted from the nature of Hitler and nazism.  Are you now seriously comparing Bush with Hitler, because Bush did not respond to a silly (propaganda) letter from Ahmadinejad?  If you are, you are really even in worse mental 'shape' than I already feared.   How could any response by Bush change the nature of Ahmadinejad?  How could it turn him into a 'democrat' in Iran, or how could it remove his desire to destroy Israel, or to make the whole world islamic?
 

@ Atlanticist

Indeed, it is another fascinating article from Hanson.  It is also interesting to learn that the fifth grandson of Ghandi has apparently NOT learned anything from the history of the past century.  His grandfather was incapable of understanding that the succes of his movement did NOT rest on his method of "nonviolence", but rather on the fact that the opposing force (the British colonial government) proved to have a 'conscience'.   Against someone like Hitler or Saddam, nonviolence would not and did not work.   Obviously the old Ghandi did not understand that.  How else could one explain his futile attempts to 'reason' with Hitler through correspondence?

So, now we know that the grandson of Ghandi still does not understand that reality.  Just like Kappert does not understand it either, because it is an observable reality in life that clashes with a pre-set ideological dogma. 

Our 'curse' is to have to live with the knowledge that such ignorance (as displayed by the old and the young Ghandi) is now prominent in Academia today.  This refusal to recognise the nature of the enemy - indeed this refusal to even recognise the existence of genuine enemies - will undoubtedly (again) exact a terrible price from our civilisation in the future.  Optimists will say that we will be able to overcome it.  Others will look at the past and..... 

Not really impressive. One more attempt to justify Israel's occupation by blaming anything but ...
By the way, you haven't answered my questions about people shot in the U.S.
Poetry?
"Man did not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
Chief Seattle

I in no way intended misleading anybody.I phrased my response incorrectly.I should have said, "Hitler 'responded' to Gandhi's letters by first ignoring them,and subsequently going to war in spite of Gandhi's naive and futile attempts to prevent war"
 
Got it?

We'll talk again,later.Meanwhile,read that victor Hanson article again and open your eyes.Finally,I'll leave you (for now) with an old children's nursery rhyme.It could teach you as much if not more about the world than the Hanson article.
 
If all the world were paper and all waters ink,
If all the trees were bread and cheese,
What would we have to drink?

Now you are asking for Mohammed's teachings? Are you suggesting switching your faith from Christian to Moslem? If your spiritual interest is so great, you really should ask professionals, and the BJ is not an e-learning centre.

Don't mislead the readers, Herr Hitler did not respond on the letters. Indeed, Gandhi wrote two letters trying to avoid war. It does not surprise me that you agree with Hitler in "recognizing (and dismissing) Gandhi's pious platitudes for the nonsense they were and remain".

Au contraire.Hitler DID respond to Gandhi's letters.He went to war in spite of them,thereby recognizing (and dismissing) Gandhi's pious platitudes for the nonsense they were and remain.  

OK. Then here is my follow up question.
 
Are the teachings of Muhammad fully compatible with the teachings of Jesus and Lao-tse?
 
And before you answer that question I suggeat YOU visit your local mosque and ask the resident Imam that same question.

Why (not)?

If you are really interested, you may contact your local church and ask for Jesus, and your local buddhist centre and ask for Lao-tsé. You will have plenty to read, and this issue is 'far off the blog's intention'.

Please, publish Ahmadinajad's letter to U.S. president Bush;
or M.L. King's letter out of Birmingham jail. So much about correspondence without answers: nor Bush, nor the Alabama governor responded, and of course Hitler did not respond to Gandhi.

Would you care to elaborate on that answer?
 
Thank you.

Unfortunately there is not ONE absolute number in the two texts, so all percentages are useless. May I ask a simple question: How many persons are shot in the U.S. each year? But please don't answer with crappy statistics.

Yes

If it's having that effect on you,just imagine how kappert is feeling right now ;-)
 
Trust me!

What is this, some kind of cyber torture?

You ask me not to comment, then proceed to write comments addressed to me!

No fair! ;)

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Re: Kappert,Hanson & Ghandhi's letters to Hitler:
 
kappert wrote: "right and wrong are constructions..."
 
To which you responded," Then you have destroyed any argument you present and have presented..."
 
Kappert's response was as follows,"Wrong, (wrong???) ...you will have vivid discussions and eventually a mutual compromise/agreement".
 
Really?
 
Question: Did "vivid discussions" between Gandhi and Hitler result in a "mutual compromise/agreement",or did WWII happen anyway?Did it prevent the Holocaust?
 
Answer,Yes,and No,respectively.
 
Gandhi: "It is quite clear that you (HITLER) are today the one person in the world who can prevent war..."
 
[Gandhi's first letter to Hitler].
 
 
"We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland,NOR DO WE BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE THE MONSTER described by your opponents"..."BUT your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave NO ROOM FOR DOUBT that many of your acts are MONSTROUS...".
 
Etc., etc., etc.,

Please,do NOT be tempted to respond to this post.          ;-)
 
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011608.html
 
Marcfrans,I think you'll "get it".Same warning against "temptation" applies.

Patience,Atheling,patience...

Hmmm, I never realized that Jesus' teachings were all about "harmony between mankind and nature"...

Wonder what the cross symbolizes?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"...it does not make much sense to switch religions.Second,Taoism is a philosophy and not a religion...a philosophy of harmony between mankind and nature seems to me a worthy goal to achieve".
 
Agreed.
 
So,kappert,tell me,are the teachings of Lao-tse fully compatible with the teachings of Jesus? I ask this question because you have previously cited Jesus,along with Gandhi and Lao-tse, as prime examples of men of peace,who sought "harmony between mankind and nature".I suppose what I am really asking is,can a Christian,like myself,embrace the Taoist ethos without first renouncing his/her Christian faith?
 
Thank you.

It would be more simple to say how many people are killed by guns, per capita, and compare that value with other countries. But I don't think the NRA likes to publish such a statistic survey. Anyway, if you are happy with your guns so be it.

Just 2 days ago, 3 retired ISI officers admitted their "mistakes" by forming, organizing and arming the taliban.
They admitted they lost control.
For your information: Mollah Omar, the taliban "leader" is a Pakistani Baluch from Quetta.

There were NO, ZERO US MADE weapons in Afghanistan, except the Stingers at the end of the war, which were supplied to 2 groups, friends of the ISI.
The weapons came from China, Egypt and the Russian soldiers themselves for drugs and money.
Sorry, but this topic is time and time again misrepresented and misused.
The US had no policy whatsoever because of the "deals" between the CIA and the ISI. The Reagan doctrine was NOT respected by the CIA operatives. Until now I still don't understand why Casey did this.
I was very close to what happened there and some good fighting groups did not receive ANYTHING or some old scrap weapons, like .303 bolt-action rifles.

"But the MOVEMENT that called itself the "Taliban" (from the madrassas where the had been studying in Pakistan) came into being in 1993 or '94, well after the USSR's withdrawal."

I wouldn't put the existence of the Taliban on that late date. Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in late December 1979, hundreds of high ranking Afghan politicians and technocrats as well as army officers including generals entered into Pakistan with the hope of organizing the needed resistance to oppose the invader in order to liberate Afghanistan. As a coherent politic-military faction or movement, the Taliban did not exist prior to October 1994, but were members of other factions such as Harakat-e Islami and Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi, or operated independently without a centralised command centre.

More facts:

Prior to the ban DC's murder rate was falling. After the ban, DC's murder rate rose, and only once fell below what it was in what it was in 1976.

But it is not just DC that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. While DC points to Chicago's ban to justify its own, Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982.

Taking a page from recent Supreme Court cases, D.C. points to gun bans in other countries as evidence that others think that gun bans are desirable. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning guns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give D.C. and its supporters some pause. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

D.C.'s brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. Similar experiences have been seen with other bans, such as those in Ireland and Jamaica.

What is also interesting is how the Supreme Court has rewritten the question posed by DC. DC originally asked that the question be: "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." The new question is: “Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

What is most striking about this revised question is that the court appears to be questioning the city's claim that the ban comes "nowhere close to disarmament of residents. The District's overwhelming interest in reducing death and injury caused by handguns outweighs respondent's asserted need . . . ." DC adds that they don't believe that the regulations that lock up and require the disassembling of guns does not "prevent the use of a lawful firearm in self-defense." Of course, this is highly debatable because under DC law as soon as a rifle or shotgun is made operational it becomes illegal.But taking DC claims as accurate, locked guns are simply not as readily accessible for defensive gun uses. In the U.S., states that require guns be locked up and unloaded face a 5 percent increase in murder and a 12 percent increase in rapes. Criminals are more likely to attack people in their homes and those attacks are more likely to be successful.

Since potentially armed victims deter criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded actually encourages increased crime. If the phrase "keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes" was chosen for a purpose, it might be that gun lock laws raise their own problems that limit people's ability to use guns for defense."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/11/gun-bans-lead-to-increase-in-violent.php

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"First, I am an European"

Well that helps narrow things down. I was wondering which asylum we should be calling.

As for gun crime in the US, here are some stats provided by the NRA, which, as some might not know, are substantiated if you go to the article and check their footnotes. Because the NRA is under constant scrutiny by the Left, they ensure that their facts are indeed FACTS.

Violent crime hit an all-time high in 1991. Since then, “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels; the numbers of privately-owned guns, gun owners, and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs; and violent crime has dropped 38%. Among the four categories of violent crime, murder has dropped 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%.

The FBI’s data show that since 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high, and 2006, total violent crime has decreased 38%, murder 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%. During 2004-2006, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1974. For the last eight years, the murder rate (fluctuating between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965. Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.14

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine