"Violence never solve/settled/achieved anything"
One of those red-flag comments to me!
It's utter nonsense.
Violence has been settling matters from the dawn of time. For good or bad.
I used the example of violence against six million Jews. Now this violence had a profound impact on their lives- and the effects carry on today.
What did it achieve?
A corrupt and evil regime used the hate against the Jews to further its own agenda.
A regime that had ITS fate most definitely settled by violence.
In the longer term it has produced a nation that has said 'Never gain' and now punches way above its weight.
Violence on the beaches of Normandy and the Pacific lead to the end of two evil empires, as did a pair of nuclear weapons.
Can anyone say this violence did not produce a tangible result? or a result that was necessary, justified and good?
Now moving back to yesterdays topic of assasination- violence against the leaders of a government.
Its quite important to realise I am discussing this in a GENERAL manner. For many years I have often stated that I find it remarkable that NOBODY in New Zealands history has gotten fired up enough to try and kill a political figure (that we know about)
When you consider the level and amount of force and compulsion that has been directed at US- it it so bizzare to think that WE may want to direct a bit of force back their way? I'm not saying I encourage it, but I can understand why somebody would start taking pot-shots from a grassy knoll!
And on the world stage, who has been behind the bulk of the killing of their own people.
And if the UN ever got the power thay seek, I have no doubt that they would be the worst of them all- all in the name of saving us from ourselves.
Their firearms control agenda say much as to where they want to go...
comprar carta de condução
Post a Comment